Order Code IB10093
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
National Park Management
and Recreation
Updated November 25, 2002
Carol Hardy Vincent and David Whiteman, Coordinators
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
Maintenance Backlog
Motorized Recreation
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program
The National Trails System
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
History
Overview of Issues
Current Issues
Maintenance Backlog
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Motorized Recreation: Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles
Background
Administrative Actions, Personal Watercraft
Legislative Activity, Personal Watercraft
Administrative Actions, Snowmobiles
Legislative Activity, Snowmobiles
Motorized Recreation: Aircraft Overflights
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
The National Trails System
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
LEGISLATION
Motorized Recreation
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program & Maintenance Backlog
National Trails System
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10093
11-25-02
National Parks and Recreation
SUMMARY
The 107th Congress considered legisla-
and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial
tion on and conducted oversight of issues
Parkway. Grand Canyon National Park is at
related to lands managed for recreation, espe-
the center of a conflict over whether to limit
cially National Park Service (NPS) lands. The
air tours over national parks. An August 2002
Administration also is focusing on park and
appeals court decision directs the FAA to use
recreation issues through budgetary, regula-
NPS “natural quiet” standards and consider
tory, and other actions. Several key issues are
commercial flight-generated noise impacts in
covered in this report.
developing air tour overflight regulations.
Bills were introduced to encourage safe use of
Maintenance Backlog. One issue for
PWCs; to ban snowmobile use, or to overturn
Congress is determining the appropriate fund-
the ban, in most parks; and to govern air tours
ing level to maintain park units, and whether
at parks.
to appropriate new funds or use funds from
existing programs for park maintenance. In
Recreational Fee Demonstration
his FY2003 budget, President Bush restated
Program. The “Fee Demo” Program was
his commitment to eliminating NPS’s multi-
created to allow the NPS and other land man-
billion dollar maintenance backlog by
agement agencies to test the feasability of
FY2006, and requested a total of $663 million
supplemental self-financing through new fees.
for FY2003 for all regular and deferred con-
In its FY2003 budget, the Bush Administra-
struction and maintenance. The NPS is con-
tion proposed making the program permanent.
tinuing efforts to define, quantify, and elimi-
P.L. 107-63 extended the program for 2 years
nate its backlogged maintenance. Congress
and gave agencies discretion to establish any
included money for some NPS maintenance
number of fee projects, among other changes.
backlog needs in FY2003 Interior appropria-
Other measures were considered, including to
tions bills; these measures were not enacted.
establish a permanent program.
Motorized Recreation. Motorized
The National Trails System. While
recreation, notably the use of personal
designation of trails is often popular, issues
watercraft (PWC) and snowmobiles in NPS
remain regarding funding, expansion, and
units and commercial air tours over them, has
quality of trails. Congress considered legisla-
fueled debate over the balance between recre-
tion to amend the National Trails System Act
ation on, and protection of, park lands. Re-
to include a new category of trails; to provide
cent controversies focused on regulatory
authority to acquire land for certain trails, but
actions that restrict use of these vehicles. For
only from willing sellers; and to study certain
instance, the NPS prohibited PWCs in 66 NPS
routes, as well as authorize other studies, for
areas in 2000, 5 areas in 2002, and is reevalu-
possible additions to the System. As part of
ating such use in another 16 areas. A Novem-
President Bush’s National Parks Legacy
ber 12, 2002, NPS draft of a final supplemen-
Project, park trails would be increased, and
tal EIS establishes daily access limits for
under the President’s Conservation Partners
snowmobiles and snowcoaches, and clean
Initiative, teams of concerned citizens and
technology emission control requirements at
NPS staff will restore and preserve parklands,
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks
including trails.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10093
11-25-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
An omnibus measure emerged near the end of the 107th Congress which contained
dozens of provisions affecting the NPS; it was not enacted. (See “Overview of Issues.”)
The settlement of a suit over a rule regulating the use of personal watercraft (PWC)
prohibits PWCs from areas where they are now allowed unless the NPS takes certain
actions. The NPS is re-examining the snowmobile ban in Yellowstone and Grand Teton
National Parks and the Rockefeller Parkway. A draft of a supplemental final environmental
impact statement (November 2002) provides for daily limits on snowmobiles, an emphasis
on guided snowmobiling and snowcoaches, and use of cleaner, quieter four-stroke engines
to reduce pollution.
An August 2002 appeals court decision directs the FAA to use NPS “natural quiet”
standards and consider commercial flight-generated noise impacts in developing air tour
overflight regulations. On October 25, 2002, the FAA issued final regulations implementing
the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000.
The full House and Senate Appropriations Committee agreed to measures (H.R. 5093
and S. 2708 respectively) providing higher levels of funds for NPS construction and
maintenance in FY2003 than was requested by the President. However, those
appropriations bills were not enacted.

On September 12, 2002, a bill (S. 1069) to allow the federal agencies administering 3
scenic trails to obtain land from willing sellers only, was placed on the Senate calendar. It
was not considered by the Senate before adjournment.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
The National Park System is perhaps the federal land category best known to the public.
The National Park Service (Department of the Interior, DOI) manages 385 units, including
56 units formally entitled “national parks” and a host of other designations. The System has
more than 84 million acres.1 The NPS has an appropriation of approximately $2.38 billion
(FY2002), employs about 21,000 permanent and seasonal employees, uses an additional
90,000 volunteers, and has more than 285 million visitors yearly.
The NPS statutory mission is multi-faceted: to conserve, preserve, protect, and interpret
the natural, cultural, and historic resources of the nation for the public and to provide for
their use and enjoyment by the public. The mission’s dichotomy of use and preservation can
sometimes be inherently contradictory, and NPS spokespeople have asserted that
preservation is the ultimate priority. In general, activities which harvest or remove resources
from units of the System are not allowed. The NPS also supports the preservation of natural
1 This figure includes an estimated 4.3 million acres of private land. NPS policy is to acquire “in-
holdings” from willing sellers or to create special agreements to encourage land owners to sell.
CRS-1

