Order Code IB10145
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
National Park Management
Updated June 24, 2005
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 Topics
Current Issues
Competitive Sourcing
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Historic Preservation
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Maintenance Backlog
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Regional Haze
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Other Issues
Federal Land Acquisition
Security
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10145
06-24-05
National Park Management
SUMMARY
The 109th Congress is considering legis-
maintenance backlog, but views differ as to
lation and conducting oversight on National
whether the backlog has increased or de-
Park Service (NPS) related topics. The Ad-
creased in recent years. In the past, Congress
ministration is addressing park issues through
has included money to address some backlog
budgetary, regulatory, and other actions.
needs in Interior appropriations laws.
Earlier Congresses and Administrations also
have dealt with similar issues. While this
Regional Haze. National parks and
report focuses on several key topics, others
wilderness areas (Class I areas) are protected
may be added if circumstances warrant.
from future visibility impairment by parts of
the Clean Air Act, and remedies for existing
Competitive Sourcing. The Bush Ad-
impairment from pollution in these areas also
ministration’s Competitive Sourcing Initiative
are provided in the act. There is discussion of
subjects federal agency activities determined
the effects of proposed power plants on these
to be commercial to public-private competi-
areas, and recently a few agency staff findings
tion, with a goal of saving money. Through
that emissions could degrade air quality were
July 2004, the NPS had studied the competi-
overruled by higher administration officials.
tive sourcing of positions totaling 1,663 “full-
Best available retrofit technology (BART)
time equivalents” to determine if they should
rules to reduce haze were issued June 15,
be subject to competitive bidding, but none
2005. The President’s Clear Skies proposal
were contracted out. The initiative has been
and S. 131 as introduced in the 109th Congress
controversial. The 109th Congress is consider-
seek in part to reduce the role of land manag-
ing limiting spending during FY2006 on
ers in power plant permitting decisions.
competitive sourcing studies by the Depart-
ment of the Interior (which includes the NPS).
Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Wild and
Scenic Rivers System preserves free-flowing
Historic Preservation. The NPS admin-
rivers, which are designated by Congress or
isters the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF),
through state nomination with Secretarial
which provides grants to states and other
approval. The NPS, and other federal agen-
entities to protect cultural resources. Con-
cies with responsibility for managing desig-
gress provides annual appropriations for the
nated rivers, prepare management plans to
HPF, and views differ as to whether to retain
protect river values. Management of lands
the federal role in financing the fund or to rely
within river corridors is sometimes controver-
exclusively on private support.
sial, because of issues including the possible
effects of designation on private lands and of
Maintenance Backlog. There is debate
corridor activities on the rivers.
over the funding level to meet the physical
maintenance obligations of the NPS and
Other Issues. Other park management
whether to provide new funds or use funds
topics of potential interest to the 109th Con-
from existing programs for them. Attention
gress include federal land acquisition and park
has focused on the NPS’s multibillion-dollar
security.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10145
06-24-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The 109th Congress is examining, through legislation or oversight, a number of National
Park Service (NPS) topics that have generated continuing interest. The most recent actions
related to these topics are noted below.
! H.R. 2361, the FY2006 Interior appropriations bill as passed by the House
and reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, capped funding
for DOI competitive sourcing studies during FY2006 without specifying the
portion to be allocated to the NPS.
! H.R. 2361 as passed by the House contained $72.7 million for historic
preservation, and the Senate committee-reported version included $72.5
million.
! S. 886, introduced April 21, 2005, seeks to eliminate the annual operating
deficit and maintenance backlog in the National Park System. Similar
House legislation (H.R. 1124) was introduced earlier.
! On June 15, 2005, EPA issued new best available retrofit technology
(BART) rules to reduce haze in parks and natural areas.
! H.R. 38, to designate a portion of the White Salmon River as a component
of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, was placed on the House calendar on
June 14, 2005.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
The National Park System 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 58 units formally entitled national parks and a host of other designations.1 The
system has more than 84 million acres.2 The NPS has an appropriation of approximately
$2.37 billion for FY2005, employs about 24,000 permanent and seasonal employees, and
uses an additional 90,000 volunteers. An estimated 263 million people visited park units in
2004.
The NPS statutory mission is multifaceted: 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 dichotomy of use and preservation can be
contradictory and results in management challenges. Attention centers on how to balance
1 Descriptions of the different designations are on the NPS website at [http://www.nps.gov/legacy/].
Brief information on each unit is contained in U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, The
National Parks: Index 2001-2003 (Washington, DC: 2001).
2 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 nonfederal in-holdings from
willing sellers as funds are made available or to create special agreements to encourage landowners
to sell.
CRS-1

