Order Code IB10093
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
National Park Management
and Recreation
Updated January 23, 2003
Carol Hardy Vincent and David Whiteman, Coordinators
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
Maintenance Backlog
Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles
Aircraft Overflights
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
Personal Watercraft
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Snowmobiles
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
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
Heritage Areas
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10093
01-23-03
National Park Management and Recreation
SUMMARY
The 108th Congress is likely to consider
units. Recent regulations require air tour
legislation or conduct oversight on many
operators to seek authority to fly over park
National Park Service (NPS) related issues.
units, and the agencies then must develop Air
The Administration also is likely to continue
Tour Management Plans at park units.
to address park and recreation issues through
budgetary, regulatory, and other actions.
Recreational Fee Demonstration
Several key issues are covered in this report.
Program. The “Fee Demo” Program was
created to allow the NPS and other land man-
Maintenance Backlog. There is
agement agencies to test the feasibility of
debate over the funding level to meet the
supplemental self-financing through new fees.
physical maintenance obligations of the land
The Bush Administration proposed making
management agencies and whether to appro-
the program permanent, and Congress has
priate new funds or use funds from existing
considered related proposals. P.L. 107-63
programs for them. Attention has focused on
extended the program through FY2004 for fee
the NPS’s multi-billion dollar maintenance
collection and FY2007 for expenditures and
backlog. President Bush seeks to eliminate
gave agencies discretion to establish any
that backlog by FY2006. Congress included
number of fee projects, among other changes.
money for some maintenance backlog needs in

FY2003 Interior appropriations bills; these
The National Trails System. While
measures have not been enacted.
designation of trails is often popular, issues

remain regarding funding, expansion, and
P e r s o n a l W a t e r c r a f t a n d
quality of trails. Congress may again consider
Snowmobiles. Motorized recreation, nota-
legislation to amend the National Trails Sys-
bly the use of personal watercraft (PWC) and
tem Act to include a new category of trails; to
snowmobiles in NPS units, has fueled debate
provide authority to acquire land from willing
over the balance between recreation on, and
sellers for certain trails; to authorize studies of
protection of, park lands. Regulatory actions
routes for possible additions to the System;
that restrict use of these vehicles are particu-
and to add routes to the System. The Admin-
larly controversial. The NPS currently is
istration seeks to increase park trails under its
evaluating PWC use in 16 areas. It is deciding
National Parks Legacy Project.
whether to keep or modify a ban on snowmo-
biles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton Na-
Heritage Areas. Congress has
tional Parks and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
designated 23 National Heritage Areas
Memorial Parkway.
whereby the NPS supports state and local
conservation of natural, scenic, historic, cul-
Aircraft Overflights. Grand Canyon
tural, and recreational resources. The NPS
National Park is at the center of a conflict over
provides technical and limited financial
whether to limit air tours over national parks
assistance to these areas, which remain in non-
to reduce noise. The NPS and the Federal
federal ownership. Congress has considered
Aviation Administration continue to work on
measures to study, designate, and fund heri-
implementing a 1987 law that sought to re-
tage areas as well as to establish a process for
duce noise at Grand Canyon as well as a 2000
designating and managing these areas.
law that regulates overflights at other park
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10093
01-23-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Congress has not enacted FY2003 appropriations measures containing funds for the
maintenance backlog; rather, funding continues at FY2002 levels. An omnibus measure
(H.R. 5569) containing dozens of provisions affecting the NPS was introduced near the end
of the 107th Congress, but also was not enacted. Included in that measure were provisions to
study or designate several heritage areas and several trails. In separate action, the 107th
Congress enacted laws to study whether to designate heritage areas (P.L. 107-256, P.L. 107-
337, and P.L. 107-348) and trails for inclusion in the National Trails System (P.L. 107-214
and P.L. 107-338) and to designate a national historic trail (P.L. 107-325).