---

IB10093
11-25-02
and historic places and promotes outdoor recreation outside the System through grant and
technical assistance programs. The emphasis is on cooperation and partnerships with state,
municipal, and local governments as well as foundations, corporations, and other private
parties to protect National Park System units and to advance NPS programs. Congressional
and management attention continually centers on how to balance the recreational use of
parklands with the preservation of park resources. Another focus has been on determining
appropriate levels and sources of funding to operate and maintain NPS facilities and to
manage NPS programs.
History
The establishment of several national parks preceded the creation in 1916 of the
National Park Service (NPS) as the park system management agency. Congress established
the nation’s first national park — Yellowstone National Park — in 1872. The park was
created in the then territories of Montana and Wyoming “for the benefit and enjoyment of
the people,” and placed “under the exclusive control of the Secretary of the Interior” (16
U.S.C. §§21-22). In the 1890s and early 1900s, Congress created several other national parks
from western public domain lands, including Sequoia, Yosemite, Mount Rainier, Crater
Lake, and Glacier. The effort to set aside more national parks intensified as wild nature and
scenic and cultural areas were vanishing with the closing of the frontier. In addition to the
desire to preserve nature, there also was interest in promoting tourism. Western railroads,
often recipients of vast public land grants, were advocates of many of the early parks and
built grand hotels in them to support their business.
At the same time, there were efforts to protect the sites and structures of early Native
American cultures, particularly in the Southwest, along with other special sites. In 1906,
Congress enacted the Antiquities Act to authorize the President to proclaim national
monuments on federal lands that contain “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric
structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest” (16 U.S.C. §431). (For more
information on national monuments, see CRS Report RS20902, National Monument Issues.)
There was no system of national parks and monuments until 1916, when President
Wilson signed a law creating the NPS to manage and protect the national parks and many of
the monuments then in existence and those yet to be established. That law — the “Organic
Act” — provided that the NPS “shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas
known as national parks, monuments, and reservations . . . to conserve the scenery and the
natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the
same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment
of future generations” (16 U.S.C. §1). A major step in developing a system of park lands
more national in scope occurred in 1933, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt transferred
63 national monuments and historic military sites from the Forest Service and War
Department to the NPS.
Overview of Issues
The 107th Congress considered legislation or conducted oversight on many NPS-related
issues. Four major issues are covered in this report: funding for NPS maintenance,
regulation of motorized recreation, the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, and issues
related to the National Trails System. While in some cases the issues discussed here are
CRS-2

---

IB10093
11-25-02
relevant to federal lands other than parks and to other agencies, this report does not
comprehensively cover issues primarily affecting other federal lands. For background on
federal land management generally, see CRS Report RL30867, Federal Land Management
Agencies: Background on Federal Land and Resource Management. Information on BLM
and Forest Service lands is contained in CRS Issue Brief IB10076, Public (BLM) Lands and
National Forests. Information on appropriations for the NPS is included in CRS Report
RL31306, Appropriations for FY2003: Interior and Related Agencies.
NPS-related issues not detailed in this brief include protection from outside threats, the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), heritage areas, the creation of new park units,
and funding for anti-terrorism activities. First, while parks historically were “buffered” from
much human impact by their remote locations and adjoining wild lands, the situation has
changed. How to protect park resources from outside threats such as detrimental land uses,
growing populations, contaminated water, and tourist attractions, while at the same time
recognizing the benefits of growth, development, and tourism to surrounding communities,
presents difficult issues for Congress. Second, the LWCF is the principal federal source of
money for the NPS (and other agencies) to acquire new recreation lands. Policy issues
include the size of the fund, need for an annual appropriation, and the congressional role in
choosing lands to acquire. (For more information on LWCF, see CRS Report 97-792 ENR,
Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues.) Third, the NPS assists non-
federal efforts to protect and manage “heritage areas” which Congress designates on non-
federal lands — sometimes in lieu of establishing NPS units. Whether to create heritage
areas, and whether to establish a uniform program with procedures and criteria for heritage
area designation, are among the issues. Fourth, how national park units are created and what
qualities make a potential area eligible to be an NPS unit are of continuing interest. (For
more information on creating NPS units, see CRS Report RS20158, National Park System:
Establishing New Units.)
Fifth, the NPS manages high profile natural and commemorative sites, including many
of the monuments in Washington, D.C., and is thus undertaking new security initiatives in
response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The agency received funds under the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriation for FY2001 (P.L. 107-38) for emergency response
costs in New York City and Washington D.C., and under the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriation for FY2002 (P.L. 107-117) for increased security at nationally iconic
“symbols of democracy” sites, enhanced preparedness for possible attacks, and constructed
security improvements at Washington D.C. monuments and memorials. The agency
received additional supplemental funds for security for FY2002 (PL 107-206). Additional
funding for anti-terrorist activities is included in the regular annual appropriations laws. (For
more information on anti-terrorism funds and activities, see “Funding to Combat Terrorism”
in CRS Report RL31306).
A park and recreation initiative with wide implications for the NPS emerged near the
end of the 107th Congress, but was not considered before adjournment. The Comprehensive
Natural Resources Protection Act of 2002 (H.R. 5569), introduced October 8, 2002, includes
most of the “noncontroversial” bills approved by the House Resources Committee in the
107th Congress. The omnibus bill contains a number of trail studies or creation provisions
similar or identical to bills mentioned in the legislation section of this report, including: H.R.
37, H.R. 1628, H.R. 1814, H.R. 1963, H.R. 3765, H.R. 3936, and H.R. 5417.
CRS-3