---

IB10145
06-24-05
the recreational use of parklands with the preservation of park resources, and determine
appropriate levels and sources of funding to maintain NPS facilities and to manage NPS
programs. In general, activities that 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.
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.
There also were efforts to protect the sites and structures of early Native American
cultures and other special sites. The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorized 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, by Carol Hardy Vincent.)
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. 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). President Franklin D. Roosevelt
greatly expanded the system of parks in 1933 by transferring 63 national monuments and
historic military sites from the USDA Forest Service and the War Department to the NPS.
Overview of Topics
The 109th Congress is considering legislation or conducting oversight on many NPS-
related topics. Several major topics are covered in this report: activities of the NPS under
the President’s Competitive Sourcing Initiative; historic preservation through the Historic
Preservation Fund, which is administered by the NPS; the NPS maintenance backlog; air
quality at national park units; and management of wild and scenic rivers, which are
administered by the NPS or another land management agency. Other issues addressed in
brief are federal land acquisition by the NPS through the Land and Water Conservation Fund
and security of NPS units and lands.
CRS-2

---

IB10145
06-24-05
While in some cases the topics covered are relevant to other federal lands and agencies,
this report does not comprehensively cover topics issues primarily affecting other
lands/agencies. 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. Information on appropriations for the NPS is included in
CRS Report RL32893, Interior and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations, coordinated
by Carol Hardy Vincent and Susan Boren. 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.
Several other NPS-related topics are not covered in this brief. Some of them, or other
topics, may be added to this brief if events warrant. For example, how national park units
are created and what qualities make an area eligible to be an NPS unit are of continuing
interest. (For more information, see CRS Report RS20158, National Park System:
Establishing New Units, by Carol Hardy Vincent.) Second, legislation has been considered
in recent Congresses to study, designate, and fund particular National Heritage Areas
(NHAs) as well as to establish a process and criteria for designating and managing NHAs.
(For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10126, Heritage Areas: Background,
Proposals, and Current Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent and David Whiteman.) Third, recent
decades have witnessed increased demand for a variety of recreational opportunities on
federal lands and waters. New forms of motorized recreation have gained in popularity, and
the use of motorized off-highway vehicles (OHVs) has been particularly contentious. (For
more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10141, Recreation on Federal Lands, coordinated
by Kori Calvert and Carol Hardy Vincent.) Fourth, the management of the NPS concessions
program, which provides commercial visitor services, continues to receive oversight.
Finally, the role of gateway communities in NPS planning and the impact of land uses on
gateway communities have received increased attention.
Current Issues
Competitive Sourcing (by Carol Hardy Vincent)
Background. The Bush Administration’s Competitive Sourcing Initiative seeks to
expand on earlier programs to subject federal agency activities judged to be commercial in
nature to public-private competition. This government-wide effort could affect diverse
government activities in agencies, including the NPS. The Administration’s goal is to save
money through competition, particularly in areas where private business might provide better
commercial services. For the NPS, these areas include maintenance, administration, and
cultural resource positions. Rangers, fee collectors, and park guides are among those
positions classified as either “inherently governmental” or “core to the mission,” and thus
not subject to competitive review. The general controversy over the initiative extends to the
NPS, with concerns as to whether it would save the agency money, whether the private sector
could provide the same quality of service, whether it is being used to accomplish policy
objectives by outsourcing particular functions, and whether it would weaken the morale and
CRS-3

