Order Code IB10093
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
National Park Management and Recreation
Updated October 8, 2003
Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinator
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
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
10-07-03
National Park Management and Recreation
SUMMARY
The 108th Congress is considering legis-
law that regulates overflights at other park
lation and conducting oversight on many
units.
Recent regulations require air tour
National Park Service (NPS) related issues.
operators to seek authority to fly over park
The Administration also continues to address
units, and the agencies then must develop Air
park and recreation issues through budgetary,
Tour Management Plans at park units.
regulatory, and other actions.
Several key
issues are covered in this report.
Recreational Fee Demonstration Pro-
gram. The “Fee Demo” Program was created
Maintenance Backlog. There is debate
to allow the NPS and other land management
over the funding level to meet the physical
agencies to test the feasibility of supplemental
maintenance obligations of the land manage-
self-financing through new fees. The Bush
ment agencies and whether to provide new
Administration supports making the program
funds or use funds from existing programs for
permanent, and Congress is considering re-
them. Attention has focused on the NPS’s
lated legislation as well as legislation to ex-
multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog.
tend the program. P.L. 107-63 extended the
President Bush set out to eliminate that back-
program through FY2004 for fee collection
log by FY2006. Congress included money for
and FY2007 for expenditures and gave agen-
some maintenance backlog needs in the
cies discretion to establish any number of fee
FY2003 Interior appropriations law and
projects, among other changes.
FY2004 appropriations bills.
The National Trails System.
While
Personal Watercraft and Snowmo-
designation of trails is often popular, issues
biles. Motorized recreation, notably the use of
remain regarding funding, expansion, and
personal watercraft (PWC) and snowmobiles
quality of trails. Congress is considering bills
in NPS units, has fueled debate over the bal-
to amend the National Trails System Act to
ance between recreation on, and protection of,
provide authority to acquire land from willing
park lands. Regulatory actions that restrict
sellers for certain trails; to authorize studies of
use of these vehicles are particularly contro-
routes for possible additions to the System;
versial. The NPS currently is evaluating PWC
and to add routes to the System.
use in some areas. A March 25, 2003, NPS
plan allows snowmobile recreation to continue
Heritage Areas. Congress has designat-
in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National
ed 23 National Heritage Areas whereby the
Parks and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memo-
NPS, through partnerships, supports state and
rial Parkway.
local conservation of natural, scenic, historic,
cultural, and recreational resources. The NPS
Aircraft Overflights. Grand Canyon
provides technical and limited financial assis-
National Park is at the center of a conflict over
tance to these areas, which remain in non-
whether to limit air tours over national parks
federal ownership. A number of legislative
to reduce noise. The NPS and the Federal
initiatives are pending to study, designate, and
Aviation Administration continue to work on
fund heritage areas as well as to establish
implementing a 1987 law that sought to re-
consistent criteria and a process for designa-
duce noise at Grand Canyon as well as a 2000
ting and managing these areas.
Congressional Research Service
˜ The Library of Congress

IB10093
10-07-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
! On July 8, 2003, a Senate subcommittee held a hearing to address the
maintenance backlog of the National Park Service.
! Thirteen NPS areas that are closed to personal watercraft are pursuing a
rulemaking process to permit PWC use.
! The NPS overturned a snowmobile ban in Yellowstone and Grand Teton
National Parks and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway; two
lawsuits have been filed to overturn this decision and restore the phase-out.
! A conference report on H.R. 2115, filed July 25, 2003, directs the Secretary
of Transportation to issue a final rule, no later than January 2005,
establishing standards for quiet technology that are “reasonably achievable”
at Grand Canyon National Park.
! House and Senate subcommittees held hearings on the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program in September 2003.
! On July 17, 2003, the Senate passed S. 651 to authorize land acquisition
from willing sellers for specified trails.
! 31 bills are pending to study or designate new heritage areas, and another
bill would establish consistent designation and management standards.
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 $2.25 billion in FY2003, 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.
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. 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.
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
10-07-03
Attention centers on how to balance the recreational use of parklands with the preservation
of park resources, and on determining appropriate levels and sources of funding to 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, 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 “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 national system of parks occurred
in 1933, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt transferred 63 national monuments and
historic military sites from the USDA Forest Service and the War Department to the NPS.
Overview of Issues
The 108th Congress is considering legislation or conducting oversight on many NPS-
related issues. Several major issues are covered in this report: funding for the maintenance
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 these issues are relevant to other federal lands and agencies, this report does
not comprehensively cover issues primarily affecting other lands/agencies. 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 IB10076, Public (BLM)
Lands and National Forests
. Information on appropriations for the NPS is included in CRS
Report RL31806, Appropriations for FY2004: Interior and Related Agencies.
CRS-2