---

IB10093
11-25-02
Current Issues
Maintenance Backlog (by David Whiteman)
Background. One issue for Congress is determining the appropriate level of funds
to adequately maintain park units and whether to appropriate new funds or to use funds from
existing programs for park maintenance. The NPS has an extensive physical maintenance
obligation, with an infrastructure that includes thousands of miles of roads, trails, bridges,
tunnels, thousands of buildings (many historic), as well as scores of water and waste systems.
In submitting its FY2002 budget, the agency estimated its maintenance backlog at $4.9
billion. The estimate was based on initial reviews and other partial information, making the
precise amount of the backlog difficult to determine. Another agency source estimated the
backlog in FY2001 as ranging roughly between $4 and $7 billion. Causes of the backlog
have been attributed to many factors, including decades of funding shortfalls and budgetary
constraints, the creation of new park units, additional management responsibilities for the
NPS, increased visitors, and aging infrastructure. Concern about deteriorating facilities led
Congress to increase overall NPS appropriations each year since FY1996 and to provide the
maintenance backlog with new funding sources. (See “Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program” below.) Although other federal land management agencies also have large
maintenance backlogs, the NPS backlog has received the most attention.
Administrative Actions. In his FY2003 budget, President Bush restated his
campaign promise to eliminate the NPS’s maintenance backlog by FY2006, but did not
specify each year’s funding for this purpose. Rather, for FY2003, the President proposed
$322.4 million for construction, and another $529.4 million for facility operation and
maintenance, for a total of $851.8 million. Excluding facility operation, the President seeks
a total of $663 million for all NPS construction and facility maintenance, which would
include both regular (cyclical), as well as deferred maintenance. The request includes an
increase of $17.6 million in the Operations account for repairs and rehabilitation, and a $25
million increase for cyclic maintenance so that backlogged maintenance does not increase.
In presenting his FY2002 budget, President Bush had requested $4.9 billion over 5 years
to eliminate the backlog through a combination of transportation fund money, appropriated
funds, and revenues from recreation fees. Of the total sought, $2.7 billion was for park road
and bridge needs, funded from gasoline taxes, while $2.2 billion was for the nonroad backlog
funded from annual appropriations and revenues from the Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program. Of the $2.2 billion, for deferred maintenance the President requested $440 million
per year for 5 years, beginning with FY2002. The FY2002 request was comprised of $340
million in appropriations and $100 million in revenues from the Fee Demo Program.
Because the President’s FY2003 budget proposed only total funding for regular and deferred
maintenance ($663 million combined), it is unclear whether the President continues to seek
$440 million for deferred maintenance for FY2003.
A draft report of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ, September 24, 2002),
lauds the President’s efforts to eliminate the NPS maintenance backlog. Park advocacy
groups doubt that without substantial new funding the 5 year goal of backlog elimination can
be met, particularly since the future of transportation fund money is uncertain.
CRS-4

---

IB10093
11-25-02
The Clinton Administration’s FY2000 budget proposal first highlighted an Interior
Department-wide campaign to prioritize maintenance needs over a 5 year period. For each
year since, the NPS has submitted a Five Year Maintenance and Capital Improvement Plan
identifying deferred maintenance projects in priority order, with emphasis on critical health
and safety projects and resource protection.
The NPS has two efforts underway to define and quantify its maintenance needs. First,
the agency is implementing a computerized facility maintenance management system for
planning and tracking facilities management, with baseline information on facility
conditions. It will be used in part to list maintenance needs, assign repair work, and identify
completed maintenance projects. Some park units are using the system, and the NPS
anticipates use by all parks at the end of FY2003. Second, in December 1999, the Interior
Department required bureaus to assess the condition of their facilities. NPS is undertaking
a comprehensive review of its facilities to identify maintenance needs. The agency
anticipates that the assessment will be completed in FY2006 and may reveal higher than
estimated deferred maintenance costs. Similar assessments will be conducted every 5 years.
The Interior Department’s Inspector General reported to the Congress in December,
2001 on the Department’s facilities maintenance management. Among the report’s
recommendations is the establishment of a single maintenance budget funded through one
appropriation for the entire department. As an intermediate step, the report proposes the
establishment of single line item budgets for maintenance in each bureau, under the oversight
of a Chief Maintenance Officer for all departmental maintenance budgets. The FY2003
request for the NPS partially consolidates maintenance accounts.
Legislative Activity. House-passed (H.R. 5093) and Senate Committee-approved (S.
2708) bills providing appropriations for FY2003 for Interior and Related Agencies contain
higher levels of funds than the President’s request for construction and for facilities
operations and maintenance. However, Congress did not enact these appropriations bills.
The House passed $325.2 million for construction, and $537.7 million for facilities operation
and maintenance, for a total of $862.8 million. The Administration asserted that the House-
passed construction level includes unrequested construction projects which divert resources
from priority maintenance needs. The Senate Committee on Appropriations approved $361.9
million for construction, and $533.8 million for facilities operation and maintenance, for a
total of $895.7 million.
The FY2002 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-63) provided
$363 million for the NPS maintenance backlog. Together with $100 million from Fee Demo
revenues, there was $463 million in FY2002 to address the NPS maintenance backlog. Other
107th Congress legislation (H.R. 359, S. 224, and S. 930) would fund some park maintenance
with bonds secured by a surcharge over, or set aside from, park entrance fees.
Motorized Recreation: Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles (by
Kori Calvert)
Background. Motorized recreation, notably the use of personal watercraft (PWC) and
snowmobiles on NPS lands and commercial air tours over them, has fueled the ongoing
conflict between preservation of, and recreation on, NPS lands. Critics of motorized
recreation cite environmental concerns with motorized uses, including noise, air, and water
CRS-5