---

IB10145
06-24-05
diversity of the NPS workforce. Apart from the current initiative, the NPS has long
contracted many jobs to private industry, including concession operation, trash collection,
and lifeguard positions. The number of such jobs contracted in 2003 was estimated at
28,000. (For information on competitive sourcing generally, see CRS Report RL32017,
Circular A-76 Revision 2003: Selected Issues, by L. Elaine Halchin.)
Administrative Actions. Through July 2004, the NPS had studied, or was in the
process of studying, the competitive sourcing of positions totaling 1,663 “full-time
equivalents” (FTEs) to determine whether they should be subject to competitive bidding.3
That represents about 15% of the agency’s 11,010 FTEs identified as commercial, and about
9% of the total NPS workforce of 19,380 FTEs. Thus far, 74 FTEs were subjected to
competitive bidding, but none were contracted out. In addition, prior to May 29, 2003, the
NPS had converted 859 FTEs to contract positions; the agency jobs were primarily seasonal,
temporary, and vacant.4 DOI reports that no permanent, full-time employee has been
involuntarily separated from federal employment as a result of competitive sourcing,
although some permanent employees were moved to other positions or opted for retirement
inducements, such as “early outs” or “buyouts.” Also, some seasonal or temporary
employees have not been rehired. The cost of the competitive sourcing initiative through
July 2004 is estimated at $2.4 million, with projected savings estimated at $5.5 million.5
The agency’s competitive sourcing “green plan” covers competitive sourcing activities
planned for FY2005-FY2008. During FY2005, the NPS expects to conduct preliminary
planning efforts at three park units to determine whether to conduct competitive sourcing
studies at these sites. The three units are the San Juan National Historical Site, Indiana
Dunes National Seashore, and Boston National Historical Park. According to the NPS
budget justification for FY2006, the NPS has improved its competitive review process by
conducting preliminary planning with the help of industry expertise. In FY2006, the NPS
plans to conduct a preliminary planning effort for 150 FTE, four standard studies for 549.5
FTE, and six streamlined studies for 255.5 FTE, for a total of 955 FTE during FY2006. (For
information on competitive sourcing targets, see CRS Report RL32079, Federal Contracting
of Commercial Activities: Competitive Sourcing Targets, by L. Elaine Halchin.)
Legislative Activity. The House-passed and Senate Appropriations Committee-
reported versions of H.R. 2361, the FY2006 Interior appropriations bill, placed a cap of
$3.45 million on DOI competitive sourcing studies during FY2006, but did not specify the
portion to be allocated to the NPS. The Senate committee version also provided that
agencies include, in any reports to the Appropriations Committees on competitive sourcing,
information on costs associated with sourcing studies and related activities. Similar language
was stricken on the House floor as constituting legislation on an appropriations bill. The
3 A full-time equivalent (FTE) is the “staffing of Federal civilian employee positions, expressed in
terms of annual productive work hours” (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-76
(Revised), p. D-5).
4 OMB Circular No. A-76, revised May 29, 2003, eliminated direct conversions by not including this
option in the revision.
5 The data on the NPS competitive sourcing initiative are derived from a personal conversation with
Donna K. Kalvels, Director, Center for Competitive Sourcing Excellence, U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Washington, DC, on Jan. 10, 2005.
CRS-4

---

IB10145
06-24-05
FY2004 and FY2005 Interior appropriations laws also limited spending for competitive
sourcing studies of agencies, and contained other provisions on competitive sourcing. These
provisions originated out of concern that some agencies were spending significant sums on
competitive sourcing in cases where the Administration did not request or receive funds for
this purpose, and were not providing Congress with complete information on costs and
implications of the initiative.
Historic Preservation (by Susan Boren)
Background. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA; P.L. 89-665,
16 U.S.C. §479) created a program of state grants for historic preservation under the Historic
Preservation Fund (HPF). The program has been expanded to include Indian tribal grants;
grants for Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians; restoration grants for historically black
colleges and universities (HBCUs); and Save America’s Treasures grants. The major
purpose of the HPF program is to protect cultural resources.
Administered by the National Park Service, the HPF provides grants-in-aid to states and
territories for activities specified in the NHPA. These grants are funded on a 60%
federal/40% state matching share basis. States carry out program purposes directly through
State Historic Preservation Offices or through subgrants and contracts with public and
private agencies, organizations, institutions of higher education, and private individuals.
Under law, 10% of each state’s annual allocation distributed by the Secretary of the Interior
is to be transferred to local governments that are certified eligible under program regulation.

Some Members of Congress support proposals to eliminate a federal government role
in financing the HPF, leaving such programs to be sustained by private support. A case in
point is the National Trust for Historic Preservation, for which permanent federal funding
was eliminated in FY1998. Others assert that a federal role in supporting historic
preservation is necessary and should be maintained. One example of a program receiving
bipartisan support is the Save America’s Treasures program, currently funded under the HPF
(see discussion below). The HPF, authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act
Amendments of 2000 (NHPA; P.L. 106-208), is due to expire at the end of FY2005.
Administrative Actions. President Bush’s FY2006 budget, like the FY2005 budget,
recommended creation of a program called Preserve America. The program would consist
of competitive grants providing one-time assistance to encourage community preservation
of cultural, historic, and natural heritage through education and heritage tourism. It would
serve as an adjunct to Save America’s Treasures. The 108th Congress did not establish the
program, in part because of budget constraints and because it was considered similar to Save
America’s Treasures. The 109th Congress is considering whether to fund Preserve America.
(See legislative discussion below.) The current Save America’s Treasures program appears
to be relatively popular with some Members of Congress and the Administration. It was
created in 1998, as former President Clinton’s Millennium initiative, to preserve nationally
significant intellectual and cultural artifacts and historic structures. Funds were first
appropriated in FY1999 and used to restore the Star Spangled Banner, the Declaration of
Independence, and the U.S. Constitution, as well as for historic preservation priority
millennium projects of federal agencies. The conference report on the FY2001 Interior
appropriations law (P.L. 106-291) required that project recommendations be subject to
formal approval by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations prior to distribution
CRS-5

