Order Code IB10141
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Recreation on Federal Lands
Updated October 28, 2005
Kori Calvert, Coordinator
Knowledge Services Group
Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinator
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
Motorized Recreation
Overview of Issues
Current Issues
Motorized Recreation on BLM Land
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Motorized Recreation in the National Forests
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Personal Watercraft (PWC)
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Snowmobiles
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Aircraft Overflights
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
The National Trails System
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Other Issues
Recreation in the National Wildlife Refuge System
Recreation at Federal Water Sites
Recreation Fees
Grand Canyon Colorado River Management
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10141
10-28-05
Recreation on Federal Lands
SUMMARY
The growing and diverse nature of recre-
controversial. The NPS currently is evaluat-
ation on federal lands has increased the chal-
ing PWC and snowmobile use in several
lenge of balancing recreation with other land
areas. Service-wide management policies,
uses, and balancing different types of recre-
including those encompassing motorized and
ation. Motorized recreation has been particu-
nonmotorized forms of recreation, are being
larly controversial, with issues centering on
reviewed.
access and environmental impacts. The 109th
Congress is considering legislation and con-
Aircraft Overflights. Grand Canyon
ducting oversight on issues involving recre-
National Park is at the center of a conflict over
ation on federal lands, including traditional
whether to limit air tours over national parks
recreational pursuits and newer forms of
to reduce noise. The NPS and the Federal
motorized recreation. The Administration is
Aviation Administration (FAA) continue to
addressing these issues through budgetary,
work to implement a 1987 law that sought to
regulatory, and other actions. The courts also
reduce noise at Grand Canyon as well as a
may continue to intervene. Several prominent
2000 law that regulates overflights at other
issues are covered in this report.
park units. Recent regulations require air tour
operators to seek authority to fly over park
Motorized Recreation in the National
units; the agencies then must develop Air
Forests and on BLM Land. The use of off-
Tour Management Plans at those park units.
highway vehicles (OHVs) on Forest Service
Additionally, the FAA is developing regula-
(FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
tions to provide safety standards for commer-
lands has been particularly controversial.
cial air tours.
Both agencies decide the extent of allowed
OHV use through their planning processes.
The National Trails System. While
The FS proposed new regulations (July 15,
designation of trails is often popular, issues
2004) governing OHV use that would require
remain regarding funding, expansion, and
designation of areas open for OHV use and
quality of trails. The 109th Congress is consid-
prohibit OHV use outside designated areas.
ering a variety of trail measures, including
The BLM issued a national management
adding routes to the National Trail System,
strategy (2001) governing motorized OHV use
authorizing studies of routes for possible
on BLM lands and is addressing related trans-
additions to the system, authorizing land
portation issues through other national strate-
acquisitions from willing sellers, and creating
gies. A July 13, 2005, House Resources joint
new categories of trails. Legislation has been
subcommittee hearing examined motorized
introduced to create a new category of trails,
recreation use on federal lands.
called National Discovery Trails.
Personal Watercraft and Snowmo-
Other Issues. Other federal land recre-
biles. Personal watercraft (PWC) and snow-
ation issues of interest to the 109th Congress
mobile use in National Park Service (NPS)
include recreational uses within the National
units has fueled debate over the balance be-
Wildlife Refuge System, recreation at federal
tween recreation on, and protection of, park
water sites (Army Corps of Engineers and
lands and waters. Regulatory actions restrict-
Bureau of Reclamation), recreation fees, and
ing use of these vehicles have been especially
Grand Canyon Colorado River management.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10141
10-28-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
! BLM is currently making off-highway vehicle (OHV) designations during
the planning process on an area-by-area basis.
! On July 13, 2005, a House Resources joint subcommittee hearing examined
motorized recreation use on federal lands.
! On October 19, 2005, NPS released a draft Management Policies document
to update and revise current policies, including on recreational uses.
! On August 2, 2005, the president signed into law the FY2006 Interior
appropriations bill (H.R. 2361, P.L. 109-54). It includes language to ensure
that an NPS interim final rule allowing snowmobiles in three Yellowstone
area parks remains in effect throughout the 2005-2006 winter season.
! On October 14, 2005, Judge Clarence Brimmer, Federal District Court for
Wyoming, upheld the NPS interim rule limiting Yellowstone National
Park’s daily snowmobile entries to 720 and requiring that they be
commercially guided.
! On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed into law the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (P.L. 109-
59; SAFETEA-LU). It includes provisions reauthorizing and funding the
Recreational Trails Program through FY2009.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
Four federal agencies administer about 94% of the approximately 672 million acres of
federally owned land in the United States: the National Park Service (NPS), the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Department of
the Interior (DOI), and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture. The lands
these agencies administer are managed for a variety of purposes relating to the preservation,
development, and use of the lands and natural resources. The NPS administers the Park
System for recreational use of parklands and preservation of park resources, a mission that
can be contradictory. The FWS manages wildlife refuges primarily for protecting and
improving fish and wildlife habitats. The BLM manages public lands and the FS manages
national forests for similar multiple uses — grazing, recreation, timber, water, and fish and
wildlife. Most forests and public lands also are available for mineral exploration and
development. The National Trails System, administered by the FS, NPS, and BLM, often in
cooperation with state and local authorities, permits most recreation uses, but motorized
vehicles generally are prohibited. This preservation/use dichotomy, while varying among
agencies, is a focal point for debate over recreation on federal lands. Increased recreational
use, and charges of overuse in some areas, contribute to disagreement on issues of access,
regulation, integrity of natural and cultural resources, and motorized versus nonmotorized
recreational activities. Recreation debates also arise in areas managed by other federal
agencies, such as reservoirs and rivers managed by the Army Corps of Engineers (in the
Department of Defense) and the DOI’s Bureau of Reclamation, where decisions on water
releases may affect recreation.
CRS-1