---

IB10093
11-25-02
pollution; damage to land, plants, and wildlife; and public safety. Supporters of motorized
access argue that technological advances will enable manufacturers to produce cleaner, more
efficient machines, and point to the economic benefits to communities serving users. Recent
controversies have focused on regulatory actions that would restrict recreational use or
“access” of these vehicles, often in specific park units.
Administrative Actions, Personal Watercraft. PWCs are high-speed, very
shallow draft, and highly maneuverable watercraft “operated by a person or persons sitting,
standing, or kneeling on the vessel rather than within the confines of the hull” (36 CFR §1.4).
Often used to perform stunt-like maneuvers, PWCs include watercraft known by their brand
and generic names as jet ski, sea doo, surf jet, water sled, wavejammer, wetjet, waverunner,
and wet bike. Representing a small but fast growing segment of the recreational boat market,
PWCs reportedly account for a disproportionate number of accidents. In an effort to manage
their use, the NPS issued a final rule (effective April 20, 2000) prohibiting PWC use from
66 of the 87 units where motorized boats are allowed (65 Fed. Reg. 15077). The rule allowed
PWC use to continue until April 22, 2002, at the remaining 21 areas while the NPS evaluated
whether to permanently authorize PWC use and develop special regulations. The rule
recognized that PWC use might continue in certain National Recreation Areas, such as Lake
Mead and Glen Canyon, where the establishing legislation emphasized motorized water-
based recreation as a primary purpose.
Bluewater Network and its parent organization, Earth Island Institute, filed a lawsuit
against DOI and NPS over the PWC rule in August 2000. The negotiated settlement,
finalized in April 2001, prohibits PWCs from the 21 NPS areas where they are now allowed
unless the Park Service initiates a park-specific rulemaking process, prepares an
environmental analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and
solicits public comment. PWCs may continue to operate in these 21 park units during the
rulemaking process, which must be completed for 13 units by April 22, 2002, and by
September 15, 2002, for eight National Recreation Areas.
Of the 13 units with April 22, 2002, deadlines, the NPS prohibited PWC use in five
units (effective April 22, 2002). The five units had completed an environmental review
process and favored PWC bans: Cape Cod National Seashore, Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Cumberland Island National Seashore,
and Whiskeytown National Recreation Area. A federal judge denied an injunction sought
by PWC users and manufacturers to overturn these bans on April 19, 2002. The other eight
units were required to close to PWCs on April 22, 2002, and remain closed until the PWC-
use environmental assessments and regulatory rulemaking process is completed. The eight
National Recreation Areas with the September 15, 2002, deadline were to close temporarily
then if the public review process was not completed. On September 6, 2002, the NPS and
Bluewater Network filed an agreement in federal court to extend the PWC usage deadline
at these eight NRAs through November 6, 2002, when the recreational boating season ends.
However, at specified Lake Mead areas, PWC use may continue until January 1, 2003.
PWCs are banned after these dates unless and until the rulemaking process is finalized.
Currently, the sixteen park units are working on special regulations and environmental
reviews, which may not all be completed before the 2003 boating season.

Legislative Activity, Personal Watercraft. The House Resources Committee
reported H.R. 3853 (April 9, 2002, H.Rept. 107-389), with a provision that allows PWC use
CRS-6

---

IB10093
11-25-02
to continue in 21 park units until December 31, 2004. The bill provides NPS a two-year
deadline extension to complete environmental impact assessments. Broader legislation (H.R.
702) encourages safe, responsible use of personal watercraft generally.

Administrative Actions, Snowmobiles. Based on a survey indicating a history
of non-enforcement, on April 26, 2000, the NPS announced the strict enforcement of
existing, long-standing regulations on snowmobile use. This renewed enforcement would
have substantially reduced snowmobile use in those 42 national parks units that allowed
recreational snowmobiling. Exceptions included Yellowstone and Grand Teton National
Parks, park units in Alaska, Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota, and access to private
land within or adjacent to a park. The NPS snowmobile prohibition was both praised and
reviled in the press and prompted several congressional hearings. By July 2000 the Interior
Department backed away from its strict enforcement stance with a clarification — there
would be no snowmobile ban in park units pending a formal rulemaking and public comment
period, which to date has not occurred for parks generally.
Instead, action has centered on snowmobile use in Yellowstone and Grand Teton
National Parks and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway. The Clinton
Administration issued final rules on snowmobile use in these areas (66 Fed. Reg. 7260,
January 22, 2001) that would phase out snowmobile use beginning with the start of the
2003/2004 winter season, with limited exceptions, and phased in a replacement of
snowmobiles with multi-passenger “snow coaches.” The Bush Administration announced
in April 2001 that it would allow the rule to stand.
At the same time, the Administration continued to negotiate settlement of a lawsuit by
the International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association and others to overturn the
Yellowstone ban and re-open the rulemaking process. The June 29, 2001, settlement
agreement required NPS to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (66 Fed.
Reg. 39197, July 27, 2001) on snowmobile use in Yellowstone by early 2002 and to decide
whether to keep or modify the ban by November 2002. An agreement announced on August
2, 2002, extends the NPS Record of Decision deadline to March 15, 2003.
An NPS draft of the final supplemental environmental impact statement (November 12,
2002) outlined a preferred alternative that allows continued snowmobile use within specific,
phased-in parameters. These include daily limits on snowmobile numbers; use of cleaner,
4-stroke engines; commercially guided access for up to 80% of all snowmobiles;
development of snowcoach technology for winter transit; and monitoring of long and short
term effects on park resources.
Concurrently, on March 29, 2002, NPS proposed to delay implementation of the
existing snowmobile phase-out regulations at all 3 park units until the end of the 2003-2004
winter use season (67 Fed. Reg. 15145). A final rule published November 18, 2002 (67 Fed.
Reg. 69473), affirmed this delay.
In related developments, on September 13, 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) issued final regulations limiting air emissions from nonroad recreational vehicles (67
Fed. Reg. 68241). They require snowmobile manufacturers to reduce hydrocarbon and
carbon monoxide emissions about 50% below current levels by 2012. (For additional
CRS-7