---

IB10145
06-24-05
of funds. These projects require a 50% cost share, and no single project can receive more
than one grant from this program. Currently, approximately half, or $15 million, of the Save
America’s Treasures grants are specifically designated in appropriations law.

Legislative Activity. Most of the recent congressional action on historic preservation
has been in the appropriations arena, since the authorization typically has been for five-year
periods and is current through FY2005. In the 108th Congress, legislation was introduced to
extend the authorization for NHPA programs through FY2010; no further action was taken.
In the 109th Congress, oversight hearings were held (April 21, 2005) on the National Historic
Preservation Act by the House Subcommittee on National Parks of the House Committee on
Resources. During House debate on H.R. 2361, the FY2006 Interior appropriations bill, the
chairman of the House Resources Committee objected to the appropriation for the HPF on
the grounds that it was not authorized for FY2006 and that there should be no appropriation
without an authorization. His amendment on this issue was ruled out of order as constituting
legislation on an appropriations bill. There has been no further action on reauthorization of
the NHPA in the 109th Congress.
The FY2005 appropriation for HPF was $71.7 million (P.L. 108-447). Within that total,
the appropriation for Save America’s Treasures was $29.6 million, and no funds were
provided for Preserve America. The total FY2006 request for the HPF was $66.2 million,
reflecting a decrease of $5.5 million from the FY2005 appropriation. The FY2006 request
sought $15.0 million for Save America’s Treasures and $12.5 million for Preserve America
grants. The House-passed FY2006 Interior appropriations bill (H.R. 2361) contained $72.7
million for the HPF for FY2006. The total includes $30.0 million for Save America’s
Treasures, $36.0 million for grants-in-aid to states, $3.2 million for tribal grants, and $3.5
million for HBCUs. The House did not include funding for Preserve America. However,
the Senate Appropriations Committee’s version of H.R. 2361 would allow no more than $7.5
million of the allocation for Save America’s Treasures to be used for Preserve America pilot
grants. The Senate committee bill would provide a total of $72.5 million for the HPF,
comprising $38.5 million for grants-in-aid to states, $4.0 million for tribal grants, and $30.0
million for Save America’s Treasures. (For more information on funding for historic
preservation, see CRS Report 96-123 EPW, Historic Preservation: Background and
Funding, by Susan Boren.)
Maintenance Backlog (by Carol Hardy Vincent)
Background. The NPS has maintenance responsibility for buildings, trails, recreation
sites, and other infrastructure. There is debate over the levels of funds to maintain this
infrastructure, whether to use funds from other programs, and how to balance the
maintenance of the existing infrastructure with the acquisition of new assets. Congress
continues to focus on the agency’s deferred maintenance, often called the maintenance
backlog — essentially maintenance that could not be done when scheduled or planned. The
estimate of deferred maintenance for the NPS, based on varying assumptions, is between
$4.52 billion and $9.69 billion, with a mid-range figure of $7.11 billion. While the other
federal land management agencies — the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), and Forest Service (FS) — also have maintenance backlogs,
congressional and administrative attention has centered on the NPS backlog. The FS
backlog is estimated at $6.54 billion, with the FWS at between $1.28 billion and $1.74
billion and the BLM at between $0.54 billion and $0.66 billion. The four agencies together
CRS-6

