Order Code IB10141
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Recreation on Federal Lands
Updated April 25, 2005
Kori Calvert, Coordinator
Knowledge Services Group
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
Motorized Recreation
Overview of Issues
Current Issues
Motorized Recreation on BLM Land
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Motorized Recreation in the National Forests
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Personal Watercraft (PWC)
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Snowmobiles
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Aircraft Overflights
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
The National Trails System
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Other Issues
Recreation in the National Wildlife Refuge System
Recreation at Federal Water Sites
Recreation Fees
Grand Canyon Colorado River Management
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING


IB10141
04-25-05
Recreation on Federal Lands
SUMMARY
The growing and diverse nature of recre-
ing PWC and snowmobile use in several
ation on federal lands has increased the chal-
areas. The 109th Congress conducted an
lenge of balancing recreation with other land
oversight hearing on snowmobile use in the
uses, and balancing different types of recre-
National Park System on April 11, 2005.
ation. Motorized recreation has been particu-
larly controversial, with issues centering on
Aircraft Overflights. Grand Canyon
access and environmental impacts. The 109th
National Park is at the center of a conflict over
Congress may consider legislation and con-
whether to limit air tours over national parks
duct oversight on issues involving recreation
to reduce noise. The NPS and the Federal
on federal lands, including traditional recre-
Aviation Administration (FAA) continue to
ational pursuits and newer forms of motorized
work to implement a 1987 law that sought to
recreation. The Administration is likely to
reduce noise at Grand Canyon as well as a
address these issues through budgetary, regu-
2000 law that regulates overflights at other
latory, and other actions. The courts also may
park units. Recent regulations require air tour
continue to intervene. Several prominent
operators to seek authority to fly over park
issues are covered in this report.
units; the agencies then must develop Air
Tour Management Plans at those park units.
Motorized Recreation in the National
Additionally, the FAA is developing regula-
Forests and on BLM Land. The use of off-
tions to provide safety standards for commer-
highway vehicles (OHVs) on Forest Service
cial air tours.
(FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
lands has been particularly controversial.
The National Trails System. While
Both agencies decide the extent of allowed
designation of trails is often popular, issues
OHV use through their planning processes.
remain regarding funding, expansion, and
The FS proposed new regulations (July 15,
quality of trails. The 109th Congress may
2004) governing OHV use that would require
consider a variety of trail measures, including
designation of areas open for OHV use and
adding routes to the National Trail System,
prohibit OHV use outside designated areas.
authorizing studies of routes for possible
The BLM issued a national management
additions to the system, authorizing land
strategy (2001) governing motorized OHV use
acquisitions from willing sellers, and creating
on BLM lands and is addressing related trans-
new categories of trails. Legislation has been
portation issues through other national strate-
introduced to create a new category of trails,
gies. In some cases, OHV use is being ad-
called National Discovery Trails.
dressed jointly through interagency plans.
Other Issues. Other federal land recre-
Personal Watercraft and Snowmo-
ation issues of possible interest to the 109th
biles. Personal watercraft (PWC) and snow-
Congress include recreational uses within the
mobile use in National Park Service (NPS)
National Wildlife Refuge System, recreation
units has fueled debate over the balance be-
at federal water sites (Army Corps of Engi-
tween recreation on, and protection of, park
neers and Bureau of Reclamation), recreation
lands and waters. Regulatory actions restrict-
fees, and Grand Canyon Colorado River
ing use of these vehicles have been especially
management.
controversial. The NPS currently is evaluat-
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB10141
04-25-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
! BLM is currently making off-highway vehicle (OHV) designations during
the planning process on an area-by-area basis.
! On July 15, 2004, the Forest Service proposed new regulations to require
that areas be designated as open or closed to OHV use during the planning
process. New planning regulations were finalized on January 5, 2005.
! Managers at nine National Park Service (NPS) areas that are closed to
personal watercraft (PWC) are each pursuing a rulemaking process to permit
PWC use. Separate final rules now authorize PWC use at seven NPS areas.
! On April 11, 2005, a House Resources subcommittee held an oversight
hearing on snowmobile use in the National Park System and the economic
impact of snowmobile restrictions on local communities.
! On March 29, 2005, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a standard
for quiet technology for certain aircraft in commercial air tour operations
over Grand Canyon National Park.
! On April 26, 2005, a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to legislation
containing funds for the Recreational Trails Program (H.R. 3) is scheduled
to occur in the Senate.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
Four federal agencies administer about 94% of the approximately 672 million acres of
federally owned land in the United States: the National Park Service (NPS), the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Department of
the Interior (DOI), and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture. The lands
these agencies administer are managed for a variety of purposes relating to the preservation,
development, and use of the lands and natural resources. The NPS administers the Park
System for the recreational use of parklands and preservation of park resources, a mission
that can be contradictory. The FWS manages wildlife refuges primarily for protecting and
improving fish and wildlife habitats. The BLM manages public lands and the FS manages
national forests for similar multiple uses — grazing, recreation, timber, water, and fish and
wildlife. Most forests and public lands also are available for mineral exploration and
development. The National Trails System, administered by the FS, NPS, and BLM, often in
cooperation with state and local authorities, permits most recreation uses, but motorized
vehicles generally are prohibited. This preservation/use dichotomy, while varying among
agencies, is a focal point for debate over recreation on federal lands. Increased recreational
use, and charges of overuse in some areas, contribute to disagreement on issues of access,
regulation, integrity of natural and cultural resources, and motorized versus nonmotorized
recreational activities. Recreation debates also arise in areas managed by other federal
agencies, such as reservoirs and rivers managed by the Army Corps of Engineers (in the
Department of Defense) and the DOI’s Bureau of Reclamation, where decisions on water
releases may affect recreation.
CRS-1