---

IB10141
10-28-05
The growth and development of western states, proximity of many urban areas to public
lands, and growing popularity of outdoor recreation have translated into high demand for a
variety of recreational opportunities on federal lands and waters. Agency figures indicate an
overall increase in recreational visits to federal lands in recent decades. Recent DOI figures
show 67 million visits to 3,300 BLM recreational sites; 277 million recreation visits to 388
NPS units; 39 million visits to 544 FWS wildlife refuges; and 90 million visits to Bureau of
Reclamation recreation sites. (See [http://www.doiu.nbc.gov/orientation/tables_all.cfm].)
The Forest Service reports 211 million recreation visits to its national forests and grasslands,
and the Corps 400 million visits for the most recent year available.
Motorized Recreation
Over the last 40 years, new forms of motorized recreation — snowmobiles, personal
watercraft, other off-highway vehicles — and nonmotorized vehicles, such as mountain
bikes, have gained in popularity. For instance, there were roughly 7.6 million visitor days
of motorized recreation on BLM lands during FY2003. This figure includes off-highway
vehicle (OHV) use of all- terrain vehicles, dunebuggies, motorcycles, cars, trucks, and SUVs
as well as recreation involving powerboats, personal watercraft, and snowmobiles. These
new forms intersect with the many popular traditional forms of recreation. These include
water-based activities — fishing, canoeing, kayaking, rafting, etc. — and a variety of land-
based pursuits — birdwatching, camping, hiking, hunting, horseback riding, rock climbing,
skiing, etc. The use of motorized OHVs on federal lands and waters has been particularly
contentious, and lawsuits have challenged OHV management. OHV supporters argue that
these vehicles provide outdoor recreation opportunities for the disabled, senior citizens, and
others with mobility limitations; visitor access to hard-to-reach natural areas; economic
benefits to communities serving riders; and, for snowmobiles, increased access to sites
during the winter season. They believe technological advances do and will continue to limit
noise and pollution. Critics of OHVs raise environmental concerns, including the potential
for damage to land and water ecosystems and wildlife habitat; noise, air, and water pollution;
and a diminished experience for recreationists seeking quiet and solitude.
Two executive orders define and generally guide administering OHV use on federal
lands. The first (E.O. 11644, Feb. 8, 1972) defines an off-road vehicle, now commonly
referred to as an off-highway vehicle, as “any motorized vehicle designed for or capable of
cross country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland,
or other natural terrain,” with exceptions for any registered motorboat or authorized or
emergency vehicles. It was issued to “establish policies and provide for procedures that will
ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as
to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and
to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands.” The order directed each
agency head to develop and issue regulations to carry out this purpose and to provide for the
designation of areas and trails on which OHVs may be permitted, and areas in which such
vehicles would not be permitted. Agency heads were to monitor the effects of OHV use and
amend or rescind designations of areas or other actions taken pursuant to this order as needed
to further the policy of the executive order.
A subsequent executive order (E.O. 11989, May 24, 1977) amended the 1972 order to
exclude military, emergency, and law enforcement vehicles from the definition of off-road
vehicles (to which restrictions would apply). It provided authority to immediately close areas
CRS-2