---

IB10145
06-24-05
have a combined backlog estimated at between $12.89 billion and $18.63 billion, with a mid-
range figure of $15.76 billion, according to agency documents. The NPS and other agency
backlogs have been attributed to decades of funding shortfalls, and have accrued under both
democratic and republican administrations. The agencies assert that continuing to defer
maintenance of facilities accelerates their rate of deterioration, increases their repair costs,
and decreases their value.
Administrative Actions. In FY2002, the Bush Administration proposed to eliminate
the NPS backlog (estimated at $4.9 billion in 2002) over five years, through a combination
of transportation fund money, appropriated funds, and revenues from recreation fees. The
NPS budget justification for FY2006 states that the Administration’s request “fulfills the
President’s commitment to provide $4.9 billion over five years for maintenance backlog
reduction.”6 The figure reflects total appropriations for line items of which deferred
maintenance is only a part. Specifically, according to the NPS, it consists of appropriations
for FY2002 through FY2005, and monies requested by the Administration for FY2006, for
all NPS facility maintenance, NPS construction, and the NPS park roads and parkway
program funded through the Federal Highway Administration. It also includes fees used for
maintenance, such as a portion of the recreation fees NPS collects. The National Parks
Conservation Association, among others, disagrees with the Administration’s assessment
regarding its progress on eliminating the backlog. The association claims that the
Administration has supported little new money to address park maintenance, and is using
“misleading” math to appear to be on track to eliminate the backlog.7 It further contends that
national parks on average have about 2/3 of the funding they need, and that sufficient
operating funds are necessary for stemming the growth of the backlog.
It is uncertain if the NPS backlog has decreased, increased, or remained the same in
recent years. For instance, while estimates of the NPS backlog increased from an average
of $4.90 billion in FY2000 to $7.11 billion in FY2004, it is unclear what portion of the
change is due to the addition of maintenance work that was not done on time or the
availability of more precise estimates of the backlog. Further, it is unclear how much total
funding has been provided for backlogged maintenance over this time period. Annual
presidential budget requests and appropriations laws do not typically specify the portion of
funds for backlogged maintenance, but instead combine funding for all NPS construction,
facility operation, and regular and deferred maintenance. According to the DOI Budget
Office, the appropriation for NPS deferred maintenance increased from $228.5 million in
FY2000 to $295.4 million in FY2005, with a peak of $364.2 million in FY2002. For
FY2006, the Administration is seeking $330.2 million.
The NPS has been defining and quantifying its maintenance needs. These efforts, like
those of other land management agencies, include developing computerized systems for
tracking and prioritizing maintenance projects and collecting comprehensive data on the
condition of facilities. While initial condition assessments have been done, comprehensive
6 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Budget Justifications and Performance
Information, Fiscal Year 2006, p. overview-2 (Washington, DC: 2005).
7 National Parks Conservation Association, The Burgeoning Backlog: A Report on the Maintenance
Backlog in America’s National Parks, May 2004, p. 6, available on the web at
[http://www.npca.org/across_the_nation/visitor_experience/backlog/default.asp].
CRS-7

---

IB10145
06-24-05
condition assessments are scheduled to be completed on all facilities by the end of FY2006.
The Park Service has acknowledged that until the effort is completed, it will not have the
necessary data to accurately estimate its entire maintenance backlog and assess the agency’s
success in eliminating it.
Legislative Activity. H.R. 1124 and S. 886 seek to eliminate the annual operating
deficit and maintenance backlog in the national park system. The bills would create a special
fund in the Treasury — the National Park Centennial Fund — to be comprised of monies
designated by taxpayers on their tax returns. If monies from tax returns are insufficient to
meet funding levels established in the bill, they are to be supplemented by contributions to
the Centennial Fund from the General Fund of the Treasury. For FY2006, there is to be
deposited in the Centennial Fund a total of $150.0 million, and that amount is to increase by
15% for each year though FY2016. The monies in the Centennial Fund would be available
to the Secretary of the Interior, without further appropriation, as follows: 60% of the fund is
to be used to eliminate the NPS maintenance backlog, 20% of the fund is to be used to
protect natural resources within the national park system, and 20% of the fund is to be used
to protect cultural resources within the national park system. The Senate bill would
terminate the fund on October 1, 2016. Under the House bill, after that date money in the
Centennial Fund is to be used to supplement annual appropriations for park operations. The
bills also would require that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) submit to
Congress biennial reports on the progress of the NPS in eliminating its deficit in operating
funds and the funding needs of national parks compared with park appropriations, among
other issues.
In addition, on May 10, 2005, a Senate subcommittee held a hearing on NPS funding
issues, including the maintenance backlog.
Regional Haze (by Larry Parker and Ross Gorte)
Background. In 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress established a
national goal of protecting Class I areas — most then-existing national parks and wilderness
areas — from future visibility impairment and remedying any existing impairment resulting
from manmade air pollution. (Newly designated parks and wilderness areas can be classified
as Class I only by state actions.) This “regional haze” program has several facets, including
the development of state implementation plans and the imposition of Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) on large sources of air pollution built between 1962 and 1977. (For a
general description of the regional haze program, see CRS Report RL32483, Visibility,
Regional Haze, and the Clean Air Act: Status of Implementation, by Larry Parker and John
Blodgett). A related program, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, provides that permits
may not be issued to major new facilities within 100 kilometers of a Class I area if federal
land managers, such as at the NPS, allege that the facilities’ emissions “may cause or
contribute to a change in the air quality” in a Class I area (42 U.S.C. §7457).
According to the Natural Resources News Service, since 2000, 280 power plants (33
of them coal-fired) have sought permits within 100 kilometers of Class I areas, quadruple the
number in the previous five years. The increase is driven by a desire for new sources of
energy to meet demands for electrical power. Some environmental organizations have
expressed concerns that if permits are issued for the power plants proposed near Class I
areas, they could significantly degrade air quality in those areas.
CRS-8