---

IB10093
11-25-02
information, see CRS Report RL31149, Snowmobiles: Environmental Standards and Access
to National Parks.)
Legislative Activity, Snowmobiles. Legislative debate over snowmobile bans is
reflected in several 107th Congress bills. A House bill (H.R. 1465) would prohibit
snowmobile use in most national parks, with exceptions; and a Senate bill (S. 365) would
overturn the snowmobile ban in most national parks and direct EPA and NPS to develop
noise and emission standards for snowmobiling. H.R. 5044 and S. 2697, both introduced
June 27, 2002, require implementation of the Clinton Administration final rulemaking to
phase out snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and John D.
Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway. Two measures pertaining to snowmobile use in Denali
National Park and Preserve (H.R. 4677 and S. 2589) also have been introduced. The House
Small Business Committee held a field hearing in January 2002 on the economic concerns
of Yellowstone area small businesses and communities that serve snowmobilers.
Motorized Recreation: Aircraft Overflights (by Kori Calvert)
Background. Minimizing noise to protect the natural condition is an important
element of the NPS mission to preserve natural resources and enhance visitor enjoyment.
However, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the authority to control airspace
and the aircraft overflights that may jeopardize a park unit’s natural quiet, impair visitor
enjoyment, and raise safety concerns. This creates a conflict between resource protection and
aviation access authorities (and their constituencies). Grand Canyon National Park, with
some 90,000 scenic overflights a year, has been the focal point of the conflict between groups
seeking to limit overflights and air tour operators whose economic stability (with ripple
effects on local businesses) may depend on providing overflights. Air tour defenders argue
that vehicular traffic accompanying some 5 million Grand Canyon visitors a year is more
detrimental to the park environment than overflights.
The 1975 Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act (P.L. 93-620) directed the
Secretary of the Interior to recommend regulatory actions to address aircraft activity that
caused “a significant adverse effect on the natural quiet and experience of the park....” The
National Parks Overflights Act of 1987 (16 U.S.C. 1a-1 note) directed NPS to recommend
a flight control plan for Grand Canyon National Park that would provide a “substantial
restoration of the natural quiet” and prohibited flights below the canyon’s rim. It also
mandated an NPS study on the effects of all aircraft overflights. The resulting 1994 report
to Congress examined military flights, general aviation, and commercial air tours over
national parks; measured overflight effects on natural quiet, wildlife, safety, park visitors,
and cultural and historical resources; identified parks with significant overflight problems;
and provided legislative and regulatory recommendations to resolve park and airspace use
issues, including flight restrictions and use of quieter aircraft. An August 2002 appeals court
decision directed the FAA to use NPS “natural quiet” standards and consider commercial
flight-generated noise impacts in developing air tour overflight regulations.
Administrative Actions. In a presidential memorandum issued April 22, 1996 (61
Fed. Reg. 18229), President Clinton directed the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation
with appropriate department and agency heads, to develop regulations to address the impacts
of transportation, including overflights, on national parks. The memorandum also set 2008
as the date to substantially restore natural quiet at Grand Canyon National Park.
CRS-8

---

IB10093
11-25-02
That mandate, and congressional directives, have segued into an ongoing and
contentious rulemaking process. Controversial regulations include two FAA final rules
published April 4, 2000, that cap the annual number of commercial air tour overflights at
Grand Canyon at 90,000 (65 Fed. Reg. 17736) and impose increased flight-free zones and
restrictive routing over the Canyon (65 Fed. Reg. 17708). New routes and airspace
restrictions for the canyon’s west end Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) have been in effect
since April 19, 2001. To address air tour operators’ safety concerns, east end SFRA airspace
changes are delayed until February 20, 2003 (66 Fed. Reg. 63294). The industry seeks
exemptions to air tour caps, curfews, and air route restrictions if quiet aircraft technology is
used. At October 2002 hearings, an FAA administrator said an agency draft on quiet
technology is undergoing executive review.
The FAA issued a National Parks Air Tour Management Act final rule on October 25,
2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 65661) to complete the definition of “commercial air tour operation.”
The rule requires air tour operators to apply for authority, by January 23, 2003, to fly over
national park and abutting tribal lands. This application process triggers the development
of an Air Tour Management Plan (ATMP) by the FAA and NPS for each unit where none
exists [http://www.atmp.faa.gov/default.htm].

Legislative Activity. A measure was introduced (S. 1151) that identifies quiet
technology standards for air tour operators at Grand Canyon National Park. Retrofitted
planes and helicopters with quiet engines and propellers would be allowed in newly restricted
Grand Canyon areas. A second bill (S. 712) would ban all scenic commercial flights over
Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park or within one mile of park
boundaries. No action has been taken on these bills. The Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation held a hearing on National Park Overflights on October 3, 2002,
to review progress in the implementation of overflights legislation.
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 requires the FAA and NPS to
create management plans for air tours at individual park units and within a half mile of their
boundaries. Each plan could prohibit or limit air tours, such as by route and altitude
restrictions. Additional provisions required the FAA to establish quiet aircraft technology
standards for the Grand Canyon within one year and to designate Grand Canyon routes or
corridors for aircraft and helicopters using quiet technology. Quiet aircraft would not be
subject to existing caps on Grand Canyon overflights.
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (by Carol Hardy Vincent)
Background. Congress is considering whether to extend, amend, or make permanent
the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (“Fee Demo,” 16 U.S.C. 460l - 6a note). The
program allows the NPS (and the BLM, Forest Service, and FWS) to test collecting new or
increased entrance and recreation user fees. All the funds are retained by the NPS, with 80%
kept at the collecting park. The NPS collected receipts under the program of $126 million
for FY2001 and estimates receipts at $132 million for FY2002—far more revenues than the
other three agencies combined. The NPS may spend the money without further
appropriation, on the repair and maintenance backlog; interpretation; signs; habitat and
facility enhancement; resource preservation; maintenance and operation, including the costs
of fee collection; and law enforcement. The program, originally authorized to begin in
CRS-9