---

IB10141
10-28-05
or trails if OHVs were causing or would cause considerable adverse effects on the soil,
vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural or historic resources of particular areas or
trails. Areas could remain closed until the manager determined that “the adverse effects have
been eliminated and that measures have been implemented to prevent future recurrence.”
Also, each agency head was authorized to adopt the policy that areas could be closed to OHV
use except for those areas or trails that are specifically designated as open to such use. This
meant that only open areas would have to be marked, a lesser burden on the agencies.
Overview of Issues
Federal land managers face a difficult task in managing lands to achieve multiple
purposes: to provide recreational opportunities for popular, but often conflicting, motorized
and nonmotorized recreational uses; to protect resources for future generations; and to
determine which lands should be open for development (e.g., timber harvesting, livestock
grazing, and energy development). BLM and FS managers formulate guidance, in some
cases, on the nature and extent of land uses, including OHV use, through regulations,
national policies, land and resource management plans, and area-specific decisions. The
NPS is developing regulatory guidance and planning documents for individual park units.
NPS also released draft Management Policies for a 90-day public review (70 Fed. Reg.
60852, October 19, 2005), part of ongoing efforts to review and revise policies guiding
management throughout the national park system, including changing recreational uses and
technology. (See [http://data2.itc.nps.gov/npspolicy/index.cfm] for current (2001) and
proposed Management Policies.) The draft language requires “balance” between
“conservation and enjoyment,” whereas current policy states that “conservation is to be
predominant” in conservation/enjoyment conflicts (sec. 1.4.3). The draft defines key
concepts (“conserve, preserve, protect,” “impairment,” “appropriate use,”and “unacceptable
impacts”). The proposed polices also revise language pertaining to soundscape management
(sec. 4.9), use of motorized equipment (sec. 8.2), and off-road vehicle use (sec. 8.2.3). The
extent to which these and other changes represent a shift in emphasis for management of
motorized and other recreation is uncertain.
The 109th Congress is considering legislation and conducting oversight on issues
pertaining to recreation on federal lands. Several major issues are covered in this report,
particularly motorized recreation on BLM and FS lands; use of personal watercraft and
snowmobiles in certain National Park System units; overflights of national park units; and
expansion of the National Trails System. Other issues addressed briefly cover recreation
within the National Wildlife Refuge System; recreation at federal (Corps and Bureau) water
sites; recreation fees; and Colorado River management within Grand Canyon National Park.
While this report focuses on recreation issues on federal lands, it does not cover
additional issues affecting these lands comprehensively. 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 use and protection issues is provided
in CRS Report RL32699, Natural Resources: Selected Issues for the 109th Congress,
coordinated by Nicole Carter and Carol Hardy Vincent. For information on NPS issues, see
CRS Issue Brief IB10145, National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
Information on BLM and Forest Service lands is contained in CRS Issue Brief IB10076,
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National Forests, coordinated by Ross W.
CRS-3

