Order Code IB10145
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
National Park Management
Updated September 27, 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
Revision of Policy Changes
Security
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10145
09-27-05
National Park Management
SUMMARY
The 109th Congress is considering legis-
whether the backlog has increased or de-
lation and conducting oversight on National
creased in recent years. The 109th Congress
Park Service (NPS) related topics. The Ad-
included money to address some backlog
ministration is addressing park issues through
needs in P.L. 109-54.
budgetary, regulatory, and other actions.
Earlier Congresses and Administrations also
Regional Haze. National parks and
have dealt with similar issues. While this
wilderness areas (Class I areas) are protected
report focuses on several key topics, others
from future visibility impairment by parts of
may be added if circumstances warrant.
the Clean Air Act, and remedies for existing
impairment from pollution in these areas also
Competitive Sourcing. The Bush Ad-
are provided in the act. There is discussion of
ministration’s Competitive Sourcing Initiative
the effects of proposed power plants on these
subjects federal agency activities determined
areas, and recently a few agency staff findings
to be commercial to public-private competi-
that emissions could degrade air quality were
tion, with a goal of saving money. Through
overruled by higher administration officials.
July 2004, the NPS had studied the competi-
Best available retrofit technology (BART)
tive sourcing of positions totaling 1,663 “full-
rules to reduce haze were issued June 15,
time equivalents” to determine if they should
2005. The President’s Clear Skies proposal
be subject to competitive bidding, but none
and S. 131 as introduced in the 109th Congress
were contracted out. The initiative has been
seek in part to reduce the role of land manag-
controversial. The 109th Congress limited
ers in power plant permitting decisions.
spending during FY2006 on competitive
sourcing studies by the Department of the
Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Wild and
Interior (which includes the NPS).
Scenic Rivers System preserves free-flowing
rivers, which are designated by Congress or
Historic Preservation. The NPS admin-
through state nomination with Secretarial
isters the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF),
approval. The NPS, and other federal agen-
which provides grants to states and other
cies with responsibility for managing desig-
entities to protect cultural resources. Con-
nated rivers, prepare management plans to
gress provides annual appropriations for the
protect river values. Management of lands
HPF, and views differ as to whether to retain
within river corridors is sometimes controver-
the federal role in financing the fund or to rely
sial, because of issues including the possible
exclusively on private support. Legislation
effects of designation on private lands and of
has been introduced to reauthorize the HPF.
corridor activities on the rivers. Legislation is
pending to designate, study, or extend compo-
Maintenance Backlog. There is debate
nents of the system.
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, an NPS
has focused on the NPS’s multibillion-dollar
policy review, and park security.
maintenance backlog, but views differ as to
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10145
09-27-05
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.
! P.L. 109-54, the FY2006 Interior appropriations law, capped funding for
DOI competitive sourcing studies during FY2006 without specifying the
portion to be allocated to the NPS. It provided $73.3 million for historic
preservation, and $323.6 million for the NPS maintenance backlog.
! On June 15, 2005, EPA issued new best available retrofit technology
(BART) rules to reduce haze in parks and natural areas.
! On September 22, 2005, a Senate subcommittee held a hearing on two
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System bills — S. 435 and S. 1096.

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 about $2.29 billion
for FY2006 (excluding a rescission), 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
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 recreation outside the system through grant and technical assistance programs.
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
09-27-05
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,
an NPS review of agency policies, and security of NPS units and lands.
While in some cases the topics covered are relevant to other federal lands and agencies,
this report does not comprehensively cover topics 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
CRS-2

---

IB10145
09-27-05
RL32893, Interior, Environment, 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 and Carol Hardy Vincent.
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
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
CRS-3

---

IB10145
09-27-05
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 is conducting 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. The Coalition of National Park Service
Retirees, among others, has opposed competitive sourcing at these three units (and in
general). The Coalition contends that the competitive sourcing effort may violate
congressional intent, sacrifice effectiveness for efficiency, and emphasize profit and loss over
resource protection.

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. P.L. 109-54, the FY2006 Interior appropriations law, 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 law 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. The 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
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
09-27-05
sourcing 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. On March 3, 2003, President Bush issued Executive Order
13287, entitled Preserve America and containing a broad declaration of purpose and agency
responsibilities regarding historic properties. Subsequent annual budget requests of the
President, including for FY2006, have recommended funding of a Preserve America
program. 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 109th Congress has provided that a portion of Save America’s Treasures funds could be
allocated to Preserve America’s grants. (See “Legislative Activity” below.) The current
Save America’s Treasures program appears to be relatively popular with 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.6 Funds for the program 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
6 On February 3, 1998, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13072 in which he established
duties for a Millennium Council and recommended that the Secretary of the Interior fund a program,
entitled Save America’s Treasures, to protect America’s threatened historic properties.
CRS-5

---

IB10145
09-27-05
agencies. Annual appropriations laws have required that project recommendations be subject
to approval by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations prior to distribution of
funds. These projects require a 50% cost share, and no single project can receive more than
one grant from this program.