IB10141
04-25-05
The growth and development of western states, proximity of many urban areas to public
lands, and growing popularity of outdoor recreation have translated into high demand for a
variety of recreational opportunities on federal lands and waters. Agency figures indicate an
overall increase in recreational visits to federal lands in recent decades. Recent DOI figures
show 67 million visits to 3,300 BLM recreational sites; 277 million recreation visits to 388
NPS units; 39 million visits to 544 FWS wildlife refuges; and 90 million visits to Bureau of
Reclamation recreation sites. (See [http://www.doiu.nbc.gov/orientation/tables_all.cfm].)
The Forest Service reports 211 million recreation visits to its national forests and grasslands,
and the Corps 400 million visits for the most recent year available.
Motorized Recreation
Over the last 40 years, new forms of motorized recreation — snowmobiles, personal
watercraft, other off-highway vehicles — and nonmotorized vehicles, such as mountain
bikes, have gained in popularity. For instance, there were roughly 7.6 million visitor days
of motorized recreation on BLM lands during FY2003. This figure includes off-highway
vehicle (OHV) use of all- terrain vehicles, dunebuggies, motorcycles, cars, trucks, and SUVs
as well as recreation involving powerboats, personal watercraft, and snowmobiles. These
new forms intersect with the many popular traditional forms of recreation. These include
water-based activities — fishing, canoeing, kayaking, rafting, etc. — and a variety of land-
based pursuits — birdwatching, camping, hiking, hunting, horseback riding, rock climbing,
skiing, etc. The use of motorized OHVs on federal lands and waters has been particularly
contentious, and lawsuits have challenged OHV management. OHV supporters argue that
these vehicles provide outdoor recreation opportunities for the disabled, senior citizens, and
others with mobility limitations; visitor access to hard-to-reach natural areas; economic
benefits to communities serving riders; and, for snowmobiles, increased access to sites
during the winter season. They believe technological advances do and will continue to limit
noise and pollution. Critics of OHVs raise environmental concerns, including the potential
for damage to land and water ecosystems and wildlife habitat; noise, air, and water pollution;
and a diminished experience for recreationists seeking quiet and solitude.
Two executive orders define and generally guide administering OHV use on federal
lands. The first (E.O. 11644, Feb. 8, 1972) defines an off-road vehicle, now commonly
referred to as an off-highway vehicle, as “any motorized vehicle designed for or capable of
cross country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland,
or other natural terrain,” with exceptions for any registered motorboat or authorized or
emergency vehicles. It was issued to “establish policies and provide for procedures that will
ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as
to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and
to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands.” The order directed each
agency head to develop and issue regulations to carry out this purpose and to provide for the
designation of areas and trails on which OHVs may be permitted, and areas in which such
vehicles would not be permitted. Agency heads were to monitor the effects of OHV use and
amend or rescind designations of areas or other actions taken pursuant to this order as needed
to further the policy of the executive order.
A subsequent executive order (E.O. 11989, May 24, 1977) amended the 1972 order to
exclude military, emergency, and law enforcement vehicles from the definition of off-road
vehicles (to which restrictions would apply). It provided authority to immediately close areas
CRS-2

IB10141
04-25-05
or trails if OHVs were causing or would cause considerable adverse effects on the soil,
vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural or historic resources of particular areas or
trails. Areas could remain closed until the manager determined that “the adverse effects have
been eliminated and that measures have been implemented to prevent future recurrence.”
Also, each agency head was authorized to adopt the policy that areas could be closed to OHV
use except for those areas or trails that are specifically designated as open to such use. This
meant that only open areas would have to be marked, a lesser burden on the agencies.
Overview of Issues
Federal land managers face a difficult task in managing lands to achieve multiple
purposes: to provide recreational opportunities for popular, but often conflicting, motorized
and nonmotorized recreational uses; to protect resources for future generations; and to
determine which lands should be open for development (e.g., timber harvesting, livestock
grazing, and energy development). BLM and FS managers formulate guidance, in some
cases, on the nature and extent of land uses, including OHV use, through regulations,
national policies, land and resource management plans, and area-specific decisions. The
NPS is developing regulatory guidance and planning documents for individual park units.
The 109th Congress may consider legislation or conduct oversight on issues pertaining
to recreation on federal lands. Several major issues are covered in this report, particularly
motorized recreation on BLM and FS lands; use of personal watercraft and snowmobiles in
certain units of the National Park System; overflights of national park units; and expansion
of the National Trails System. Other issues are addressed briefly: recreation within the
National Wildlife Refuge System; recreation at federal water sites (Corps and Bureau sites);
recreation fees; and Colorado River management within Grand Canyon National Park.
While this report focuses on recreation issues on federal lands, it does not
comprehensively cover additional issues affecting these lands. For background on federal
land management generally, see CRS Report RL32393, Federal Land Management
Agencies: Background on Land and Resources Management
, coordinated by Carol Hardy
Vincent. Overview information on numerous natural resource issues focused on resource use
and protection is provided in CRS Report RL32699, Natural Resources: Selected Issues for
the 109th Congress
, coordinated by Nicole Carter and Carol Hardy Vincent. For information
on NPS issues, see CRS Issue Brief IB10145, National Park Management, coordinated by
Carol Hardy Vincent. Information on BLM and Forest Service lands is contained in CRS
Issue Brief IB10076, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National Forests,
coordinated by Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent. Information on appropriations for
federal land management agencies is included in CRS Report RL32306, Appropriations for
FY2005: Interior and Related Agencies
, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent and Susan
Boren.
Current Issues
Motorized Recreation on BLM Land (by Carol Hardy Vincent)
Background. The proximity of BLM lands to many areas of population growth in the
West has contributed to an increase in recreation on some BLM lands. BLM lands are used
CRS-3