---

IB10141
10-28-05
Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent. For information on appropriations for federal land
management agencies, see CRS Report RL32893, Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent and Susan Boren.
Current Issues
Motorized Recreation on BLM Land (by Carol Hardy Vincent)
Background. BLM lands are used for diverse forms of recreation, including hunting,
fishing, visiting cultural and natural sites, birdwatching, hiking, picnicking, camping,
boating, mountain biking, and off-highway vehicle (OHV) driving. The growing and diverse
nature of recreation on BLM lands has increased the challenge of managing recreation and
other land uses, and managing different types of recreation. Access to BLM lands for a
variety of recreational purposes is viewed as important for fostering public health, public
support for land management, and a stable economic base for communities that depend on
recreation and tourism. It also has enhanced interest in protecting the ecological integrity of
federal lands from environmental harm as a result of recreational use.
Motorized OHV use, including use of dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles, is a major
recreational use of BLM lands. BLM attributes the growing popularity of OHV use on its
lands to a stronger public interest in unconfined outdoor recreation; rising disposable income;
technological developments making it possible for OHVs to reach remote areas; rapid
population growth in areas of the West; and an increasing median age with different
recreational interests. The use of OHVs on BLM lands has been controversial. While
motorized user groups often have opposed restrictions on OHV use, many environmentalists
have been concerned about harm to natural and cultural resources. In some areas, OHV use
may conflict with other types of recreation, such as hiking, that seek quiet and solitude on
agency lands. There are also differing views on how effectively OHV authorities are being
enforced. While BLM employs a variety of means of enforcement, including monitoring,
law enforcement, signing and mapping, and emergency closures of routes, enforcement may
be impeded in some locations due to their remoteness, insufficient signage, lack of sufficient
staff and resources, and other factors.
Administrative Actions. To manage the diverse recreation demands on its lands,
in May 2003 BLM issued The BLM’s Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services. The
document provides guidance to BLM managers in taking actions affecting recreation during
FY2003-FY2007. It contains three goals: to improve access for recreation; ensure a quality
experience; and provide for fair value in recreation — for instance, through collecting
appropriate fees for recreational uses. For each goal, it contains a variety of actions to be
undertaken. Goal 1 in particular addresses motorized recreation.
Guidance on OHV use on BLM lands is provided in law, executive orders, and agency
regulations and policies. Under agency regulations (43 C.F.R. 8340), BLM has been
designating public lands as open, limited, or closed to OHV use. As of June 6, 2005, the
following designations had been made: open, where OHV use is permitted anywhere, 82.5
million acres; limited, where OHV use is in some way restricted, 125.5 million acres; and
closed, where OHV use is prohibited, 11.6 million acres. The remaining 42.1 million acres
of BLM land (mostly in Alaska) are not currently designated. Other regulations govern OHV
CRS-4