IB10093
10-07-03
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, see CRS Report RS21503, 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, 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 appropriations laws.
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 (BLM), and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the
Department of the Interior and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture —
have extensive physical maintenance obligations involving buildings, roads, trails, recreation
sites, and other infrastructure. There is debate over the levels of funds appropriate to
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 estimate of
deferred maintenance for the four agencies is $13.8 billion. The FS and the NPS together
account for nearly 90% of the backlog, with the FS having the largest estimated share ($6.5
billion) and the NPS having the second largest ($5.4 billion). The FWS share is $1.5 billion,
and the BLM backlog is the lowest ($0.4 billion). The backlogs have 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.
Attention has centered on the NPS maintenance backlog. Concern about deteriorating
NPS facilities led to increased overall NPS appropriations from FY1996 to FY2002 and to
new funding sources for the backlog. For each year since FY2000, the NPS (and other DOI
agencies) has submitted a Five Year Maintenance and Capital Improvement Plan identifying
deferred maintenance projects by priority over a 5-year period. An Interior Department
Inspector General report (December 2001) recommended establishing a single maintenance
budget funded through one appropriation for the entire department. Many state park systems
CRS-3

IB10093
10-07-03
also have significant backlogs of maintenance and construction projects, and some states
expect the problem to worsen due to cuts as a result of overall state budget shortfalls.
Administrative Actions. The Bush Administration 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 FY2004 budget combines
funding for all NPS construction and regular and deferred maintenance ($706 million), it is
unclear what amount is requested for deferred maintenance. The FY2004 combined request
is a $58 million increase (9%) over FY2003 ($648 million) and a $24 million (3.5%) increase
over FY2002 ($682 million). House and Senate versions of the Interior appropriations bill
(H.R. 2691) do not identify the portion of funds for backlogged maintenance.
On July 2, 2003, the National Park Service issued a report addressing the “significant
progress” the Department has made in addressing the maintenance backlog of the National
Park Service and other park issues [www.nps.gov/accompreport2003/]. The report states that
the President “will fulfill his commitment to address the $4.9 billion maintenance backlog”
of the National Park System and has spent $2.9 billion towards that goal. That figure
includes money requested for FY2004. The National Parks Conservation Association,
among others, disagrees that the Administration is on track to eliminate the backlog. The
Association asserts that national parks “suffer from” an annual shortfall in operational
funding of about 32%. It also asserts that the Administration has supported little new money
to address park maintenance, and “has mostly manipulated existing accounts to support its
claim to be on track to eliminate the backlog.” (See: [www.npca.org/flash.html].)
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. On July 8, 2003, the National Parks Subcommittee of the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing to address the
maintenance backlog of the National Park Service. The hearing covered the Park Service’s
effort to assess the condition of all facilities, estimate costs of repairing facilities and total
deferred maintenance, and determine maintenance priorities.
The Park Service has
acknowledged that until the effort is completed—by FY2006—it will not have the data to
accurately estimate its maintenance backlog and assess the agency’s success in eliminating
it. Witnesses from the private sector testified that the backlog results from a lack of adequate
funding for annual maintenance and that substantial additional funds are needed so that the
backlog does not continue to grow. One witness asserted that there is also a large backlog
in natural resource protection projects, such as elimination of invasive species.
On March 31, 2003, legislation was introduced to amend the Land and Water
Conservation Fund to make the fund available to the Park Service and the other land
management agencies for maintenance. The bill, H.R. 1517, requires that within 5 years
CRS-4