IB10141
04-25-05
for diverse forms of recreation, including hunting, fishing, visiting cultural and natural sites,
birdwatching, hiking, picnicking, camping, boating, mountain biking, and off-highway
vehicle (OHV) driving. The growing and diverse nature of recreation on BLM lands has
increased the challenge of managing recreation and other land uses, and managing different
types of recreation. Access to BLM lands for a variety of recreational purposes is viewed as
important for fostering public health, public support for land management, and a stable
economic base for communities that depend on recreation and tourism. It also has enhanced
interest in protecting the ecological integrity of federal lands from environmental harm as a
result of recreational use.
Motorized OHV use, including use of dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles, is a major
recreational use of BLM lands. BLM attributes the growing popularity of OHV use on its
lands to a stronger public interest in unconfined outdoor recreation; rising disposable income;
technological developments making it possible for OHVs to reach remote areas; rapid
population growth in areas of the West; and an increasing median age with different
recreational interests. The use of OHVs on BLM lands has been controversial. While
motorized user groups often have opposed restrictions on OHV use, many environmentalists
have been concerned about harm to natural and cultural resources. In some areas, OHV use
may conflict with other types of recreation, such as hiking, that seek quiet and solitude on
agency lands. There are also differing views on how effectively OHV authorities are being
enforced. While BLM employs a variety of means of enforcement, including monitoring,
law enforcement, signing and mapping, and emergency closures of routes, enforcement may
be impeded in some locations due to their remoteness, insufficient signage, lack of sufficient
staff and resources, and other factors.
Administrative Actions. To manage the diverse recreation demands on its lands,
in May 2003 BLM issued The BLM’s Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services. (See
[http://www.id.blm.gov/publications/data/recvisit.pdf].) The document provides guidance
to BLM managers in taking actions affecting recreation during FY2003-FY2007. It contains
three goals: to improve access for recreation; ensure a quality experience; and provide for
fair value in recreation — for instance, through collecting appropriate fees for recreational
uses. For each goal, it contains a variety of actions to be undertaken. Goal 1 in particular
addresses motorized recreation, in the context of actions needed to implement comprehensive
travel management on BLM lands.
Guidance on OHV use on BLM lands is provided in law, executive orders, and agency
regulations and policies. Under agency regulations (43 C.F.R. 8340), BLM has been
designating public lands as open, limited, or closed to OHV use. As of August 2004, the
following designations had been made: open, where OHV use is permitted anywhere, 87
million acres; limited, where OHV use is in some way restricted, 124 million acres; and
closed, where OHV use is prohibited, 11 million acres. The remaining 42 million acres of
BLM land (mostly in Alaska) are not currently designated. BLM makes OHV designations
during the planning process, on an area-by-area basis, and such designations often have been
contentious and complex. Although the agency is in the midst of a multi-year effort to
develop and update land use plans, many plans do not currently address OHV use and other
relatively recent issues.
The FY2006 BLM budget justification describes BLM’s “most pressing challenge” as
“implementing a comprehensive approach to managing travel, OHVs, and public access
CRS-4

IB10141
04-25-05
across the west” (p. III-123). BLM is addressing transportation on its lands, including OHV
use, through the development of three national strategies. First, in an effort to guide OHV
use on public lands, in January 2001 BLM issued a National Management Strategy for
Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands
. (See [http://www.blm.gov/ohv/].)
The strategy has multiple purposes, including to guide land managers in resolving OHV
issues; to promote consistency of OHV decision making; to highlight needed staff and
funding for OHV management; to reduce conflicts among land users; to promote responsible
OHV use and reduce habitat degradation; and to lead to an update of OHV regulations
(which has not occurred to date). Second, in November 2002, BLM released a National
Mountain Bicycling Strategic Action Plan
(see [http://www.blm.gov/mountain_biking/]) to
guide land managers in providing opportunities for mountain biking while protecting natural
resources. The third strategy, addressing other types of travel on public lands, such as hiking
and horseback riding, is in development.
In some cases, the BLM and FS are jointly addressing OHV use on their lands. For
instance, the agencies developed an interagency plan governing OHV use on lands in
Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. (See [http://www.mt.blm.gov/ea/ohv/].) Joint
management approaches, where federal lands are intermingled, can promote consistency and
public understanding of OHV guidance. However, BLM and FS lands are different, and they
are governed by separate authorities, making complete consistency on vehicular travel
management difficult to achieve.
Legislative Activity. In the 108th Congress, legislation was introduced to authorize
an increase in fines for improper use of vehicles that results in damage to BLM lands (as well
as FS lands). No further action was taken. Other bills addressed motorized recreation in
particular areas.
Motorized Recreation in the National Forests (by Ross Gorte)
Background. The national forests are managed by the USDA Forest Service (FS) for
a variety of uses, including many types of recreation — sightseeing, off-highway vehicle use,
backpacking, etc. — while preserving the productivity of the lands. Most forms of recreation
use, including OHV use, continue to grow.
The various uses and values of the national forests sometimes conflict with one another.
For example, timber harvesting and OHV use may affect birdwatching and sightseeing, and
can degrade water quality in certain settings. Decisions about what uses are allowed, and
when and where, are made in comprehensive land and resource management plans prepared
for each unit of the National Forest System, and at the project level. Because of multiple
efforts to modify the planning regulations, many plan revisions were delayed. New planning
regulations (70 Fed. Reg. 1023, Jan. 5, 2005) have recently been finalized, and plan revisions
are now expected to proceed. (See [http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index2.html].)
Administrative Actions. Federal guidance on OHV use in E.O. 11644 and E.O.
11989 was incorporated into FS regulations, at 36 C.F.R. Part 295. Despite this guidance,
not all forest plans have identified areas as open or closed to OHVs, and local practices as
to OHV use vary. On January 16, 2004, in a speech at the Idaho Environmental Forum, FS
Chief Dale Bosworth identified threats to the health of the nation’s forests and grasslands.
One is unmanaged recreation — the “increasing use of the national forests for outdoor
CRS-5