---

IB10141
10-28-05
use in particular areas. For instance, on August 18, 2005, BLM issued final supplementary
rules for its lands in Oregon and Washington, which include guidance on OHV use. BLM
also makes OHV designations during the planning process, on an area-by-area basis, and
such designations often have been contentious and complex. Although the agency is in the
midst of a multi-year effort to develop and update land use plans, many plans do not
currently address OHV use and other relatively recent issues.
The FY2006 BLM budget justification describes BLM’s “most pressing challenge” as
“implementing a comprehensive approach to managing travel, OHVs, and public access
across the west” (p. III-123). BLM is addressing transportation on its lands, including OHV
use, through the development of three national strategies. First, in January 2001 BLM issued
a National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands.
(See [http://www.blm.gov/ohv/].) The strategy has multiple purposes, including to guide
land managers in resolving OHV issues; to promote consistency of OHV decision making;
to highlight needed staff and funding for OHV management; to reduce conflicts among land
users; to promote responsible OHV use and reduce habitat degradation; and to lead to an
update of OHV regulations (which has not occurred to date). Second, in November 2002,
BLM released a National Mountain Bicycling Strategic Action Plan (see
[http://www.blm.gov/mountain_biking/]). The third strategy, addressing other types of travel
on public lands, such as hiking and horseback riding, is in development.
In some cases, the BLM and FS jointly address OHV use on their lands. For instance,
an interagency plan governs OHV use on lands in Montana, North Dakota, and South
Dakota. Joint management approaches, where federal lands are intermingled, can promote
consistency and public understanding of OHV guidance. However, BLM and FS lands are
different, and they are governed by separate authorities, making complete consistency on
vehicular travel management difficult to achieve.
Legislative Activity. A July 13, 2005, House Resources joint subcommittee hearing
examined motorized recreational use on federal lands. (See [http://resourcescommittee.
house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/071305.htm].) Agency representatives discussed the increased
popularity of OHV use on federal lands, development and implementation of travel
management plans, and challenges of managing OHVs. Other witnesses testified on
availability of federal lands for OHV use, and the effects of OHV use on human health, the
economy, the environment, and other forms of recreation.
P.L. 109-54, the FY2006 Interior appropriations law, contained $66.1 million for
BLM’s recreation program, an increase of 9% over FY2005 ($60.6 million). Additionally,
some measures affect OHV use in particular areas. For instance, H.R. 3603 contains
provisions related to OHV use in Central Idaho. They include conveyance of BLM land to
the State of Idaho to establish a motorized recreation park, establishment of a special
management area on certain BLM and FS lands to provide opportunities for motorized and
other recreation, and authorization of up to $1.0 million for the Secretary of Agriculture to
grant to the State of Idaho for the off road motor vehicle program.

Motorized Recreation in the National Forests (by Ross Gorte)
Background. The national forests are managed by the USDA Forest Service (FS) for
a variety of uses, including many types of recreation — sightseeing, off-highway vehicle use,
CRS-5

---

IB10141
10-28-05
backpacking, etc. — while preserving the productivity of the lands. Most forms of recreation
use, including OHV use, continue to grow.
The various uses and values of the national forests sometimes conflict with one another.
For example, timber harvesting and OHV use may affect birdwatching and sightseeing, and
can degrade water quality in certain settings. Decisions about what uses are allowed, and
when and where, are made in comprehensive land and resource management plans prepared
for each unit of the National Forest System, and at the project level. Because of multiple
efforts to modify the planning regulations, many plan revisions were delayed. New planning
regulations (70 Fed. Reg. 1023, Jan. 5, 2005) have recently been finalized, and plan revisions
are now expected to proceed. (See [http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index2.html].)
Administrative Actions. Federal guidance on OHV use in E.O. 11644 and E.O.
11989 was incorporated into FS regulations, at 36 C.F.R. Part 295. Despite this guidance,
not all forest plans have identified areas as open or closed to OHVs, and local practices as
to OHV use vary. On January 16, 2004, in a speech at the Idaho Environmental Forum, FS
Chief Dale Bosworth identified threats to the health of the nation’s forests and grasslands.
One is unmanaged recreation — the “increasing use of the national forests for outdoor
activities ... , including the use of off-highway vehicles.” In particular, OHV users have
created a large number of unauthorized roads and trails, which involved no planning and are
often unsafe and damaging to other resources.1 In response, the FS proposed new regulations
(69 Fed. Reg. 42391-42395, July 15, 2004) to require, as part of travel management within
forest planning, identifying a system of roads, trails, and areas designated for motorized
vehicle use, including OHVs. The proposed regulations also would prohibit use of OHVs
and other motorized vehicles outside the designated system. Decisions governing motorized
uses are to be made with public involvement at each of the 110 national forest planning units.
Opinions are divided over the importance and impact of the proposed regulations.
Some interest groups assert that the regulations do not go far enough, preferring that all OHV
uses be prohibited in the national forests, because OHVs can (and sometimes do) damage
the lands and resources protected in national forests. Others counter that the regulations are
inappropriate, because they penalize the majority of OHV users that obey the current rules
and restrict off-highway uses at a time when other landowners and other federal and state
agencies are reducing recreational access to their lands.
Legislative Activity. On July 13, 2005, two subcommittees of House Resources held
a joint hearing to examine motorized recreation use on federal lands. (See [http://
resourcescommittee.house.gov/ archives/109/nprpl/071305.htm].) (See “Legislative
Activity” under previous section on BLM.” To date, no comprehensive legislation
addressing OHV use in national forests generally has been introduced in the 109th Congress.
Personal Watercraft (PWC) (by Kori Calvert)
Background. PWCs are high-speed, very shallow draft, and highly maneuverable
watercraft “operated by a person or persons sitting, standing, or kneeling on the vessel rather
1 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Unmanaged Motorized Recreation, at [http://www.fs.
fed.us/publications/policy-analysis/unmanaged-recreation-position-paper.pdf] on Feb. 8, 2005.
CRS-6