---

IB10145
06-24-05
Administrative Actions. In 2002, President Bush proposed the Clear Skies Act to
amend the Clean Air Act. The proposal included a provision to reduce the geographic area
under the authority of federal land managers for the siting of power plants, by limiting the
authority to facilities proposed within 50 kilometers of a Class I park or wilderness area,
instead of the current 100 kilometers. Also, since late 2002, there have been at least three
incidents (in MT, KY, and ND) where employees of NPS or the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) identified new facilities as having emissions that could degrade air quality in
a Class I area, but were overruled by higher-level officials. In the past, such staff
recommendations typically have not been overridden.
On June 15, 2005, EPA issued a final rule — the Clean Air Visibility Rule, also known
as the BART (best available retrofit technology) rule — intended to reduce haze-forming
emissions from industrial facilities that can affect parks and natural areas. (The rule is
awaiting publication in the Federal Register; see [http://www.epa.gov/air/visibility/actions.
html#bart1], visited on June 24, 2005.) Facilities in 28 states covered by the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (70 Fed. Reg. 25162; May 12, 2005) are exempt from the new BART rule,
which requires BART to be phased in from 2014 to 2018.
Legislative Activity. The Clear Skies Act of 2005 (S. 131) was reintroduced in the
109th Congress with a provision reducing the area over which federal land managers may
prevent the permitting of new power plants to within 50 kilometers of a Class I park or
wilderness area. In similar 108th Congress legislation, which was not acted on, this provision
was supported as facilitating the siting of new power plants, while still providing sufficient
protection for Class I areas from haze. It has been criticized as potentially damaging to air
quality in these areas. The Clear Skies Act also would provide a mechanism for existing
facilities to avoid imposition of BART by complying with new statutory standards delineated
in the bill. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a markup on the
bill on March 9, 2005. A manager’s amendment, which would have established managerial
authority at 75 kilometers, was considered. However, the bill was not reported, on a 9-9
vote.
Wild and Scenic Rivers (by Sandra L. Johnson)
Background. The NPS manages 28 river units, totaling 2826.3 miles, within the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The system was authorized on October 2, 1968,
by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542; 16 U.S.C. §§1271-1287). (See
[http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wsract.html].) The act established a policy of preserving
designated free-flowing rivers for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future
generations, to complement the then-current national policy of constructing dams and other
structures along many rivers. The act requires that river units be classified and administered
as wild, scenic, or recreational rivers, based on the condition of the river, the amount of
development in the river or on the shorelines, and the degree of accessibility by road or trail
at the time of designation.
Typically rivers are added to the system by an act of Congress, but they also may be
added by state nomination with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. Congress
initially designated 789 miles of 8 rivers as part of the system. Today there are 163 river
units with 11,337.7 miles in 38 states and Puerto Rico. Congress also enacts legislation to
authorize the study of particular rivers for potential inclusion in the system. The NPS
CRS-9