IB10141
04-25-05
activities ... , including the use of off-highway vehicles.” In particular, OHV users have
created a large number of unauthorized roads and trails, which involved no planning and are
often unsafe and damaging to other resources.1 In response, the FS proposed new regulations
(69 Fed. Reg. 42391-42395, July 15, 2004) to require, as part of travel management within
forest planning, identifying a system of roads, trails, and areas designated for motorized
vehicle use, including OHVs. The proposed regulations also would prohibit use of OHVs
and other motorized vehicles outside the designated system. Decisions governing motorized
uses are to be made with public involvement at each of the 110 national forest planning units.
Opinions are divided over the importance and impact of the proposed regulations.
Some interest groups assert that the regulations do not go far enough, preferring that all OHV
uses be prohibited in the national forests, because OHVs can (and sometimes do) cause
extensive damage to the lands and resources protected in national forests. Others counter
that the regulations are inappropriate, because they penalize the majority of OHV users that
obey the current rules and restrict off-highway uses at a time when other landowners and
other federal and state agencies are reducing recreational access to their lands.
Legislative Activity. Legislation in the 108th Congress would have increased fines
for vehicle use that damaged FS lands (as well as BLM lands) and would have permanently
appropriated collected fines for restoring the damaged lands. No further action was taken.
Other bills have contained provisions pertaining to motorized recreation in specific areas.
Personal Watercraft (PWC) (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 C.F.R. §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
raised concerns. Critics of PWC use cite environmental issues, including noise, air, and
water pollution; damage to land, plants, and wildlife; and public safety. Supporters of access
for PWCs 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 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. The NPS currently is evaluating PWC use in several of its
388 units. That effort began in 2000 when the agency issued a rule prohibiting PWC use in
66 of the 87 units where motorized boats were allowed (65 Fed. Reg. 15077, effective April
20, 2000). 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 certain National Recreation Areas (NRAs),
such as Lake Mead and Glen Canyon, might choose to continue PWC use because their
1 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Unmanaged Motorized Recreation, at [http://www.fs.
fed.us/publications/policy-analysis/unmanaged-recreation-position-paper.pdf] on Feb. 8, 2005.
CRS-6

IB10141
04-25-05
establishing legislation emphasized motorized water-based recreation as a primary purpose.
An 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, which was to be completed by specified deadlines.
The NPS has been working on such park-specific rules and analyses for the 21 areas.
The NPS has lifted PWC bans and authorized their use in seven designated areas: Lake Mead
NRA, Assateague National Seashore, Glen Canyon NRA (Lake Powell), Lake Meredith
NRA, Amistad NRA, Lake Roosevelt NRA, and Chickasaw NRA. Nine of the areas
currently closed to PWCs are working on environmental reviews and special regulations on
PWC use. The NPS has proposed rules to allow PWCs in four: Bighorn Canyon NRA (May
5, 2004), Fire Island National Seashore (August 23, 2004), Pictured Rocks National
Lakeshore (November 15, 2004), and Gulf Islands National Seashore (March 17, 2005). The
agency prohibited PWC use in another 5 of the 21 areas (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.
Legislative Activity. Legislation introduced in the 108th Congress would have
extended the grace period for PWC use in Glen Canyon NRA (H.R. 1831) and Lake
Roosevelt NRA (H.R. 3621). No action was taken.
Snowmobiles (by Kori Calvert)

Background. Proposals to regulate recreational snowmobile use in NPS units have
been controversial, with debate often mirroring the preservation/use conflict inherent in the
NPS mission. On April 27, 2000, the NPS announced the strict enforcement of long-standing
regulations on snowmobile use, which would have prohibited recreational snowmobiling
throughout the Park System. Limited exceptions to this new enforcement policy included
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, park units in Alaska, Voyageurs National Park
(MN), and access to private land within or adjacent to a park. By July 2000, the Interior
Department had backed away from its strict enforcement stance with a clarification:
snowmobiles would not be banned in the 43 park units permitting access prior to the April
2000 announcement, pending formal rulemaking and public comment period. To date, NPS
has taken no further action on a general policy for snowmobiles.
Administrative Actions. Since the summer of 2000, regulatory and judicial actions
to restrict or allow snowmobile use have centered on Yellowstone and Grand Teton National
Parks and the connecting John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway. The Clinton
Administration issued final rules (66 Fed. Reg. 7260, Jan. 22, 2001) to incrementally
eliminate snowmobile use in these three park units, with limited exceptions, in favor of
multi-passenger “snowcoaches” by the 2003-2004 winter season. However, on June 29,
2001, the Bush Administration settled a lawsuit, filed by the International Snowmobile
Manufacturers Association (ISMA) and the state of Wyoming, requiring NPS to revisit the
snowmobile ban and consider any additional information on “cleaner, quieter” snowmobile
technology. The new NPS final rule (68 Fed. Reg. 69267, Dec. 11, 2003) reversed the
snowmobile ban in favor of daily entry limits, use of trained guides, snowmobile emission
CRS-7