---

IB10093
11-25-02
FY1996 as a 3-year trial, has been extended through FY2004 for fee collection with the
revenue available to be spent through FY2007.
The NPS (and other agencies) generally favors Fee Demo because it generates
substantial revenue and allows discretion in setting fees, determining fee locations, and using
the revenues. Critics counter that the fees discriminate against those less able to pay, are a
double tax on the recreating public, and, together with other agency fees, confuse the public.
The Forest Service’s Fee Demo Program has received most of these criticisms.
Administrative Actions. The Bush Administration’s FY2003 budget proposed
making the Fee Demo Program permanent. The land management agencies have collaborated
on developing a permanent program although no formal proposal has been submitted to
Congress. For the NPS, the FY2003 budget states that half of the monies collected will be
used for deferred maintenance needs. The Administration’s FY2002 budget had proposed
extending the Fee Demo Program for 4 years, and stated that at least 60% of NPS receipts
would be used for deferred maintenance. The NPS reports that in the past approximately
60% of Fee Demo funds have been allocated to the maintenance backlog; this figure includes
new construction which may result from deferred maintenance. The NPS has asserted that
more analysis is needed to determine whether to shift the current 80/20 percent split in funds
to increase monies for the agency’s deferred maintenance needs.
In reports to Congress, the NPS has described efforts to improve program management.
They include: 1) reducing the cost of fee collection; (2) expanding the number of automated
fee collection locations; (3) improving the rate of obligating funds; and (4) collaborating with
other agencies to simplify fee payments. The agencies recently created an Interagency
Recreation Fee Leadership Council to facilitate coordination and consistency among the
agencies on recreation fees. The Fee Council has developed seven guiding principles for a
permanent fee program, and is developing its first annual work plan.
Legislative Activity. The 107th Congress considered, but did not enact, a number of
measures related to the Fee Demo Program. Some measures sought to create a permanent
recreation fee program. S. 2607 authorizes the collection of fees on certain lands
administered by the DOI and DOA and seeks to standardize the collection of fees among
agencies. It prohibits other recreation fees from being collected on these lands, superseding
the fee program in the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. The bill lists circumstances
when fees may not be charged, including for general access to an area. It authorizes 80% of
the fees to remain at the collecting site, except that the Secretary of Agriculture or the
Secretary of the Interior could reduce that amount to 60% if the revenues collected by an area
exceed its needs. S. 1011 provides that between 60%-80% of the collections be retained at
the collecting site, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the
Interior. The money may be used for a variety of purposes, with priority for deferred
maintenance projects. S. 2473 establishes a permanent program for the NPS only, with fees
established based on a market analysis of factors including benefits and services to the
visitor. In general, not less than 80% of fees are to be returned to the collecting site, but the
Secretary of the Interior can change the amount to not less than 60% where revenues exceed
an area’s needs, or to not less than 90% for areas with revenue sharing agreements with
states. The bill also seeks to coordinate fees collected under the Park Service’s recreation
fee program with fees collected for other purposes, such as the National Park Passport and
CRS-10

---

IB10093
11-25-02
state agency annual passes. Administration witnesses testified (on S. 2473 and S. 2607) in
favor of a permanent fee program for the four land management agencies.
Another bill (S. 2015) would exempt residents of counties containing Fee Demo
Program areas from paying fees imposed under the program. Measures (H.R. 359, S. 224,
S. 930) which would use certain park fees to secure bonds for park capital improvement
might affect the Fee Demo Program. Legislation was introduced to extend the program to
other agencies or to remove the Forest Service. (For a description of these bills, see CRS
Report IB10076, Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests.)
The FY2002 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-63)
reauthorizes the Fee Demo Program for 2 years— through September 30, 2004, for collection
and September 30, 2007, for expenditures. In the joint explanatory statement, the conferees
state that the extension is intended to allow the authorizing committees to examine the
program and decide whether, and in what form, to continue it. The law also gives agencies
discretion to establish any number of fee projects, by eliminating the minimum (10) and
maximum (100) number of test sites. It enhances the authority of the agencies to allow
discounted or free admission or use of their lands, e.g., for school groups. Additionally, it
makes permanent the requirement that the Appropriations Committees approve Fee Demo-
funded capital construction projects costing more than $500,000.
Congress also has been interested in opportunities for the agencies to expand their
methods of collecting fees and to reduce the cost of fee collection. How the collections are
accounted for and spent has been a congressional focus. Some Members assert that the
authorizing committees (rather than appropriators) should determine whether to continue the
program, and in what form. A GAO report (November 2001) finds that agencies in the
program could increase innovation in setting and collecting fees, improve program
coordination and consistency, and establish performance measures for program managers.
The National Trails System (by Sandra L. Johnson)
Background. On October 2, 1968, the National Trails System Act (P.L. 90-543),
authorizing the National Trails System (NTS), became law. Today, the federal portion of
the trails system consists of 22 national trails (8 scenic trails and 14 historic trails) covering
almost 40,000 miles, more than 800 recreation trails, and 2 connecting and side trails. More
than three decades since the trails system began, issues remain regarding funding, quality,
and quantity of trails. The 107th Congress is considering legislation to amend the National
Trails System Act to include a new category of trails, provide federal authority to acquire
land from willing sellers, and study certain routes as well as authorize other studies for
possible additions to the System.
Administrative Actions. On May 31, 2002, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton
promoted the use of trails as “pathways to health” by designating 26 new national recreation
trails (NRTs) in 16 states. With these additions, the more than 800 NRTs throughout the
United States and Puerto Rico total more than 9,000 miles. The National Trails System Act
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to recognize
community trails that qualify as additions to the National Trails System. National scenic
trails and national historic trails may be designated only through an act of Congress.
CRS-11