---

IB10141
10-28-05
than within the confines of the hull” (36 C.F.R. §1.4). Often used to perform stunt-like
maneuvers, PWCs include watercraft known by their brand and generic names as jet ski, sea
doo, surf jet, water sled, wavejammer, wetjet, waverunner, and wet bike. While PWCs
represent a small segment of the recreational boat market, the number of PWC accidents has
raised concerns. Critics of PWC use cite environmental issues, including noise, air, and
water pollution; damage to land, plants, and wildlife; and public safety. Supporters of access
for PWCs argue that technological advances will enable manufacturers to produce cleaner,
more efficient machines, and point to the economic benefits to communities serving users.
PWC users assert that in park units that allow motorized boating generally, PWCs also
should be allowed. Recent controversies have focused on regulatory actions that would
restrict recreational use or “access” of these vehicles, often in specific park units.
Administrative Actions. The NPS currently is evaluating PWC use in several of its
388 units. That effort began in 2000 when the agency issued a rule prohibiting PWC use in
66 of the 87 units where motorized boats were allowed (65 Fed. Reg. 15077, effective April
20, 2000). The rule allowed PWC use to continue until April 22, 2002, at the remaining 21
areas while the NPS evaluated whether to permanently authorize PWC use and develop
special regulations. The rule recognized that certain National Recreation Areas (NRAs),
such as Lake Mead and Glen Canyon, might choose to continue PWC use because their
establishing legislation emphasized motorized water-based recreation as a primary purpose.
An April 2001 negotiated settlement of a lawsuit by Bluewater Network and Earth Island
Institute over the PWC rule prohibited PWCs from the 21 areas unless the Park Service
initiated park-specific rules and environmental analyses. PWCs could continue to operate
during the rulemaking process, which was to be completed by specified deadlines.
The NPS has been working on such park-specific rules and analyses for the 21 areas.
The NPS has lifted PWC bans and authorized their use in nine designated areas: Lake Mead,
Glen Canyon (Lake Powell), Lake Meredith, Amistad, Lake Roosevelt, Chickasaw and
Bighorn Canyon NRAs, and Assateague and Fire Island National Seashores. Seven of the
areas currently closed to PWCs are working on environmental reviews and special
regulations on PWC use. The NPS has proposed rules to allow PWCs in two: Pictured
Rocks National Lakeshore (November 15, 2004) and Gulf Islands National Seashore (March
17, 2005). The agency prohibited PWC use in another 5 of the 21 areas (effective April 22,
2002) that had completed an environmental review process and favored PWC bans: the Cape
Cod and Cumberland Island National Seashores, Delaware Water Gap and Whiskeytown
NRAs, and Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.