IB10141
04-25-05
standards, and an “adaptive management strategy” allowing park managers to take remedial
action if monitoring indicates unacceptable impacts from air and noise pollution.
Subsequent legal challenges effectively split the 2003-2004 winter season into two sub-
seasons, each managed under different rules. First, on December 16, 2003, D.C. District
Court Judge Emmet Sullivan reinstated the January 2001 regulation, thereby reducing
snowmobile entries by half for the 2003-2004 winter season and phasing them out
completely by 2004-2005. (See [http://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/winteruse/12_16opinion.
pdf].) Second, on February 10, 2004, Judge Clarence Brimmer, Federal District Court for
Wyoming, countered with a preliminary restraining order against implementing the Clinton-
era rules. Under his order to develop “fair and equitable” temporary rules for the remaining
2004 winter season, NPS issued rules on February 11, 2004, allowing 780 snowmobiles per
day in Yellowstone, a 58% increase; and 140 daily for Grand Teton and the Rockefeller
Parkway, a 180% increase. Subsequently, on October 14, 2004, Judge Brimmer overturned
the 2001 rule. (See [http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/wyoming/district/pdfforms/00cv229b.
pdf].) These conflicting rulings created confusion for park visitors, local communities, and
businesses, with many unsure whether they could visit the park in winter and what winter use
rules were in effect.
NPS issued a final rule (69 Fed.Reg. 65348, Nov. 10, 2004) to implement a temporary
winter use management plan for the two parks and connecting parkway through 2006-2007.
(See [http://www.nps.gov/yell/press/04114.htm].) Effective December 10, 2004, the interim
rule allows up to 720 commercially guided Yellowstone snowmobile entries daily during the
winter seasons while NPS monitors snowmobile impacts on park resources and develops a
new long-range winter use plan and rule. Commercial guides are not required for the 140
daily snowmobile entries to Grand Teton and the Rockefeller Parkway. The plan includes
Best Available Technology (BAT) requirements, with limited exceptions, for all
snowmobiles to reduce emissions and noise, but no “adaptive management strategy”
component. Section 146 of Division E of P.L. 108-447 (enacted Dec. 8, 2004) sought to
ensure that the NPS interim final rule allowing snowmobiles in the three park units would
be in force throughout the 2004-2005 winter use season ending March 13, 2005. Its purpose
was to provide stability for recreational snowmobilers and local businesses by ensuring that
any judicial rulings limiting snowmobiles in these parks must be deferred until the 2005-
2006 season. Yellowstone averaged 239 snowmobiles per day during the 2004-2005 winter
use season, with peak daily usage at around 420 snowmobiles. Factors contributing to the
approximately 18% decline in snowmobile usage include snow and weather conditions,
uncertainty about current rules, and resistance to snowmobiling with a guided group.
Meanwhile, dueling judicial proceedings continue, with at least three groups filing
lawsuits to block the interim plan. The Fund for Animals et al. claim NPS failed to consider
the effects of groomed roads on wildlife, particularly bison; the Park Service announced it
had initiated an independent study on road grooming impacts in June 2004, with a
comprehensive report anticipated in 2005. The Greater Yellowstone Coalition is seeking a
judicial order requiring NPS to use “adaptive management” to address environmental
impairment occurring under the interim rule. The Wyoming Lodging and Restaurant
Association’s suit, joined by the state of Wyoming, challenges snowmobile restrictions,
including guide requirements and daily entry limits. Further legal developments are
anticipated. (For background information on snowmobiles in park units generally, see CRS
CRS-8

IB10141
04-25-05
Report RL31149, Snowmobiles: Environmental Standards and Access to National Parks,
by James E. McCarthy.)


Legislative Activity. In the 109th Congress, on April 11, 2005, the House Resources
Committee, Subcommittee on National Parks, held an oversight hearing on snowmobile use
and restrictions in the National Park System and their economic impact on local
communities. (See [http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/041205.htm].)
Aircraft Overflights (by Carol Hardy Vincent and Kori Calvert)
Background. The NPS is to provide for the public enjoyment of parklands while
protecting resources, while the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) controls airspace and
aircraft overflights. This has created a conflict between resource management and aviation
access authorities and their constituencies. Grand Canyon National Park has been the focal
point of a conflict between groups seeking to limit overflights of national parks due to
concerns about noise and safety, 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 required an NPS study of the effects of all
aircraft overflights, which was submitted to Congress in 1994.
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (Title VIII, P.L. 106-181,
hereafter “Air Tour Act”) regulates commercial air tours 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 “reasonably achievable”
requirements for quiet aircraft technology for the Grand Canyon within one year and to
designate, by rule, 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, and set 2008 as the date to substantially restore quiet at Grand Canyon. That
mandate, and congressional directives, have segued into an ongoing and contentious
rulemaking process. Three FAA actions affecting Grand Canyon have been controversial.
First, a limitations rule capped the annual number of commercial air tour overflights at Grand
Canyon (65 Fed. Reg. 17708, effective May 4, 2000). The air tour industry has sought
exemptions to air tour caps, curfews, and air route restrictions if quiet aircraft technology is
used. Second, the airspace rule expanded flight-free zones and restrictive routing over the
canyon. To address safety concerns, east end Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) airspace
changes have been delayed until February 20, 2006 (68 Fed. Reg. 9496). Third, in response
to the Air Tour Act, the FAA issued a final rule establishing a standard for quiet technology
for certain aircraft in commercial air tour operations over Grand Canyon (70 Fed. Reg.
16084, March 29, 2005). The rule identifies which aircraft meet, or do not meet, the
standard. In future rulemaking, the FAA will address the establishment of routes or corridors
for commercial air tour operations that use the quiet technology. The goal is to achieve the
substantial restoration of natural quiet at Grand Canyon.
CRS-9