---

IB10145
06-24-05
maintains a national registry of rivers that may be eligible for inclusion in the system — the
Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI); see [http://www.nps.gov/rtca/nri]. Congress may
consider, among other sources, these NRI rivers which are believed to possess “outstandingly
remarkable” values. The Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture are to report to the
President as to the suitability of study areas for wild and scenic designation. The President
then submits his recommendations regarding designation to Congress.
Administrative Actions. Wild and scenic rivers designated by Congress generally
are managed by one of the four federal land management agencies — NPS, FWS, BLM, and
FS. Management varies with the class of the designated river and the values for which it was
included in the system. Components of the system managed by the NPS become a part of
the National Park System. An Interagency Coordinating Council, consisting of
representatives from the four land management agencies, fosters coordinated administration
of wild and scenic rivers. The council addresses various issues, ranging from concerns about
rivers in the system to the provision of technical assistance to other governments and non-
profit organizations.
The act requires the managing agency of each component of the system to prepare a
comprehensive management plan to provide for protection of river values. The managing
agency also establishes boundaries for each component of the system, within limitations.
Management of lands within river corridors has been controversial in some cases, with
debates over the effect of designation on private lands within the river corridors, the impact
of activities within a corridor on the flow or character of the designated river segment, and
the extent of local input in developing management plans. In recent years, several
designations to the system have been based on a local-state-federal partnership approach,
especially in areas where the majority of corridor lands are nonfederal. Under the
Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers Program, the NPS has helped communities manage their
river-related resources, reviewed activities for compliance with the act’s limitations on water
projects that affect river flows, offered technical assistance, and provided limited financial
assistance.
State-nominated rivers may be added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System
only if the river is designated for protection under state law, is approved by the Secretary of
the Interior, and is permanently administered by a state agency. Management of state-
nominated rivers may be complicated because of the diversity of land ownership in these
areas. On October 29, 2004, Interior Secretary Gale Norton announced the expansion of the
Westfield National Wild and Scenic River and tributaries in Massachusetts as a state-
administered component of the national system; 34.8 miles were added to the 43 miles
designated in 1993.
Legislative Activity. Measures introduced in the 109th Congress to designate, study,
or extend specific components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 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 will be listed in the “Legislation”
section, below.
CRS-10

---

IB10145
06-24-05
Bill
Type
Title
Status
Number
H.R. 38
Desig.
Upper White Salmon Wild and Scenic Rivers
House Calendar
S. 74
Act
Senate Calendar
H.R. 233
Desig.
Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage
Introduced
S. 128
Wilderness Act (for segments of the Black Butte
Senate Calendar
River)
H.R. 1155
Desig./
Alaska Rainforest Conservation Act (designate
Introduced
Study
and study rivers within the Chugach National
Forest and designate rivers within the Tongass
National Forest)
H.R. 1204
Desig.
Rockies Prosperity Act (Title IV, to designate
Introduced
certain National Forest System watercourses in
ID, MT, and WY)
H.R. 1307
Desig.
Musconetcong Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
Introduced
S. 1096
Introduced
H.R. 1344
Study
Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook
Introduced
S. 435
Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2005
Introduced
Other Issues
Federal Land Acquisition. (by Kyna Powers) Federal land acquisition is a
perennial focus of Congress and the public, with debates over how much land the federal
government should own and which parcels of land it should acquire. The principal source
of funding for land acquisition for the NPS, as well as BLM, FWS, and FS, is the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). LWCF monies are generated from many sources, the
largest of which are leases and permits from offshore energy activities. The agencies have
used the LWCF to acquire about 4.5 million acres.
While the LWCF is authorized at $900 million annually, each year Congress determines
the level of appropriations. Congress typically has identified most of the appropriations for
specific areas administered by each agency. A focus for the NPS has been on acquiring
inholdings — private property inside national park boundaries. Total funding for federal
land acquisition using the LWCF has declined over the last three years, from $429 million
in FY2002 to $164 million in FY2005. The portion for land acquisition by the NPS dropped
over that period from $130 million to $55 million. Possible explanations for overall declines
include the change from a federal budget surplus to a deficit, different spending priorities
since 9/11, and concern by some about the extent of federal land ownership. The FY2006
budget request called for an overall reduction to $147 million, with the NPS portion dropping
slightly, to $53 million. The House-passed FY2006 Interior appropriations bill, H.R. 2361,
includes further reductions. The bill does not provide funding for specified federal
acquisitions, but includes $41.5 million for emergencies and hardships and for management
of previous land acquisitions. Of that total, $7.8 million would go to the NPS. The bill
reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee provides $154 million — more than the
CRS-11