With regard to motorized recreation, 16 park units currently are working on regulations
on the use of personal watercraft and are to be closed to PWC use until the process is
completed. Also, the NPS is re-examining a snowmobile ban in Yellowstone and Grand
Teton National Parks and the Rockefeller Parkway. A December 3, 2002 lawsuit seeks to
restore the snowmobile phase-out schedule. An August, 2002 court decision directs the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to use NPS “natural quiet” standards and consider
commercial flight-generated noise impacts in developing air tour overflight regulations for
Grand Canyon National Park. On October 25, 2002, the FAA issued regulations requiring
air tour operators to apply for authority to fly over national park and abutting tribal lands,
which would trigger development of an Air Tour Management Plan for the park unit.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
The National Park System [http://www.nps.gov/legacy/] is perhaps the federal land
category best known to the public. The National Park Service (NPS) in the Department of
the Interior (DOI) manages 388 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 had
an appropriation of approximately $2.4 billion in FY2002, employs about 21,000 permanent
and seasonal employees, and uses an additional 90,000 volunteers. An estimated 276 million
people visited park units in 2002. While high, this figure shows a decline from the 1999
peak of about 287 million visitors. The decrease is attributed to a downturn in the economy
as well as security concerns following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United
States. Security concerns led to a drop in international tourism and closure of NPS icons,
such as the White House and the Statue of Liberty, which usually draw large numbers of
visitors.
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
1 This figure includes an estimated 79 million acres of federal land, 1 million acres of other public
land, and 4 million acres of private land. NPS policy is to acquire these non-federal “in-holdings”
from willing sellers or to create special agreements to encourage land owners to sell.
CRS-1

---

IB10093
01-23-03
their use and enjoyment by the public. The mission’s dichotomy of use and preservation can
sometimes be inherently contradictory. In general, activities which harvest or remove
resources from units of the System are not allowed. The NPS also supports the preservation
of natural 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 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 1916 creation 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 mostly
from western public domain lands, including Sequoia, Yosemite, Mount Rainier, Crater
Lake, and Glacier. In addition to the desire to preserve nature, there 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 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). Most national monuments are managed by the NPS.
(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 108th Congress is likely to consider legislation or conduct oversight on many NPS-
related issues. Several major issues are covered in this report: funding for the maintenance
CRS-2

---

IB10093
01-23-03
backlog of the NPS and other agencies, regulation of personal watercraft, use of
snowmobiles, overflights of aircraft, extension of the Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program, expansion of the National Trails System, and designation of heritage areas. While
in some cases the issues discussed here are 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 described in this brief include protection from outside threats,
funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), 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, 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.) Fourth, the NPS manages high profile
natural and commemorative sites, including many of the monuments in Washington, DC, and
is thus undertaking new security initiatives in response to the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001. Congress determines the level of funding for anti-terrorist activities in the regular
annual appropriations laws. (For more information on anti-terrorism funds and activities, see
“Funding to Combat Terrorism” in CRS Report RL31306.)
Current Issues
Maintenance Backlog (by Carol Hardy Vincent and David Whiteman)
Background. The four federal land management agencies — the National Park
Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of
the Interior and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture — have extensive
physical maintenance obligations involving buildings, roads and trails, recreation sites, and
other infrastructure. There is debate over the appropriate levels of funds to adequately
maintain this infrastructure, whether to appropriate new funds or to use funds from existing
programs, and the best balance between maintaining the existing infrastructure and acquiring
new assets. The agencies, particularly the NPS and FS, assert considerable unmet
maintenance needs, often called “deferred maintenance” or the “maintenance backlog” —
essentially maintenance that could not be done when scheduled or planned. The estimated
range of deferred maintenance for the four agencies is $11.8 billion to $14.7 billion. The FS
CRS-3