IB10141
04-25-05
Other regulatory actions affect commercial air tours at park units. The FAA issued an
Air Tour Act final rule (67 Fed. Reg. 65661, Oct. 25, 2002) that requires air tour operators
to apply for authority to fly over national park and abutting tribal lands. The FAA received
applications for operating authority for commercial air tours over 107 of the 388 park units.
Application triggers development of an Air Tour Management Plan (ATMP) by the FAA and
NPS for each unit where none exists. (See [http://www.atmp.faa.gov/default.htm].) The
purpose of a plan is to mitigate or prevent any harm by commercial air tours to 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,
U.S.C. § 4321-4370f). The FAA and NPS are developing their first ATMPs for nine areas.
Using an air tour safety rule for Hawaii (SFAR 71, continued by 68 Fed. Reg. 60832)
as a model, on October 22, 2003, the FAA proposed providing safety standards for
commercial air tours nationally, including over Grand Canyon and other park units (68 Fed.
Reg.
60572). The proposed rule seeks to increase the safety of tours by requiring
certification of air tour operators and by establishing safety standards, including regarding
low-level flights, over-water flights, and visibility limits. Opponents assert that the cost of
compliance would make it infeasible for many to continue operating, existing regulations are
sufficient to keep tours safe, and the proposed merger of helicopter and airplane traffic
increases the chance of collisions. The FAA is assessing public comment on the proposal.
Legislative Activity. P.L. 108-176 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. The FAA issued the final rule on March 29, 2005.
The law also established a mediation process for rulemaking disputes. Conferees stated that
they were “greatly disappointed with the lack of progress” in managing the noise in parks
from air tours, and directed the agencies to develop ATMPs expeditiously and
collaboratively and to determine environmental impacts of air tours.
A 108th Congress subcommittee hearing addressed implementation of the Air Tour Act.
Witnesses stated that the FAA and NPS have finalized a Memorandum of Understanding
guiding cooperative efforts. The agencies are developing an implementation plan covering
the prioritization of park units, preparation of environmental documents, and the role of
agency personnel. Ongoing issues include methods to establish sound levels and assess
potential impacts on park units, guidelines for determining quiet technology, the accuracy
of data on flights provided by air tour operators, the issuance of interim operating authority
to new tour operators, funding and timing for completing ATMPs, and the relationship and
roles of the agencies.
The National Trails System (by Sandra L. Johnson)
Background. The National Trails System Act (P.L. 90-543), authorizing the National
Trails System (NTS), became law on October 2, 1968. (See [http://www.nps.gov/nts/].) The
federal portion of the trails system consists of 24 national trails (8 scenic trails and 16
historic trails, both of which must be designated by Congress) covering almost 50,000 miles,
more than 900 recreation trails, and 2 connecting and side trails. More than 35 years since
the trails system began, issues remain regarding funding and the quality and quantity of trails.
CRS-10

IB10141
04-25-05
Administrative Actions. Since 2001, the Bush Administration has designated 91
National Recreation Trails, totaling more than 3,022 miles. These designations do not
require an act of Congress and are part of an ongoing effort to promote community
partnerships and to foster innovative ways to encourage physical fitness.
Legislative Activity. S. 54, which is on the Senate calendar, would require the
Secretary of the Interior to update the feasibility and suitability studies of adding new routes
to the Oregon, Mormon, California, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. Several of
the routes and cutoffs proposed for study are already a part of one or another of these
designated trails. Designation of new routes to the system requires subsequent legislation.
Many trail projects became eligible to receive federal highway program funds with the
passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA; P.L. 102-
240), reauthorized as the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21, P.L. 105-
178). The Recreational Trails Program (RTP), originally a six-year program authorized
under ISTEA and reauthorized under TEA-21, provides funds to states to develop and
maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for motorized and nonmotorized
recreational trail uses. TEA-21 was to expire on September 30, 2003. However, the 108th
Congress enacted several extensions to continue funding for highway programs; the most
recent extension (P.L. 108-310) provides funding through May 31, 2005. On March 10,
2005, the House passed the Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users (H.R. 3, TEA-
LU). TEA-LU would fund the Recreational Trails Program at $53 million for FY2004, $70
million for FY2005, $80 million for FY2006, $90 million for FY2007, $100 million for
FY2008, and $110 million for FY2009. In the Senate, a cloture vote on the motion to
proceed to the measure is scheduled to occur on April 26, 2005. On April 6, 2005, the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported (S.Rept. 109-53) a companion
measure — S. 732, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act
of 2005. S. 732 would fund the RTP at $270,772,120, consisting of $54,154,424 for each
of FY2005-FY2009.
On February 9, 2005, H.R. 690 was introduced to amend the National Systems Trails
Act by adding National Discovery Trails as a new category of long-distance trails, and by
designating the American Discovery Trail (ADT) as the nation’s first coast-to-coast National
Discovery Trail. The ADT would connect several national scenic, historic, and recreation
trails, as well as many other local and regional trails.
Measures introduced in the 109th Congress to designate, study, or extend specific
components of the National Trails System are shown in the following table. The table
includes bills that could involve management by the NPS or other agencies. Bills related to
the system more generally are listed in the “Legislation” section.
Bill Number
Type
Title
Status
H.R. 690
Desig.
National Discovery Trails Act
Introduced
H.R. 1250
Study
Arizona Trail Feasibility Study Act
Introduced
S. 588
H.R. 1796
Study
Mississippi River Trail Study Act
Introduced
CRS-11