Draft NPS Management Policies include revisions concerning PWCs (sec. 8.2.3.3). The
draft replaces existing language stating that “(PWC) use is prohibited unless it has been
identified as appropriate for a specific park” and consistent with visitor use criteria (sec. 8.2),
with revised wording stating that “(PWC) use may be permitted through special regulations
and when this use has been identified as appropriate for a specific park.” Whether these
changes would have a substantive impact on PWC management is unclear.
Legislative Activity. In the 109th Congress, on May 4, 2005, the House Resources
Committee, Subcommittee on National Parks, conducted an oversight hearing on PWC use
in the National Park System. (See [http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/
050405.htm].)
CRS-7

---

IB10141
10-28-05
Snowmobiles (by Kori Calvert)

Background. Proposals to regulate recreational snowmobile use in NPS units have
been controversial, with debate often mirroring the preservation/use conflict inherent in the
NPS mission. On April 27, 2000, the NPS announced the strict enforcement of long-standing
regulations on snowmobile use, which would have prohibited recreational snowmobiling
throughout the Park System. Limited exceptions to this new enforcement policy included
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, park units in Alaska, Voyageurs National Park
(MN), and access to private land within or adjacent to a park. By July 2000, the Interior
Department had backed away from its strict enforcement stance with a clarification:
snowmobiles would not be banned in the 43 park units permitting such use prior to the April
2000 announcement, pending formal rulemaking and public comment period. To date, NPS
has taken no further action on a general policy for snowmobiles.
Administrative Actions. Since the summer of 2000, regulatory and judicial actions
to restrict or allow snowmobile use have centered on Yellowstone and Grand Teton National
Parks and the connecting John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway. The Clinton
Administration issued final rules (66 Fed. Reg. 7260, Jan. 22, 2001) to incrementally
eliminate snowmobile use in these three park units, with limited exceptions, in favor of
multi-passenger “snowcoaches” by the 2003-2004 winter season. However, on June 29,
2001, the Bush Administration settled a lawsuit, filed by the International Snowmobile
Manufacturers Association (ISMA) and the state of Wyoming, requiring NPS to revisit the
snowmobile ban and consider any additional information on “cleaner, quieter” snowmobile
technology. The new NPS final rule (68 Fed. Reg. 69267, Dec. 11, 2003) reversed the
snowmobile ban in favor of daily entry limits, use of trained guides, snowmobile emission
standards, and an “adaptive management strategy” allowing park managers to take remedial
action if monitoring indicates unacceptable impacts from air and noise pollution.
Subsequent legal challenges effectively split the 2003-2004 winter season into two sub-
seasons, each managed under different rules with significantly different limits on daily
snowmobile entries. (See [http://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/winteruse/12_16opinion.pdf]
and [http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/wyoming/district/pdfforms/00cv229b.pdf].) The two
conflicting rulings created confusion for park visitors, local communities, and businesses,
with many unsure whether they could visit the park in winter and what winter use rules were
in effect.
NPS issued a final rule (69 Fed.Reg. 65348, Nov. 10, 2004) to implement a temporary
winter use management plan for the two parks and connecting parkway to be in effect for
three winter seasons, through 2006-2007, while NPS prepares a new long-term winter use
plan. (See [http://www.nps.gov/yell/press/04114.htm].) Effective December 10, 2004, the
interim rule allows up to 720 commercially guided Yellowstone snowmobile entries daily
during winter seasons while NPS monitors snowmobile impacts on park resources and
develops a new long-range winter use plan and rule. Commercial guides are not required for
the 140 daily snowmobile entries to Grand Teton and the Rockefeller Parkway. The plan
includes, with limited exceptions, Best Available Technology (BAT) requirements for
snowmobiles to reduce emissions and noise, but no “adaptive management strategy”
component. Meanwhile, NPS solicited comments on issues and alternatives the public
would like to see addressed in the new winter plan during a public scoping period concluded
CRS-8