---

IB10093
01-23-03
and the NPS together account for roughly 90% of the total backlog, with the FS having the
largest share (estimated at $6.9 billion) and the NPS having the second largest (estimated at
between $4.1 billion and $6.8 billion). The backlog has been attributed to decades of
funding shortfalls. The agencies assert that deferred maintenance of facilities accelerates their
rate of deterioration, increases their repair costs, and decreases their value.
Congressional and administrative attention has centered on the NPS maintenance
backlog. Concern about deteriorating NPS facilities led to increased overall NPS
appropriations each year since FY1996 and to new funding sources for the maintenance
backlog. 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. Also, an Interior Department
Inspector General report (December 2001) recommended establishing a single maintenance
budget funded through one appropriation for the entire department.
Administrative Actions. The Bush Administration has set out to eliminate the NPS
backlog over 5 years. In FY2002, the President requested $4.9 billion over 5 years (FY2002-
FY2006) to eliminate that backlog through a combination of transportation fund money,
appropriated funds, and revenues from recreation fees. For deferred maintenance the
President requested $440 million yearly. Because the President’s FY2003 budget combined
funding for all NPS construction and regular and deferred maintenance ($663 million), it is
unclear whether it contained $440 million for deferred maintenance.
The agencies are undertaking to define and quantify their maintenance needs. These
efforts include improvement or development of computerized systems for tracking
maintenance projects; prioritizing maintenance projects, with emphasis on critical health and
safety and resource protection; and collecting comprehensive data on the condition of
facilities, to more definitively identify maintenance needs. Without such data, the precise
extent and nature of deferred maintenance might not be fully known, potentially hampering
federal efforts to overcome the backlog.
Legislative Activity. The 107th Congress did not enact legislation significantly
affecting the maintenance backlog. House and Senate appropriations measures for FY2003
which contain funds for construction and facilities have not been enacted; rather, these
programs continue to be funded at FY2002 levels.
Personal Watercraft (by Kori Calvert)
Background. 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. These watercraft, and other forms of motorized
recreation, such as snowmobiles, have fueled the ongoing conflict between preservation of,
and recreation on, NPS lands and water. Critics of motorized recreation cite environmental
concerns with motorized uses, including noise, air, and water pollution; damage to land,
CRS-4

---

IB10093
01-23-03
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. In an effort to manage PWC use, the NPS issued a rule
(effective April 20, 2000) prohibiting PWC use from 66 of the 87 units where motorized
boats were 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 (NRAs), such as Lake Mead and Glen
Canyon, where the establishing legislation emphasized motorized water-based recreation as
a primary purpose. The April, 2001 negotiated settlement of a lawsuit by Bluewater Network
and Earth Island Institute over the PWC rule prohibited PWCs from the 21 areas unless the
Park Service initiated park-specific rules and environmental analyses. PWCs could continue
to operate during the rulemaking process, with a completion deadline of April 22, 2002, for
13 units and September 15, 2002, for 8 NRAs.
Of the 13 units with April 22, 2002 deadlines, the NPS prohibited PWC use in 5 units
(effective April 22, 2002) that had completed an environmental review process and favored
PWC bans: Cape Cod National Seashore, Delaware Water Gap NRA, Indiana Dunes
National Lakeshore, Cumberland Island National Seashore, and Whiskeytown NRA. A
federal judge denied an injunction sought by PWC users and manufacturers to overturn these
bans on April 19, 2002. The other 8 units closed to PWCs on April 22, 2002, and will
remain closed until the environmental assessment and rulemaking process is completed. The
8 NRAs with the September 15, 2002 deadline were to close temporarily then if the public
review process was not completed. However, on September 6, 2002, an agreement was filed
in federal court that extended PWC usage at these 8 NRAs through November 6, 2002, when
the recreational boating season ended. The Lake Mead PWC ban subsequently was
postponed until to April 10, 2003. PWCs are banned after these dates unless and until the
rulemaking process is finalized. Currently, the 16 park units are working on special
regulations and environmental reviews, which may not all be completed before the 2003
boating season.

Legislative Activity. The 107th Congress considered legislation to encourage safe
and responsible PWC use and to allow PWC use to continue in 21 park units until December
31, 2004. These measures were not enacted.
Snowmobiles (by Kori Calvert)
Background. On April 26, 2000, the NPS announced the strict enforcement of
existing, long-standing regulations on snowmobile use which 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 snowmobile prohibition was both praised and reviled in the press and
prompted several congressional hearings. By July 2000 the Interior Department had backed
CRS-5