IB10093
10-07-03
these agencies reduce their backlogged maintenance by at least 20%. Additional reductions
in backlogged maintenance are to be made during subsequent five year periods. The measure
also requires the agencies to submit to Congress, every 5 years, reports on the progress made
in reducing backlogged maintenance and on the priorities for construction and maintenance
in order to reduce their backlogs.
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. While PWCs
represent a small segment of the recreational boat market, the number of PWC accidents has
been an issue. Critics of motorized recreation cite environmental concerns, including noise,
air, and water 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. PWC users also assert that in park units that allow motorized boating generally,
PWCs also should be allowed. 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: the Cape Cod and Cumberland Island National Seashores, Delaware Water Gap
and Whiskeytown NRAs, and Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. On April 19, 2002, a
federal judge denied an injunction sought by PWC users and manufacturers to overturn these
bans. 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 if the public review process was not
completed. However, an agreement filed in federal court extended PWC use at these 8
NRAs through November 6, 2002, when the recreational boating season ended. The Lake
Mead PWC ban subsequently was postponed until April 10, 2003.
Final Lake Mead rules issued April 9, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 17292) authorize PWC use
in 95% of the area’s waters. Assateague National Seashore reopened two small areas to
CRS-5

IB10093
10-07-03
PWC users (68 Fed.Reg. 32371), effective June 30, 2003. A May 2003 negotiated lawsuit
settlement between NPS and a coalition of small business owners and recreational access
groups lifted the PWC ban at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area’s Lake Powell through
September 30, 2003. On September 26, 2003, NPS issued final rules allowing PWC use on
Lake Powell with some limited restrictions (68 Fed. Reg. 55448). PWCs continue to be
banned in 13 other areas. All of these areas are working on environmental reviews and
special regulations to allow PWC use.
Legislative Activity. Legislation (H.R. 1831) to extend the grace period for PWC
use in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area was introduced April 12, 2003. No action has
been taken.
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
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.
The NPS announced release of its final supplemental environmental impact statement
on February 20, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 8616, Feb. 24, 2003). The NPS winter use plan 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; NPS-
certified guides and a reservation system for the remaining 20% non-commercial entries;
CRS-6

IB10093
10-07-03
development of snowcoach technology for winter transit; and monitoring of long- and short-
term effects of noise and pollution on park resources.
A Record of Decision (ROD) (see [http://www.nps.gov/grte/winteruse/winteruse.htm])
announced on March 25, 2003 finalized the snowmobile management plan with a few
modifications, increasing daily entry limits to 1,140 from 1,100.
Plan proponents
characterize it as an attempt to achieve equilibrium between motorized and non-motorized
recreational activities as it neither calls for a total snowmobile ban nor provides for unlimited
numbers of snowmobilers. Opponents, however, note that the final winter use plan also
identifies the alternative implementing the Clinton Administration snowcoaches-only policy
in the 2005-2006 winter season as the “environmentally preferred alternative.” On August
27, 2003, NPS issued proposed regulations (68 Fed. Reg. 51526) to implement the ROD.
Outlining an “adaptive management strategy,” the rule allows park managers to take remedial
action if park resource monitoring indicates unacceptable impacts from air and noise
pollution. Actions could include adjustments to Best Available Technology requirements
or daily entry limits, road closures, or timed entries.
Environmental groups filed 2 federal court challenges to the NPS final decision on
March 25, 2003, seeking to overturn it and to halt winter road grooming until its impact on
bison and other wildlife is determined. Yellowstone announced its 2003-2004 winter season
snowmobile reservation system on July 10, 2003 [http://www.nps.gov/yell/press/0348.htm].
Its Superintendent released a list of 10 snowmobile models approved for use this winter on
September 16, 2003 [http://www.nps.gov/yell/press/03115.htm], provoking controversy over
the emission testing methods employed and results certified as acceptable.
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. On a tie vote (210-210) on July 17, 2003, the House failed to
approve an FY2004 Interior Appropriations (H.R. 2691) amendment that essentially would
have halted snowmobile use at Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and John D.
Rockefeller Memorial Parkway, as stipulated in the Clinton Administration rule. A House
amendment intending to provide funds for the NPS to purchase snow coaches was offered
on September 4, 2003, to the FY2004 Transportation, Treasury appropriations bill (H.R.
2989) but was subsequently withdrawn. House and Senate bills (H.R. 1130 and S. 965),
entitled The Yellowstone Protection Act, 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.
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
CRS-7