---

IB10145
06-24-05
Administration’s request, but less than FY2005 appropriations — for federal acquisitions;
the NPS would receive $56 million of this total. (For more information, see CRS Report
RS21503, Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues, by Jeffrey A.
Zinn.)
Security. (by Carol Hardy Vincent) In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks on the United States, the NPS has sought to enhance the ability of the agency
to prepare for and respond to threats from terrorists and others. As part of overall
government efforts to increase homeland security, NPS activities have focused on security
enhancements at national icons and along the U.S. borders. The United States Park Police
(USPP) have sought to expand physical security assessments of monuments, memorials, and
other facilities, and increase patrols and security precautions in Washington monumental
areas, at the Statue of Liberty, and at other potentially vulnerable icons. Other activities have
included implementing additional training in terrorism response for agency personnel, and
reducing the backlog of needed specialized equipment and vehicles to respond to terrorism
threats and homeland security requirements. NPS law enforcement rangers and special
agents have expanded patrols, use of electronic monitoring equipment, intelligence
monitoring, and training in preemptive and response measures. The NPS has taken measures
to increase security and protection along international borders, where several national parks
are located, to curb illegal immigration and drug traffic through park borders.
Congress appropriates funds to the NPS for security efforts, and the adequacy and use
of funds to protect NPS visitors and units are of continuing interest. Funds for security are
appropriated through multiple line items, including those for the USPP and Law Enforcement
and Protection. For FY2006, the Administration requested $80.4 million for the USPP,
relatively the same as the FY2005 appropriation of $80.1 million. For Law Enforcement and
Protection during FY2006, the Administration sought $122.9 million, an increase of 2% over
the FY2005 level of $120.0 million. As reported by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, H.R. 2361, the FY2006 Interior appropriations bill, would provide the
requested levels for the USPP and Law Enforcement. The House-passed version of the bill
would increase funds for the USPP to $82.4 million while providing the requested level for
Law Enforcement.
LEGISLATION
H.R. 1124 (Souder); S. 886 (McCain)
Establish the National Park Centennial Fund in the Treasury, comprised of monies
designated by taxpayers on their tax returns and possibly supplemented by monies from the
General Fund of the Treasury. The money is available, without further appropriation, for
eliminating the maintenance backlog of the NPS, and for other purposes. H.R. 1124
introduced March 3, 2005; referred to Committee on Resources and also Committee on Ways
and Means. S. 886 introduced April 21, 2005; referred to Committee on Finance.
S. 131 (Inhofe)
The Clear Skies Act of 2005 would, in part, reduce the area (to a 50-kilometer radius)
requiring federal land manager approval for siting new power plants. Committee on
CRS-12

---

IB10145
06-24-05
Environment and Public Works held a markup on March 9, 2005, but the bill was not
reported.
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation, and Public Lands, Fiscal Year 2005 Budget for the National Park Service
and Bureau of Land Management and Ongoing Efforts to Reduce Maintenance
Backlogs, H.Hrg. 108-86, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 26, 2004, Wash., DC, 2004.

——The Impact Land Acquisition Has on the National Park Service Maintenance Backlog,
Park Service Management Priorities, and Local Communities, H.Hrg. 108-61, 108th
Cong., 1st sess., Sept. 27, 2003, Sherman Oaks, CA, 2003.

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on
National Parks, Competitive Sourcing Effort Within the National Park Service, S.Hrg.
108-154, 108th Cong., 1st sess., July 24, 2003, Wash., DC, 2003.
——National Parks Backlog, S.Hrg. 108-94, 108th Cong., 1st sess., July 8, 2003, Wash., DC,
2003.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
Current and Historical Background
CRS Issue Brief IB10076, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National Forests,
coordinated by Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL32393, Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and
Resources Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL32667, Federal Management and Protection of Paleontological (Fossil)
Resources Located on Federal Lands: Current Status and Legal Issues, by Douglas
Reid Weimer.
CRS Issue Brief IB10126, Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues, by
Carol Hardy Vincent and David Whiteman.
CRS Report 96-123 EPW, Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Report RL32893, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006
Appropriations, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent and Susan Boren.
CRS Report RS21503, Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues, by
Jeffrey A. Zinn.
CRS-13

---

IB10145
06-24-05
CRS Report RS20902, National Monument Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RS20158, National Park System: Establishing New Units, by Carol Hardy
Vincent.
CRS Report RL32699, Natural Resources: Selected Issues for the 109th Congress,
coordinated by Nicole Carter and Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Issue Brief IB10141, Recreation on Federal Lands, coordinated by Kori Calvert and
Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL31149, Snowmobiles: Environmental Standards and Access to National
Parks, by James E. McCarthy.
CRS Report RS20702, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter.
CRS Report RL32483, Visibility, Regional Haze, and the Clean Air Act: Status of
Implementation, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett.
CRS Report RL31447, Wilderness: Overview and Statistics, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS-14

---