---

IB10093
11-25-02
President Bush announced his National Parks Legacy Project — a comprehensive
preservation program for the 385 park units, on May 30, 2001. Under the proposal, park
trails would increase by 5,200 miles. The President also proposed a “Conservation Partners
Initiative,” by which concerned citizens throughout America will team up with the NPS to
restore and preserve parklands, including park trails. No further action has been taken on
either proposal according to staff at the NPS.
Legislative Activity. As introduced, S. 1069 and H.R. 834 would amend the National
Trails System Act to provide federal authority to acquire land from willing sellers to
complete nine named national scenic and historic trails authorized under the Act. Under
current law, the federal government generally can obtain land for national trail purposes by
donation, purchase, or condemnation. The House passed H.R. 834. On July 31, 2002, the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ordered S.1069 reported with an
amendment to allow the federal agencies administering only three of the nine trails—the
North Country, Ice Age, and Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trails—to obtain land from
willing sellers only. This would exclude condemnation. The legislation would not commit
the federal government to purchase any land or to spend any money, but would allow park
managers to purchase land to protect the national trails as opportunities arose and as funds
were appropriated. S. 1069 was placed on the Senate Calendar on September 12, 2002, but
not considered by the Senate. In the 106th Congress, a Willing Seller bill also passed the
House but was not considered on the Senate floor.
On May 16, 2002, House subcommittee hearings were held on H.R. 36, to amend the
National Trails System Act, by adding “National Discovery Trails” as a new category of
long-distance trails, and by designating the American Discovery Trail (ADT) the first coast-
to-coast trail. The Senate bill (S. 498) unanimously passed the Senate on August 3, 2001,
and was referred to the House Committee on Resources on September 5, 2001. According
to proponents, the ADT is designed to connect many existing trails, and by crossing the
major north-south trails it would allow hikers to travel almost anywhere in the country using
trails, including urban areas. Some are concerned about the rights of private property owners
adjacent to the ADT. Others have questioned the need for a new category of trails. ADT
legislation also was considered in the 105th and 106th Congresses.
LEGISLATION
Motorized Recreation
H.R. 702 (Saxton)
Seeks to encourage safe use of personal watercraft. It directs the Commerce Secretary
to withhold some state grant money under the Coastal Zone Management Act unless states
prohibit PWC operation in excess of no-wake speed. It also directs the Transportation
Secretary to establish guidelines and standards for PWC operation. Introduced February 14,
2001; referred to Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Resources.
H.R. 1465 (Holt)
Prohibits snowmobile use in most national parks, with exceptions. Introduced April 4,
2001; referred to Committee on Resources.
CRS-12

---

IB10093
11-25-02
H.R. 4677 (Young, Don); S. 2589 (Murkowski)
Provide for the use of snowmobiles in certain areas of Denali National Park and
Preserve. H.R. 4677 introduced May 7, 2002; referred to Committee on Resources. S. 2589
introduced June 5, 2002; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 5044 (Holt); S. 2697 (Reid)
Requires implementation of the final rule to phase out snowmobile use in Yellowstone
and Grand Teton National Parks and John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway. H.R. 5044
introduced June 27, 2002; referred to Committee on Resources. S. 2697 introduced June 27,
2002; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 365 (Thomas)
Seeks to overturn the snowmobile ban in most national parks, and directs the EPA and
the NPS to develop noise and emission standards for snowmobiling. Introduced February
15, 200l; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 712 (Thomas)
Bans all scenic commercial flights over Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton
National Park and establishes a one-mile park boundary buffer zone. Introduced April 5,
2001; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
S. 1151 (Reid)
Identifies quiet technology standards for air tour operators at Grand Canyon National
Park, and allows certain “quiet” planes and helicopters in newly restricted areas. Introduced
June 29, 2001; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program & Maintenance Backlog
H.R. 359 (Kolbe); S. 224 (McCain); S. 930 (McCain)
Authorize national parks to collect a surcharge of up to $2 over existing entrance fees,
or set-aside up to $2 from existing entrance fees, to secure bonds for park capital
improvements. H.R. 359 introduced January 31, 2001, and referred to Committee on
Resources. S. 224 and S. 930 introduced January 31, 2001, and May 22, 2001, respectively;
referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 2217 (Skeen); P.L. 107-63
The FY2002 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, extends the
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program for 2 years, gives agencies discretion to establish
any number of fee projects, and makes other changes to the program. It also contains funds
for the maintenance backlog needs of the NPS. Signed into law November 5, 2001.
S. 1011 (Graham)
Contains provisions establishing a permanent recreation fee program, with 60%-80%
of the funds retained at the collection site. Introduced June 11, 2001; referred to Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 2015 (Smith, Bob)
Exempts residents of counties containing fee demonstration areas from paying fees
under the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. Introduced March 14, 2002; referred
to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
CRS-13