IB10093
10-07-03
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 (P.L. 100-91) 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.
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (Title VIII, P.L. 106-181)
regulates commercial air tours at most other park units (exceptions include parks and tribal
lands in Alaska). 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), and 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. In particular,
3 FAA actions affecting Grand Canyon have been controversial. The first one, a “limitations
rule” that caps the annual number of commercial air tour overflights at Grand Canyon, took
effect on May 4, 2000. 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. The air tour
industry seeks exemptions to air tour caps, as well as curfews and air route restrictions, if
quiet aircraft technology is used.
Second, the “airspace rule,” 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
were delayed initially until February 20, 2003 (66 Fed. Reg. 63294). On February 27, 2003,
the FAA issued a final rule (68 Fed. Reg. 9496) staying the east end changes until February
20, 2006, to resolve issues surrounding routes.
Third, on March 24, 2003, the FAA published a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (68 Fed. Reg. 14276) to establish a standard for quiet technology for certain
aircraft in commercial air tour operations over Grand Canyon. The FAA proposes a noise
efficiency approach, whereby larger aircraft are allowed to make proportionately more noise.
CRS-8

IB10093
10-07-03
Aircraft used for air tours would be categorized according to noise efficiency. The goal is
to help the NPS achieve its mandate (under P.L. 100-91) to provide for the substantial
restoration of natural quiet at Grand Canyon, and to determine the role of quiet technology
in that regard. The proposal also seeks to comply with an FAA mandate (under P.L. 106-
181) to designate reasonably achievable requirements for aircraft to be considered as using
quiet aircraft technology. The rule was open for public comment through June 23, 2003.
Other regulatory actions affect commercial air tours at park units generally. 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.
The FAA has received applications for operating authority for
commercial air tours over 107 of the 388 park units as well as 6 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 purpose
of the plans is to mitigate or prevent any adverse impacts of commercial air tours on natural
and cultural resources, visitor experiences, and tribal lands. Development of an ATMP
requires an environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA). To date, the agencies have decided to develop ATMPs for some 20 park units and
Indian reservations, including Haleakala, Hawaii Volcanoes, Badlands, Glacier, Grand Teton,
and Yellowstone National Parks.
Finally, the FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on August 8, 2003, that would
continue indefinitely existing safety requirements for air tours conducted in Hawaii. First
issued in 1994 to address safety concerns and air tour accidents in Hawaii, the regulation
generally requires a minimum altitude for air tours of 1,500 feet. Air tour operators in
Hawaii had petitioned the FAA for a reduction to 300 feet to give pilots more discretion.
However, the FAA noted the success of the rule in reducing air tour accidents in Hawaii and
a practice of granting deviations from the altitude requirement on a case-by-case basis.
Legislative Activity. H.R. 2115, as passed by the House, sought to prohibit the
Administrator of the FAA from restricting commercial operations in the Dragon and Zuni
Point corridors of Grand Canyon during certain times. The provision, supported by the air
tour industry, would have altered the current curfew to give air tour operators more hours to
fly visitors over the Grand Canyon. Some environmentalists and park officials opposed the
provision as reducing the amount of quiet in the park. Conferees on the bill deleted the
provision; instead, they directed the Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule, no later
than January 2005, establishing standards for quiet technology that are “reasonably
achievable” at Grand Canyon National Park. They also established a mediation process for
rulemaking disputes. Conferees stated that they are “greatly disappointed with the lack of
progress” the NPS and FAA have made in managing the impacts on national parks of noise
from air tours. They directed the agencies to expeditiously and collaboratively develop
ATMPs and determine environmental impacts of air tours.
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
CRS-9