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. S. 1378, and a similar bill, H.R. 3446, have been
introduced to reauthorize the HPF (§108, NHPA) through FY2011, and to amend provisions
pertaining to the operation of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The National
Parks Subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing
on S. 1378 and a variety of other bills on September 22, 2005.
P.L. 109-54, the FY2006 Interior appropriations law, provided $73.3 million for HPF
(not including an across the board cut). The total included $30.0 million for Save America’s
Treasures, $36.3 million for grants-in-aid to states, $4.0 million for tribal grants, and $3.0
million for HBCUs. The FY2006 appropriation for HPF reflected an increase over the
FY2006 House-passed bill ($72.7 million), the FY2006 Administration request ($66.2
million), and the FY2005 level ($71.7 million). From the total for Save America’s Treasures
for FY2006, $13.3 million would be for competitive grants, and $16.8 million are specified
by Congress for designated projects. The FY2006 Appropriations law provided funding for
Preserve America — not to exceed $5.0 million to be allocated through 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 for FY2004, 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. For
FY2004, 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 have a combined backlog estimated at between $12.89 billion and $18.63 billion,
CRS-6

---

IB10145
09-27-05
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.”7 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.8 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 sought $330.2 million, including use of $17.0 million from prior
year funds. P.L. 109-54, the FY2006 Interior appropriations law, provided $323.6 million,
including the use of $17.0 million from prior year funds (excluding a rescission).
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
7 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Budget Justifications and Performance
Information, Fiscal Year 2006, p. overview-2 (Washington, DC: 2005).
8 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
09-27-05
condition of facilities. While initial condition assessments have been done, comprehensive
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 $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
09-27-05
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. (See 70 Fed. Reg.
39103, July 6, 2005; or [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 (9-9).
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 164 river
units with 11,357.7 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
maintains a national registry of rivers that may be eligible for inclusion in the system — the
CRS-9

---

IB10145
09-27-05
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 protect 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 (MA) 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
09-27-05
Bill
Type
Title
Status
Number
H.R. 38
Desig.
Upper White Salmon Wild and Scenic Rivers
P.L. 109-44;
S. 74
Act
Indefinitely
Postponed
H.R. 233
Desig.
Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage
Hearing Held
S. 128
Wilderness Act (for segments of the Black Butte
Passed Senate
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
Hearing Held
H.R. 1344
Study
Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook
Introduced
S. 435
Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2005
Hearing Held
H.R. 3321
Desig.
Taunton Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (MA)
Introduced
On September 22, 2005, the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks held a hearing on
S. 1096 and S. 435. S. 1096, the Musconetcong Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, would
designate 24.2 miles of the river in northwestern New Jersey. S. 435 would direct the NPS
to study a 40-mile stretch of the Farmington River and Salmon Brook (CT) for possible
inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. In testimony, an NPS official told
the Senate panel that while the Department supported this study, "it is important that future
funding requests go towards completing previously authorized studies. There are currently
25 studies in progress, and we hope to complete and transmit 6 to Congress by the end of
2005. Therefore, the Department will focus the funding provided towards completing these
s t u d i e s . " ( S e e t e s t i m o n y o f D r . J a n e t S n yd e r M a t t h e w s a t
[http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=
1497]). As a result of reduced funding for the Rivers and Trails Studies program for
FY2006, the NPS requested that the start date for the study in S. 435 be changed from three
years following enactment to three years after funds are made available. Some river
proponents objected to the delay in the start of the study, and supported the bill in its current
form.
In earlier action this Congress, H.R. 38 was enacted into law (P.L 109-44) to designate
a portion of the White Salmon River (WA) as a component of the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System. The Senate also passed S. 128, to designate segments of the Black Butte
River (CA) as a wild or scenic river, and a House subcommittee held a hearing on companion
legislation (H.R. 233).
CRS-11