---

IB10093
01-23-03
away from its strict enforcement stance—rather, there would be no snowmobile ban in park
units pending formal rulemaking, which to date has not occurred for parks generally.
Administrative Actions. Regulatory action to restrict or allow snowmobile use has
centered on Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
Memorial Parkway. The Clinton Administration issued rules on snowmobile use in these
areas (66 Fed. Reg. 7260, Jan. 22, 2001) that would phase out snowmobile use beginning
with the start of the 2003/2004 winter season, with limited exceptions, and phase 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. The NPS
delayed implementation until the end of the 2003-2004 winter use season (67 Fed. Reg.
69473, Nov. 18, 2002). Four environmental groups filed a lawsuit on December 3, 2002,
to restore the snowmobile phase-out schedule under the Clinton rules.
Concurrently, the Administration continued to negotiate settlement of a lawsuit by the
International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association and others to overturn the ban in these
three areas 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 these areas by early 2002, and to decide whether
to keep or modify the ban by November 2002. The deadline for the record of decision was
extended to March 15, 2003.
An NPS draft of the final supplemental environmental impact statement dated
November 12, 2002 [http://www.nps.gov/grte/winteruse/SEISFactSheet.pdf] outlined a
controversial 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.
In related developments, on September 13, 2002, the U.S. 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. Two
environmental groups filed a lawsuit against EPA on January 7, 2003, claiming the standards
do not meet Clean Air Act requirements. (For additional information, see CRS Report
RL31149, Snowmobiles: Environmental Standards and Access to National Parks.)
Legislative Activity. In the 107th Congress, bills were introduced to prohibit
snowmobile use in most national parks as well as to overturn the snowmobile ban. Other
legislation directed EPA and NPS to develop noise and emission standards for
snowmobiling. None of these measures was enacted. 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.
CRS-6

---

IB10093
01-23-03
Aircraft Overflights (by Kori Calvert and Carol Hardy Vincent)
Background. Minimizing noise to protect the natural condition is an important
element of the NPS mission to preserve natural resources and enhance visitor enjoyment.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) controls 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 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. 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 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, which was submitted to Congress in 1994. An October 3, 2002
Senate hearing explored why the Act has not been fully implemented. An FAA official
testified that while the substantial restoration of quiet has not been achieved, there has been
a significant reduction in noise in the Canyon.
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (Title VIII, P.L. 106-181)
regulates overflights at other park units. It 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. The Act also
requires 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
Canyon overflights.
Administrative Actions. President Clinton directed the Secretary of Transportation
to develop regulations to address the impacts of transportation, including overflights, on
national parks (61 Fed. Reg. 18229, April 22, 1996). The President also set 2008 as the date
to substantially restore natural quiet at Grand Canyon National Park.
That mandate, and congressional directives, have segued into an ongoing and
contentious rulemaking process. Controversial regulations include two FAA rules: a
“limitations rule” that caps the annual number of commercial air tour overflights at Grand
Canyon and an “airspace rule” that imposes increased flight-free zones and restrictive routing
over the Canyon (65 Fed. Reg. 17736 and 17708, April 4, 2000). New routes and airspace
restrictions for the Canyon’s west end Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) took effect April
19, 2001. To address air tour operators’ safety concerns, east end SFRA airspace changes
have been 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. An August, 2002 appeals court decision on the limitations rule directed the FAA to
use NPS “natural quiet” standards and to consider commercial flight-generated noise impacts
in developing air tour overflight regulations. This stricter standard is viewed as likely to lead
to increased quiet at Grand Canyon. The Court simultaneously rejected a challenge by the
air tour industry that the limitations rule is unlawful. In addition, an FAA draft proposing
CRS-7

---

IB10093
01-23-03
definitions of quiet technology for aircraft in the vicinity of Grand Canyon is being reviewed.

The FAA issued a National Parks Air Tour Management Act final rule (67 Fed. Reg.
65661, October 25, 2002,) 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]. The agencies have decided to first develop
ATMPs for Haleakala National Park and Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, with the order of
other locations to be determined later. About 50 of the nearly 400 NPS units have
commercial air tours that would be subject to the new rules.

Legislative Activity. Measures pertaining to quiet technology and commercial air
tour operations were introduced but not enacted in the 107th Congress.
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 four major federal land management agencies — NPS, Bureau of Land
Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Forest Service — to test the feasibility of
recovering some of the costs of operating recreation sites. Currently, each agency can
establish any number of fee projects and spend the revenue collected without further
appropriation; at least 80% of the funds are to be retained at the collecting site. The NPS
typically collects far more revenues than the other three agencies combined, with NPS
revenues estimated at $132 million for FY2002. The agencies may spend the money 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. Originally a 3-year trial beginning in FY1996, the program has been
extended through FY2004 for fee collection with the revenue available to be spent through
FY2007.
The agencies generally favor Fee Demo because it generates substantial revenue and
allows discretion in determining fee locations, setting fees, 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, and the land management agencies have
collaborated on developing a permanent program. The Interagency Recreation Fee
Leadership Council, which facilitates coordination and consistency among the agencies on
recreation fees, has developed seven guiding principles for a permanent fee program
[http://www.doi.gov/ocl/2002/s2473.htm]. For the NPS, the budget stated that half of the
monies collected would 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. In the past,
approximately 60% of NPS Fee Demo funds have been allocated to the maintenance backlog,
including new construction which may result from deferred maintenance. The NPS has
CRS-8