---

IB10093
11-25-02
S. 2473 (Thomas)
Contains provisions establishing a permanent recreation fee program for the National
Park Service, with 60%-90% of the funds retained at the collection site. Introduced May 8,
2002; Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held hearing on June 19, 2002.
S. 2607 (Bingaman)
Establishes a permanent recreation fee program. Introduced June 11, 2002; Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources held hearing on June 19, 2002.
National Trails System
H.R. 36 (Bereuter); S. 498 (Murkowski)
Set forth requirements to establish and administer national discovery trails and designate
the American Discovery Trail as the first national discovery trail. H.R. 36 introduced
January 3, 2001; a subcommittee of the Committee on Resources held hearings on May 16,
2002. S. 498 passed Senate August 3, 2001; referred to House Committee on Resources
September 5, 2001.
H.R. 37 (Bereuter); S. 213 (Hatch)
Direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility of designating certain routes
and cutoffs for inclusion within the Oregon, Pony Express, California, and Mormon Pioneer
National Historic Trails. H.R. 37 passed House June 6, 2001; passed Senate (amended)
November 20, 2002. S. 213 introduced January 30, 2001. A subcommittee of Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held hearings on both bills on March 7, 2002.
H.R. 834 (McInnis); S. 1069 (Levin)
Amend the National Trails System Act to clarify federal authority for land acquisition
only from willing sellers for the majority of the trails in the System. H.R. 834 passed House
March 13, 2001. A subcommittee of Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
held hearings on both bills on March 7, 2002. S. 1069 placed on Senate calendar on
September 12, 2002.
H.R. 1384 (Udall); P.L. 107-214
Designates the Navajo Long Walk National Historic Trail in areas of Arizona and New
Mexico. Passed House October 2, 2001; passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous
Consent, August 1, 2002. Signed into law August 21, 2002.
H.R. 1628 (Rodriguez)
Designates El Camino Real de los Tejas as a National Historic Trail. Passed House
September 10, 2001; referred to Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
September 12, 2001.
H.R. 1814 (Olver); S. 1609 (Kerry)
Requires study of the Metacomet-Monadnock-Sunapee-Mattabesett Trail in NH, MA,
and CT for addition to the National Trails System. H.R. 1814 cleared for White House on
November 20, 2002. S. 1609 introduced November 1, 2001, and referred to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
CRS-14

---

IB10093
11-25-02
H.R. 1963 (Costello)
Requires a study of the route taken by American soldier and frontiersman George
Rogers Clark during the Revolutionary War to capture the British forts in IL and IN, for
addition to the National Trails System. Passed House March 6, 2002; referred to Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources March 7, 2002.
H.R. 3691 (Wilson); H.R. 4111 (McInnis); S. 817 (Domenici); S. 1946 (Campbell)
Seek to designate the Old Spanish Trail as a National Historic Trail. H.R. 3691
introduced February 6, 2002 and H.R. 4111 introduced April 9, 2002; both referred to
Committee on Resources. S. 817 introduced May 2, 2001; referred to Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources. S. 1946 presented to President for signature on November 22, 2002.
H.R. 3936 (Hansen)
Designates and provides for the management of the James V. Hansen Shoshone
National Trail. Passed the House June 17, 2002; referred to Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources on June 18, 2002.
H.R. 5368 (Murtha)
Requires a study of historic transportation routes in PA, MD, WV, and OH that led to
forks of the Ohio River in Pittsburgh, PA. Introduced September 11, 2002; referred to
Committee on Resources.
H.R. 5401 (Hill); S. 2952 (Bayh)
Would extend the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. H.R. 5401 introduced
September 18, 2002; referred to Committee on Resources. S. 2952 placed on Senate
Calendar on October 8, 2002.
H.R. 5417 (McCollum)
Requires study to designate the route of the Mississippi River from Minnesota to the
Gulf of Mexico as a national scenic trail, national historic trail, or both, and for other
purposes. Introduced September 19, 2002; referred to Committee on Resources.
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks and Public
Lands, Issues Regarding the New NPS Methodology Used to Evaluate the Achievement
of Natural Quiet Restoration Standards in Grand Canyon National Park, hearing, 106th
Cong., 1st sess., May 25, 1999, Washington, D.C., 1999.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Protecting Small Business and
National Parks: The Goals Are Not Mutually Exclusive, hearing, 107th Congress, 2nd
sess.,January26,2002,WestYellowstone,MT
[http://www.house.gov/smbiz/hearings/107th/2002/020126/index.html].
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, National Discovery
Trails Act of 2001, S.Rept. 107-26, 107th Cong., 1st sess., June 5, 2001, Washington,
D.C., 2001.
CRS-15

---

IB10093
11-25-02
––
Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation, Snowmobile
Activities in the National Park System and Miscellaneous National Heritage Bills,
hearing, 106th Cong., 2d sess., May 18, 25, 2000, Washington, D.C., 2000.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Report 98-794 ENR, Federal Recreation Fees: Demonstration Program, by Rosemary
Mazaika.
CRS Report 98-981 ENR, The National Trails System: An Overview, by Sandra L. Johnson.
CRS Report RL31149, Snowmobiles: Environmental Standards and Access to National
Parks, by James E. McCarthy.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Recreation Fees: Management Improvements Can Help the
Demonstration Program Enhance Visitor Services, GAO report GAO-02-10, Wash.,
D.C., November 2001.
–– Federal Lands: Agencies Need to Assess the Impact of Personal Watercraft and
Snowmobile Use, GAO report GAO/RCED-00-243, Wash., D.C., September 2000.
–– National Park Service, Efforts to Identify and Manage the Maintenance Backlog, GAO
report GAO/RCED-98-143, Wash., D.C., May 1998.
U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Air Quality Concerns Related to
Snowmobile Usage in National Parks, Washington, D.C., February 2000, available on
the world wide web at [http://www.aqd.nps.gov/ard/pubs/snowmobile_report.htm].
–– Report to Congress: Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park
System, Washington, D.C., September 12, 1994.
––Office of Inspector General. Audit Report on Deferred Maintenance, National Park
Service, report 99-I-959, Washington, D.C. September, 1999.
U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program, Progress Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2000. Wash., D.C.,
January 31, 2001.
CRS-16

---