---

IB10145
09-27-05
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. These trends
continued in FY2006 as total funding for federal land acquisition dropped to $114.6 million.
The NPS was appropriated $34.9 million of this total. These figures do not include an across
the board rescission. For more information, see CRS Report RS21503, Land and Water
Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues, by Jeffrey A. Zinn, and CRS Report
RL32893, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations,
coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent and Susan Boren.)
Revision of Policy Changes. (by Carol Hardy Vincent) The NPS currently is
revising its service-wide management policies, which govern the way NPS managers make
decisions on a wide range of issues (together with laws, regulations, and other authorities).
Initial, internal proposals were criticized by some park groups and environmentalists as
fundamentally altering park protections and potentially leading to damage of park resources.
Specifically, critics charged that changes in the initial draft would, if finalized, have shifted
the NPS focus from preservation to recreation; removed protective limits on activities that
might impair park resources, for instance, motorized recreation; eliminate the scientific
underpinning of NPS management; give too much control to local communities in managing
park units; weaken protections for air quality, water, and wildlife; and increase commercial
development of park units. Further, some park advocates and environmentalists have
criticized DOI for initiating changes to NPS policies without notifying NPS employees and
consulting with the public. This controversy illustrates a continuing tension between the
Park Service’s mission to protect park resources while providing for their use and enjoyment
by the public.
At issue are the NPS Management Policies, last updated in 2001 after a several year
internal and external review. (The policies are contained on the NPS website at
[http://data2.itc.nps.gov/npspolicy/index.cfm]). According to an NPS spokesman, policy
revisions are being undertaken to address recent changes in certain areas, such as recreation
and technology. Also, coverage of financial issues is needed, including on recreation fees,
concession royalties, and park service donations. Further, there is some support in Congress
for a review of NPS management policies, according to the spokesman. The ongoing
CRS-12

---

IB10145
09-27-05
development of policy changes began outside the Park Service, with the preparation of draft
changes by a senior DOI official. Upon submission to the Park Service, that draft is reported
by the press to have been opposed by the Park Service’s seven regional directors. The Park
Service subsequently convened a working group of 16 of its senior staff, who produced a
new draft on the issue. That draft is expected to be reviewed by the National Leadership
Council—a group of senior park managers who set policy and overall direction for the Park
Service—as well as DOI, according to an NPS spokesman. The National Park Service
anticipates publishing policy changes in the Federal Register in mid-October, for review and
comment by the public.
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.
At a July 9, 2005, House subcommittee hearing, witnesses differed on the extent to
which the NPS should be responsible for border security. (See [http://resourcescommittee.
house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/070905.htm].) An official from the NPS testified that the
agency’s core mission makes it “imperative” that the NPS help secure international borders
of parks and “aggressively” address border issues. He asserted that cross-border, illegal
immigration, and smuggling activities threaten the park mission, natural and historic
resources, safety of visitors and employees, and the security of the nation. An official from
the Border Patrol described cooperative border efforts with the NPS, and stated that the
agencies are drafting a memorandum of understanding as to the authorities and
responsibilities of each agency. Other witnesses testified that the Border Patrol, not the NPS,
should be handling immigration and other border issues, because the NPS does not have
sufficient resources, training, and equipment for such responsibilities. A representative from
the National Parks Conservation Association contended that the financial impact of
homeland security and border measures has had an adverse impact on the NPS budget,
resources, staff, and visitors not only at border and icon parks but at many other park units.
He claimed the NPS has been “woefully underfunded” to meet border and homeland security
demands. However, in separate Senate testimony, NPS Director Fran Mainella stated that
since 2001, overall base funding for NPS law enforcement and security has increased 25%,
with additional funds spent improving the most vulnerable park units. (See [http://energy.
senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=1467&Witn
ess_ID=1346].)
CRS-13

---

IB10145
09-27-05
A June 2005 report of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined the
challenges that DOI faces in protecting national icons and monuments from terrorism, and
actions and improvements the department has taken to address these challenges. The agency
concluded that since 2001, DOI has improved security at key sites, created a central security
office to coordinate security efforts, developed physical security plans, and established a
uniform risk management and ranking methodology. GAO recommended that DOI link its
rankings to security funding priorities at national icons and monuments and establish guiding
principles to balance its core mission with security needs. (See [http://www.gao.gov/new.
items/d05790.pdf].)
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. P.L. 109-54, the FY2006 Interior appropriations law,
provided the requested level for Law Enforcement and $81.4 million for the USPP (not
including an across the board rescission).
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.
H.R. 3446 (Rahall); S. 1378 (Talent)
The National Historic Preservation Act Amendments Act of 2005 would reauthorize the
Historic Preservation Fund through FY2011 and amend the operation of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation. S. 1376 referred to Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources; hearing held September 22, 2005. H.R. 3446 introduced July 26, 2005; referred
to Committee on Resources.
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
Environment and Public Works held a markup on March 9, 2005, but the bill was not
reported.
CRS-14

---

IB10145
09-27-05
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Resources, Upper White Salmon Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act, H.Rept. 109-125, 109th Cong. 1st sess., June 14, 2005, Wash., DC, 2005.
—— 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, Northern California
Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act [includes designating segments of the Black
Butte River in Mendocino County (CA) as a wild or scenic river], S.Rept. 109-47, 109th
Cong., 1st sess., March 30, 2005, Wash., DC, 2005.
—— Upper White Salmon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, S.Rept. 109-8, 109th Cong., 1st sess.,
Feb. 23, 2005, Wash., DC, 2005.

—— 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-15

---

IB10145
09-27-05
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 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-16

---