IB10093
10-07-03
Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Forest Service — to test the feasibility of
recovering some of the costs of operating recreation sites. 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 $125
million for FY2003. 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 authorized 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 supports making the Fee Demo
Program permanent, and the FY2004 budget states that the Administration will propose
legislation providing permanent fee authority. The Interagency Recreation Fee Leadership
Council, which facilitates coordination and consistency among the agencies on recreation
fees, has developed 7 guiding principles for a permanent fee program [http://www.doi.gov/
ocl/2002/s2473.htm]. Last Congress the Administration testified in support of establishing
an interagency program, a new fee structure to replace entrance and use fees, a single
interagency national pass, and site-specific and regional multi-entity passes.
The
Administration also supports using a large portion of the NPS collections to address the
agency’s deferred maintenance backlog. 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 asserted that more analysis is needed
to determine whether to shift the current 80/20% split in funds to increase monies for the
agency’s deferred maintenance needs.
Legislative Activity. S. 1107 would establish a permanent recreation fee program
for the National Park Service only. The Secretary of the Interior is to establish fees based
on an analysis of factors including benefits and services to the visitor and comparable fees
charged elsewhere. The results of the analysis are to be transmitted to Congress, and no new
fees or changes in fees shall take place without at least 12 months notice in the Federal
Register. The Secretary may allow discounted or free admission or use. The bill 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 state agency annual passes. In
general, 80% of fees are to be returned to the collecting site, but not less than 90% of fees
can be retained by areas with revenue sharing agreements with states. The Secretary
determines how the Park Service uses the balance of the collections, and no more than 15%
of revenues can be used to administer the program. The Secretary is to report to Congress
every three years on the implementation of the program. On September 9, 2003, a Senate
subcommittee held hearings on S. 1107, and on September 17, 2003, a House subcommittee
held hearings on fee demo with a focus on the Forest Service’s program.
CRS-10

IB10093
10-07-03
The Fee Demo Program would be extended for 2 years under an appropriations bill
(H.R. 2691) that passed the House. The bill would extend the program through September
2006 for fee collection and September 2009 for fee expenditures to allow the authorizing
committees more time to consider whether to create a permanent program, according to the
Appropriations Committee. The House defeated an amendment to limit the extension to
National Park units. Also, a GAO report (GAO-02-10) 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 agencies
continue to make administrative changes to address concerns with the program.
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 [http://www.nps.gov/nts/]. With
the addition of the newly designated Old Spanish National Historic Trail, the federal portion
of the trails system 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 5, 2003, the Director of the National Park Service,
announced the designation by Interior Secretary Gale Norton of 23 National Recreation
Trails (NRTs) in 12 states. Also, Ann Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, designated 4 non-
motorized NRTs on USDA lands. According to Veneman “these designations contribute to
President Bush’s Healthier US initiative by providing opportunities for the public to exercise
in the great outdoors.” Each of the 27 newly designated NRTs will receive a certificate of
designation and National Recreation Trail markers.
On January 18, 2003, Secretary Norton addressed the official Commencement of the
Lewis and Clark Bicentennial at Monticello in Charlottesville, VA. Twenty-one agencies
signed a memorandum of understanding to collaborate on the commemoration of the
Bicentennial. The federal interagency touring exhibition, named the Corps of Discovery II:
200 Years to the Future,
launched the three-year (2003-2006) national celebration which will
extend from Virginia to the Oregon coast. The National Park Service, under the authority
of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, provides design, transportation, support staff,
and funding. The Bicentennial was funded at $12.1 million for FY2003, and $11.8 million
is requested for FY2004.
Legislative Activity. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on
National Parks held a hearing on May 6, 2003 on four national trails bills (S. 324, S. 634, S.
635, and S. 651). S. 324 and S. 651 would amend the NTS Act to clarify federal authority
to acquire land from willing sellers for certain trails. S. 324 would give acquisition authority
to the Ice Age and the North Country NSTs. S. 651, as passed by the Senate on July 17,
2003, would limit land acquisitions along the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, Lewis and Clark,
Iditarod, Nez Perce National Historic Trails, and Continental Divide National Scenic Trail
to an average of not more than one-quarter mile on either side of the trail. The bill would
provide federal land managers the authority to acquire land beyond the one-quarter width for
the North Country, Ice Age, and Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trails.
CRS-11