---

IB10093
01-23-03
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.
Legislative Activity. The 107th Congress considered, but did not enact, several Fee
Demo measures. They included bills to establish a permanent program for all the agencies
or for only NPS, with varying percentages of funds retained at collecting sites. Other
measures would have removed the Forest Service from the program, extended the program
to other agencies, or exempted residents of counties containing Fee Demo program areas
from paying fees.
The FY2002 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-63)
reauthorized the Fee Demo Program through September 30, 2004, for collection and
September 30, 2007, for expenditures. The conferees stated that the extension was intended
to allow the authorizing committees to decide whether, and in what form, to continue the
program. Also, a GAO report (November 2001) found 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. The National Trails System Act (P.L. 90-543), authorizing the National
Trails System (NTS) [http://www.nps.gov/nts/], became law on October 2, 1968. With the
addition of the newly-designated Old Spanish National Historic Trail in 2002, the federal
portion of the NTS consists of 23 national trails (8 scenic trails and 15 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.
Administrative Actions. On June 6, 2002, President Bush signed two executive
orders designed to encourage physical fitness in all Americans. To promote the use of trails
as “pathways to health,” on May 31, 2002, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton designated
26 new national recreation trails (NRT) in 16 states. Previously, on May 30, 2001, President
Bush announced his National Parks Legacy Project, which included increasing park trails by
5,200 miles. The proposal has not been implemented.
Legislative Activity. The 107th Congress designated the Old Spanish Trail (P.L. 107-
325) as a national historic trail and authorized the study of two national historic trails for
possible inclusion in the National Trails System (P.L. 107-214, Long Walk National Historic
Trail Study Act, and P.L. 107-338, Metacomet-Monadock-Mattabesett Trail Study Act of
2002). Several 107th Congress trails bills were rolled into the Comprehensive Natural
Resources Protection Act, which was not enacted.
Legislation 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, passed the Senate but did not receive action on the
House floor. ADT legislation also was considered in the 105th and 106th Congresses.
The
107th Congress also considered but did not enact legislation to amend the National
Trails System Act to provide federal authority to acquire land from willing sellers to
CRS-9

---

IB10093
01-23-03
complete nine named national scenic and historic trails authorized under the Act. Proponents
asserted it would restore both basic property rights and parity to the National Trails System.
In the 106th Congress, a Willing Seller bill passed the House but was not taken up for Senate
floor consideration.
Heritage Areas (by David Whiteman)
Background. In the last decade, congressional designation of National Heritage Areas
has become a popular strategy to recognize and assist areas that may not merit inclusion in
the National Park System. Congress has continued to consider measures to study the creation
of new heritage areas, designate new heritage areas, and create a process for establishing
heritage areas and standards for their management. As part of its annual budget justification
to Congress, the NPS requests funding for heritage areas. Through the appropriations
process, Congress sets the overall level of funding for heritage areas, determines which areas
will receive funding, and specifies the amount of funds for each area.
Congress has designated 23 National Heritage Areas where the NPS supports state and
local community conservation and preservation goals through limited “seed money,”
recognition, and technical assistance. These partnerships seek to conserve, protect, and
promote locally important natural, scenic, historic, cultural, and recreational resources that
may lack the uniqueness, national significance, suitability, and feasibility to qualify for
inclusion in the National Park System. Heritage area lands remain in state, local or private
ownership; the NPS does not own any heritage area lands. Heritage areas have been
supported as promoting tourism and community revitalization, but property-rights advocates
have voiced concern that the designation of heritage areas could extend federal control over
non-federal lands.
When creating a heritage area, Congress sometimes enacts a law and provides funding
to study an area’s suitability for designation as a heritage area before enacting a law
designating the area. There is no statute establishing criteria for heritage areas or providing
standards for funding and management of these areas. The lack of such a statute has been
criticized as leading to an ad-hoc process that may result in the designation of inferior areas
or a long-term managerial and financial commitment by the Park Service.