IB10141
04-25-05
Bill Number
Type
Title
Status
S. 54
Study
Amends the National Trails System Act to require
Senate Calendar
Extend
the Secretary of the Interior to update the
feasibility and suitability studies of four national
historic trails, and for other purposes
S. 336
Study
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic
Introduced
Watertrail
Other Issues
The 109th Congress may evaluate several other recreation issues affecting federal land
through legislation or oversight. These include recreation within the National Wildlife
Refuge System; recreation at federal water sites (Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of
Engineers), either site-specific or in general; recreation fees; and Grand Canyon Colorado
River management.
Recreation in the National Wildlife Refuge System. (by M. Lynne Corn) The
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is dedicated primarily to conserving animals and
plants. Other uses — hunting, fishing, recreation, timber harvest, grazing, etc. — are
permitted only to the extent that they are compatible with the purposes for which the
individual refuges were created. Some have characterized the NWRS as intermediate in
protection between the BLM and FS lands on the one hand and NPS lands on the other, but
this is not entirely accurate. For example, some refuges (especially island refuges for nesting
seabirds) may be closed to the public — more restrictive than for an NPS area, given the NPS
mandate to provide for public enjoyment of park resources. The NWRS resembles the FS
or BLM lands in allowing some commercial uses, but in certain cases, uses (e.g., public
access) can be substantially more restricted than for NPS lands.
Recreational conflicts within the National Wildlife Refuge System were more frequent
before the 1997 enactment of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
(P.L.105-57; 16 U.S.C. 668dd). A key provision of this law designates “compatible wildlife-
dependent recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,
and environmental education and interpretation as priority public uses of the refuge system.”
It also requires that public priority uses must “receive enhanced consideration over other
general public uses in planning and management within the System.” At the same time, the
law continued the statutory policy that activities that are not wildlife-dependent (e.g.,
grazing, growing hay, etc.) may be permitted, provided they are wildlife-compatible. Final
regulations for determining compatibility were published on October 18, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg.
62457). Some interest groups argued that the regulations did not allow for sufficient public
access for some forms of recreation, such as use of off-road vehicles or personal watercraft.
Others felt that the regulations struck a proper balance among user groups. The controversy
was a minor one, and enactment of the law marked the beginning of a period of minimal
controversy over recreation issues within the NWRS.
Recreation at Federal Water Sites. (by Nicole Carter and Kyna Powers) In
addition to land-based recreation, the nation’s waters provide a variety of recreational
opportunities. Much of the recreation on federally owned or managed waters and adjacent
lands occurs at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (in the Department of Defense) and Bureau
CRS-12

IB10141
04-25-05
of Reclamation (in DOI) sites, primarily at federal reservoirs. These agencies’ 4,300
recreation areas attract nearly 500 million visits per year (400 million at Corps-managed
areas; 90 million at Bureau sites). While these federal reservoirs often are operated primarily
for irrigation, navigation, hydropower, and/or flood control, they also provide recreation and
other benefits. Reservoir operations can be contentious because decisions on water releases
represent tradeoffs among the multiple reservoir and river uses and among different types of
recreation, such as birdwatching, boating, fishing, hunting, sightseeing, swimming, and
whitewater activities.
Although there is no central water recreation issue, the 109th Congress may consider
questions related to the maintenance of recreational facilities under constraints on
recreational spending, relative priority of multiple reservoir uses, and policies for recreational
development and land use at Corps and Bureau projects. Congress also may oversee the
Bureau’s implementation of a recreation fee authority and may consider changes to the
Bureau’s limited authority to manage for recreation. Discussions on the timing of water
releases at the Bureau’s Glen Canyon Dam for water supply and recreation in the Grand
Canyon are likely to continue. (See “Grand Canyon Colorado River Management,” below.)
The President’s FY2006 budget request proposes a Corps recreation initiative consisting
of two primary elements. First, the Administration is proposing that the Corps have authority
to collect entrance fees, similar to other agencies providing recreational services; the Corps
currently collects some user fees, but not admission fees. When fully implemented,
collections for entrance fees and existing user fees would likely total, on average, $41
million. The Administration proposes that the Corps retain, and spend on modernization of
recreation facilities, the collections above $37 million. The Corps currently collects through
existing user fees $34 million, on average. Second, the Administration is proposing a
program for the Corps to conduct a limited number of demonstration projects to modernize
facilities through partnerships with local communities and private entities.
S. 728, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005, includes three general
recreation-related provisions in §2004. First, similar to the Administration’s proposal, that
section requires that the Corps carry out a recreation user fee program, including admission
fees. Fees collected under §2004 would appear to be available directly to the Corps for
resource protection, research, interpretation, and related maintenance. This contrasts to the
deposit of the Corps’ current user fee collections into general Treasury accounts. Second,
§2004 allows the Corps to enter into a contract with public or private entities to provide
visitor services for its recreational areas. This is similar to the Administration’s
demonstration proposal for facility modernization in that public or private partners are
acceptable; however, S. 728 is for visitor services. Third, §2004 requires the Corps to collect
fees for new leases on Corps properties that cover, at a minimum, the cost of administering
the lease; many Corps leases are for park and recreational purposes.
Recreation Fees. (by Carol Hardy Vincent) The 108th Congress established a new
recreation fee program for the four major federal land management agencies (NPS, BLM,
FWS, and FS) as well as the Bureau of Reclamation. Provisions of P.L. 108-447 (Division
J, Title VIII) provide guidance on establishing entrance, standard, expanded, and special
recreation permit fees. They outline criteria for establishing fees, and prohibit charging fees
for certain activities or services. The law provides for public input in setting fees, including
establishing Recreation Resource Advisory Committees to make fee recommendations. It
CRS-13