IB10093
10-07-03
On June 16, 2003, the Senate passed S. 635, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
update the feasibility and suitability studies of four trails: the California National Historic
Trail, Oregon National Historic Trail, Pony Express National Historic Trail, and Mormon
Pioneer National Historic Trail. S. 634, authorizing a study of the feasibility of designating
the Trail of the Ancients, was not supported at the hearing by the National Park Service,
since “the roads proposed for this trail are highways built by the States to connect the various
sites....” The area will be studied for possible designation as a National Heritage Area
instead of a trail. Some of the testimony addressed the impact on private property rights and
development, including oil and gas drilling, of possible federal restrictions on activities
within view of a designated trail.
The several bills introduced in the 108th Congress to designate or study specific trails
are shown in the following table. Two additional bills (S. 324 and S. 651) to clarify federal
authority for acquiring land for trails are listed in the “Legislation” section below.
Bill Number
Type
Title
Status
H.R. 461/H.R.
Extend
Lewis and Clark NHT Amendments Act of 2003
Introduced
2327/S. 642
H.R. 897
Study
Mississippi River Trail Study Act
Introduced
H.R. 1051/
Study
Pioneer National Historic Trails Studies Act
Introduced
S. 635
Study
Pioneer National Historic Trails Studies Act
Passed Senate;
Referred to House
Comm.
H.R. 1520
Study
Forks of the Ohio NST Study Act of 2003
Introduced
S. 634
Study
NHT Study of the Trail of the Ancients
Hearing Held
Heritage Areas (by David Whiteman)
Background.
Over the last two decades, Congress has designated 23 National
Heritage Areas to recognize and assist areas and protect resources that may not qualify for
inclusion in the National Park System. Heritage Areas are collaborative partnerships
between the NPS, states, and local communities to conserve, commemorate, and promote
distinctive regional landscapes and resources. They have been supported as promoting
tourism and community revitalization. Heritage lands remain in state, local government, or
private ownership. Property-rights advocates fear that the NPS could exert federal control
over non-federal lands by influencing zoning and land use planning in ways that could
impede development.
Congress considers measures to study whether to establish heritage areas and bills to
designate new heritage areas. Congress also determines which areas will receive funding and
specifies the amount of funds. Heritage areas do not receive permanent funding, but are
encouraged to become self-sufficient. The Park Service seeks to limit each area to $1 million
per year, not to exceed $10 million overall. There is no statute establishing criteria for
heritage areas or providing standards for their funding and management, prompting criticism
that the process could result in the designation of inappropriate areas or in long-term
CRS-12

IB10093
10-07-03
managerial and financial obligations by the Park Service. There is also a growing concern
about the proliferation of bills to create heritage areas, which could increase the
administrative and financial obligations of the NPS.
There is also growth in the formation of state heritage programs that are not connected
with the federal program; 8 states now have heritage programs of their own. A recent White
House initiative; “Preserve America,”(E.O. 13287, March 3, 2003) encourages federal
government agencies to seek “...partnerships with State and local governments, Indian tribes,
and the private sector to promote the preservation of the unique cultural heritage of
communities and of the Nation ...” Also, the Alliance of National Heritage Areas (ANHA)
[http://www.nationalheritageareas.com], a collaboration of the 23 congressionally-designated
National Heritage Areas, provides training to practitioners of heritage development, operates
a resources center for heritage areas, and promotes heritage tourism.
Administrative Actions. The NPS has formed an administrative entity, the Heritage
Partnership Program, to advise and 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. Further, at congressional request, the NPS prepares
studies as to the suitability of designating heritage areas.
Legislative Activity. H.R. 1427 would establish criteria and mechanisms for
designating heritage areas, management standards, and funding support limits. Similar
legislation was considered in the 107th Congress, but was not enacted. In recent Congresses,
NPS representatives have testified in favor of developing legislation to provide criteria and
standards for the establishment, management, and financial assistance of heritage areas.
Current bills to designate or study specific areas are shown in table format below.
Congress appropriated $13 million in FY2002 for heritage area studies and management
plans, and $14.3 million for FY2003. While the Administration sought to reduce funding
to $7.7 million for FY2004, a House- and Senate-passed appropriations bill (H.R. 2691)
would provide respectively $13.9 million and $13.6 million. Other provisions of the House-
passed bill would establish the Blue Ridge National Heritage Area in North Carolina.
Another bill, S. 1105, would study the feasibility of designating a state heritage area as a unit
of the National Park System.
Bill Number
State
Type
Title
Status
H.R. 280
OH/IN
Desig. National Aviation Heritage Area Act
Hearing Held
S. 180
Introduced
H.R. 505/S. 211
NM
Desig. Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area Act
Introduced
H.R. 524/S. 230
NJ
Desig. Crossroads of the American Revolution Nat.
Introduced
Heritage Act
H.R. 567/S.472
VA
Study
Northern Neck National Heritage Area Study Act
Introduced
H.R. 744/S. 276
SC
Study
Southern Campaign of the Revolution Heritage
Introduced
Area Study Act
CRS-13