Administrative Actions. The NPS has created a Heritage Partnership Program to
assist heritage areas. The agency assists communities in attaining the heritage area
designation, and provides a variety of types of assistance to areas once designated —
administrative, budget, policy, technical, and public information. It provides limited
financial assistance while seeking to avoid long term management and financial support.
Further, at congressional request, the NPS prepares studies as to the suitability of designating
heritage areas. In recent Congresses, the NPS has testified in favor of creating a process for
designation of heritage areas that would establish criteria and financial support limits.

Legislative Activity. An omnibus park and recreation measure with more than 100
individual bills emerged at the end of the 107th Congress but was not enacted before
adjournment. Included in the package were several provisions calling for the study of
designating heritage areas and others seeking to designate new heritage areas around the
country. Congress did enact three measures to study the suitability and feasibility of
designating heritage areas — Niagara Falls in New York (PL107-256), Buffalo Bayou in
CRS-10

---

IB10093
01-23-03
Texas (PL107-337), and Muscle Shoals in Alabama (PL107-348). Congress also considered,
but did not enact, the National Heritage Areas Policy Act, which sought to establish criteria
for designating national heritage areas, standards for managing each new heritage area, and
spending limits on federal support for heritage areas.
Congress appropriated $13 million in FY2002 for heritage area studies and management
plans. The 108th Congress continues to determine the level of fiscal support for heritage
areas for FY2003 and will soon address funding for FY2004.
LEGISLATION
H.R. 280 (Hobson); S. 180 (DeWine)
Establish the National Aviation Heritage Area in Ohio and Indiana. H.R. 280
introduced January 8, 2003; referred to Committee on Resources. S. 180 introduced January
16, 2003; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Resources, National Heritage Areas Policy Act,
H.Rept. 107-498, 107th Cong., 2nd Sess., June 11, 2002, Washington, DC, 2002.

—
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, DC, 1999.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Protecting Small Business and
National Parks: The Goals Are Not Mutually Exclusive, hearing, 107th Cong., 2nd
S e s s . , J a n u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 0 2 , W e s t Y e l l o w s t o n e , M T
[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,
DC, 2001.
––
National Trails System Willing Seller Act, S.Rept. 107-276, 107th Cong., 2nd Sess.,
September 12, 2002, Washington, DC, 2002.
––
Omnibus National Heritage Area Act of 2002, S.Rept. 107-286, 107th Cong., 2nd Sess.,
September 17, 2002, Washington, DC, 2002.
––
Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation, Snowmobile
Activities in the National Park System and Miscellaneous National Heritage Bills,
hearing, 106th Cong., 2nd Sess., May 18, 25, 2000, Washington, DC, 2000.
CRS-11

---

IB10093
01-23-03
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-02-10, Washington, DC,
November 2001.
–– Federal Lands: Agencies Need to Assess the Impact of Personal Watercraft and
Snowmobile Use, GAO/RCED-00-243, Washington, DC, September 2000.
–– National Park Service, Efforts to Identify and Manage the Maintenance Backlog,
GAO/RCED-98-143, Washington, DC, May 1998.
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service. Air Quality Concerns Related to
Snowmobile Usage in National Parks, Washington, DC, February 2000 at:
[http://www.aqd.nps.gov/ard/pubs/snowmobile_report.htm].
—
Budget Justifications and Annual Performance Plan, Fiscal Year 2003; Annual
Performance Report, Fiscal Year 2001; Washington, DC, 2002 at:
[http://data2.itc.nps.gov/budget2/fy03toc.cfm].
–– Report to Congress: Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park
System, Washington, DC, September 12, 1994.
––
Office of Inspector General. Audit Report on Deferred Maintenance, National Park
Service, report 99-I-959, Washington, DC, September, 1999.
U.S. Dept. of the Interior and U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program, Progress Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2001. Washington, DC, April 15,
2002.
CRS-12

---