IB10141
04-25-05
authorizes the creation of an interagency national recreation pass and of regional multi-entity
passes. Each agency can spend the revenue collected without further appropriation. In
general, not less than 80% of the fees are to be spent at the collecting site, but that amount
can be reduced to not less than 60%. The balance of the collections is available to be used
agency-wide. The collections can be used for specified purposes, such as repair,
maintenance, and facility enhancement. The agencies are to report to Congress on the
program every three years, and the program is to terminate 10 years after enactment.
DOI and the Department of Agriculture are implementing the new law. They are
developing long-term fee guidance and the America the Beautiful Pass, which will cover
entrance and standard fees for the five agencies. During the transition to the new program,
the agencies have agreed that existing passes will be honored, no new fee areas will be
created, and existing fees will be evaluated against the criteria and prohibitions set out in the
new law. The 109th Congress is overseeing agency efforts to establish, collect, and spend
recreation fees under the new program. On February 17, 2005, a Senate subcommittee held
a hearing on NPS implementation of the program, with a focus on the development of the
America the Beautiful Pass.
The new recreation fee program supersedes the Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program (“Fee Demo”), which had begun in 1996 as a three-year trial but was extended
several times. The Administration had supported a permanent recreation fee program, and
Fee Demo because it generated substantial revenue and allowed discretion in determining
fee locations, setting fees, and using the revenues. However, the program was controversial.
Critics have been concerned that recreation fees discriminate against those less able to pay;
are a double tax on the recreating public; are charged for access to unimproved lands; and,
together with other agency fees, confuse the public. The new program, authorized on
December 8, 2004 (P.L. 108-447), sought to eliminate some of these concerns.
Grand Canyon Colorado River Management. (by David Whiteman) The NPS
has regulated recreational use of the Colorado River inside Grand Canyon National Park
since the 1970s, particularly with respect to rafting trips, to protect river resources and ensure
a high-quality visitor experience. This is an example of increasing population pressures and
recreational pastimes that push deeper into pristine backcountry areas of national parks,
increasing the resource management challenges affecting many popular parks. Decades of
conflict have ensued over motorized boating on the Colorado River and the use of helicopters
to ferry commercial boating passengers in and out of the canyon. These activities have been
opposed by environmental groups favoring the preservation of wilderness-like values in the
area. Commercial outfitters for river trips favor access for motorized boating on the grounds
that this long-standing use does not harm resources.
On October 1, 2004, the NPS released a draft of a new Colorado River Management
Plan ([http://www.nps.gov/grca/crmp/]) that will govern recreational river use for 10 or more
years. Currently, Colorado River recreational use is divided between two user groups:
professionally outfitted commercial concessioners and non-commercial, self-guided private
boaters. The proposed management plan would alter the existing ratio of river access
between the two groups, reallocating more access to the self-outfitted sector. On January 25,
2005, the two principal user groups announced compromise recommendations that would
allot more access for non-commercial outfitters; extend the commercial outfitter season six
additional weeks to spread out use; and continue the use of motors, mostly for commercial
CRS-14

IB10141
04-25-05
outfitters. (See [http://www.gcroa.org/pdf/joint%20recommendations%20-%20final.pdf].)
Environmental groups generally oppose the river users reported agreement.
Public comment on the draft plan ended February 1, 2005, and was considerable. The
NPS is analyzing nearly 20,000 comments, a process expected to take several months, and
determining whether to adopt any elements from the user groups’ compromise in its Final
Environmental Impact Statement.
LEGISLATION
H.R. 3 (Young, Don); S. 732 (Inhofe)
Would authorize funds for federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit
programs, and the Recreational Trails Program. Cloture on motion to proceed to H.R. 3
presented in the Senate, April 22, 2005. S. 732 placed on Senate calendar, April 6, 2005.
H.R. 1261 (Ryun)
Amends the National Trails System Act to improve the efficiency and fairness of
acquiring railroad rights-of-way for interim use as public trails by applying the procedures
applicable to other federal real estate acquisitions. Introduced March 10, 2005; referred to
Committee on Resources.
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, National Trails System
Act Amendment, S.Rept. 109-44, 109th Cong., 1st sess., March 30, 2005, Wash., DC,
2005.
——Subcommittee on National Parks, Land Acquisition From Willing Sellers; Trail of the
Ancients; Study of Four National Historic Trails; and Willing Sellers for the Majority
of the Trails in the System
, S.Hrg. 108-47, 108th Cong., 1st sess., May 6, 2003, Wash.,
DC, 2003.
——National Parks Air Tour Management Act, S.Rept. 108-731, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., July
22, 2004, Wash., DC, 2005.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Report RL32852, Energy and Water Development: Appropriations for FY2006,
coordinated by Carl Behrens.
CRS Report RL32306, Appropriations for FY2005: Interior and Related Agencies,
coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent and Susan Boren.
CRS-15

IB10141
04-25-05
CRS Issue Brief IB10120, Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program: Issues for
Congress, by Nicole T. Carter and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Issue Brief IB10076, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National Forests,
coordinated by Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Issue Brief IB10145, National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RS20866, The Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers: A Primer,
by Nicole T. Carter and Betsy A. Cody.
CRS Report RL32393, Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and
Resources Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL32699, Natural Resources: Selected Issues for the 109th Congress,
coordinated by Nicole Carter and Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL31149, Snowmobiles: Environmental Standards and Access to National
Parks, by James E. McCarthy.
CRS Issue Brief IB10019, Western Water Resource Issues, by Betsy A. Cody and Pervaze
A. Sheikh.
CRS-16