IB10093
10-07-03
H.R. 907
CA
Study
Highway 49, “Golden Chain Highway” National
Introduced
Heritage Corridor Study Act
H.R. 1069/S. 577
MA/NH
Desig. Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area Act
Introduced
H.R. 1594
VI
Study
St. Croix National Heritage Area Study Act
Hearing Held
H.R. 1618
GA
Desig. Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area Act
Hearing Held
H.R. 1759/S. 941
NC
Desig. Blue Ridge National Heritage Area Act
Introduced
H.R. 2691
H. Passed
H.R. 1798/S. 1056
CT/MA
Desig. Upper Housatonic Valley Nat. Heritage Area Act
Introduced
H.R. 1862
PA
Desig. Oil Region National Heritage Area Act
Hearing Held
S. 912
Introduced
H.R. 2278/S. 1330
AK
Desig. Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm Nat. Heritage
Introduced
Corridor Act/Heritage Area Act
H.R. 2689/S. 1137
MS
Desig. Mississippi Gulf Coast National Heritage Area Act
Introduced
H.R. 2925
NC
Study
Northeastern N. Carolina Heritage Area Study Act
Introduced
S. 323
LA
Desig. Atchafalaya National Heritage Area Act
Introduced
S. 840
NV/UT
Desig. Great Basin National Heritage Route Act
Introduced
S. 916
UT
Desig. National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area Act
Introduced
S. 1118
VT/NY
Desig. Champlain Valley Nat. Heritage Partnership Act
Introduced
LEGISLATION
H.R. 1130 (Holt); S. 965 (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. 1130
introduced March 6, 2003; referred to Committee on Resources. S. 965 introduced May 1,
2003; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 1427 (Hefley)
The National Heritage Areas Policy Act establishes criteria and mechanisms for
designating national heritage areas. Introduced March 25, 2003; referred to Committee on
Resources.
H.R. 1517 (Graves)
Amends the Land and Water Conservation Fund to limit the use of funds to
maintenance needs of the land management agencies and to require those agencies to reduce
backlogged maintenance by certain amounts within 5-year intervals. Introduced March 31,
2003; referred to Committee on Resources and Committee on Agriculture.
CRS-14

IB10093
10-07-03
H.R. 1831 (Renzi)
Extends the grace period for personal watercraft use in Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area until October 31, 2003. Introduced April 12, 2003; referred to Committee
on Resources.
H.R. 2115 (Young, Don)
Contains a provision directing the Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule, no
later than January 2005, establishing standards for quiet technology that are “reasonably
achievable” at Grand Canyon National Park. September 24, 2003, rule on conference report
reported to House.
S. 324 (Levin)
Amends the National Trails System Act to clarify federal authority for acquiring land
from willing sellers for two NSTs. Introduced Feb. 6, 2003; referred to Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources. May 6, 2003, Subcommittee hearing held.
S. 651 (Allard)
The National Trails System Willing Seller Act amends the National Trails System Act
to clarify federal authority for acquiring land from willing sellers for four NSTs and five
NHTs. July 17, 2003, passed Senate. July 18, 2003, referred to House Resources.
S. 917 (Murkowski)
Requires that tax revenues from fuel purchased for snowmachine use be used for winter
motorized access trails. Introduced April 11, 2003; referred to Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
S. 1107 (Thomas)
Establishes a permanent recreation fee program for the National Park Service.
Introduced May 22, 2003; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
September 9, 2003, Subcommittee hearing held.
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
Sess., January 26, 2002, West Yellowstone, MT. At [http://www.house.gov/smbiz/
hearings/107th/2002/020126/index.html].
CRS-15

IB10093
10-07-03
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.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
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, Information on Forest Service Management of Revenue
from the Fee Demonstration Program, GAO-03-470, Washington, DC, April 2003.
——Federal Lands: Agencies Need to Assess the Impact of Personal Watercraft and
Snowmobile Use, GAO/RCED-00-243, Washington, DC, September 2000.
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 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, Interim Report to Congress, April 2002. Washington, DC.
CRS-16