---

IB10141
10-28-05
September 1, 2005. The next step is NPS preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), anticipated for release with a 60-day public comment period in Spring 2006.
A provision in the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447, enacted
Dec. 8, 2004) sought to ensure that the NPS interim final rule allowing snowmobiles in the
three park units would be in force throughout the 2004-2005 winter use season ending March
13, 2005. Its purpose was to provide stability for recreational snowmobilers and gateway
community businesses by ensuring that any judicial rulings limiting snowmobiles in these
parks must be deferred until the 2005-2006 season. The FY2006 Interior appropriations
legislation (H.R. 2361, P.L. 109-54) includes a similar provision covering the 2005-2006
winter season. Meanwhile, judicial proceedings continue. On October 14, 2005, Judge
Clarence Brimmer, Federal District Court for Wyoming, ruled against the Wyoming Lodging
and Restaurant Association’s challenge of the NPS interim rule on daily snowmobile limits
in the three Yellowstone area parks and commercial guiding requirements. The judge called
the interim rule “...the best compromise currently available.” (For background information
on snowmobiles in park units generally, see CRS Report RL31149, Snowmobiles:
Environmental Standards and Access to National Parks, by James E. McCarthy.)
The recently released NPS draft Management Policies add new language to cover both
snowmobiles and oversnow vehicles (sec. 8.2.3.2). It states that “Routes and areas may be
designated for snowmobile and oversnow vehicle use by special regulation on routes and
water surfaces that are used by motor vehicles or motorboats during other seasons....only
when determined to be an appropriate use.”

Legislative Activity. On April 12, 2005, a House Resources subcommittee held an
oversight hearing on snowmobile use and restrictions in the National Park System and their
economic impact on local communities. (See [http://resourcescommittee.house
.gov/archives/109/nprpl/041205.htm].) Also, the FY2006 Interior appropriations law (P.L.
109-54) includes language to prevent lawsuits from denying snowmobiles entry to the three
Yellowstone area parks during the 2005-2006 winter season.

Aircraft Overflights (by Carol Hardy Vincent and Kori Calvert)
Background. The NPS is to provide for the public enjoyment of parklands while
protecting resources, while the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) controls airspace and
aircraft overflights. This has created a conflict between resource management and aviation
access authorities and their constituencies. Grand Canyon National Park has been the focal
point of a conflict between groups seeking to limit overflights of national parks due to
concerns about noise and safety, and air tour operators whose economic stability, with ripple
effects on local businesses, may depend on providing overflights. The National Parks
Overflights Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-91) directed NPS to recommend a flight control plan for
Grand Canyon that would provide a “substantial restoration of the natural quiet” and
prohibited flights below the canyon’s rim. It required an NPS study of the effects of all
aircraft overflights, which was submitted to Congress in 1994.
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (Title VIII, P.L. 106-181,
hereafter “Air Tour Act”) regulates commercial air tours at other park units. It requires the
FAA and NPS to create management plans for air tours at individual park units and within a
half-mile of their boundaries. Each plan could prohibit or limit air tours, such as by route and
CRS-9

---

IB10141
10-28-05
altitude restrictions. The act also requires the FAA to establish “reasonably achievable”
requirements for quiet aircraft technology for the Grand Canyon within one year and to
designate, by rule, Grand Canyon routes or corridors for aircraft and helicopters using quiet
technology. Quiet aircraft would not be subject to existing caps on canyon overflights.
Administrative Actions. Three FAA actions affecting Grand Canyon have been
controversial. First, a limitations rule capped the annual number of commercial air tour
overflights at Grand Canyon (65 Fed. Reg. 17708, effective May 4, 2000). The air tour
industry has sought exemptions to air tour caps, curfews, and air route restrictions if quiet
aircraft technology is used. Second, the airspace rule expanded flight-free zones and
restrictive routing over the canyon. To address safety concerns, east end Special Flight Rules
Area (SFRA) airspace changes have been delayed until February 20, 2006 (68 Fed. Reg.
9496). Third, in response to the Air Tour Act, the FAA issued a final rule establishing a
standard for quiet technology for certain aircraft in commercial air tour operations over Grand
Canyon (70 Fed. Reg. 16084, March 29, 2005). The rule identifies which aircraft meet the
standard. In future rulemaking, the FAA will address the establishment of routes or corridors
for commercial air tour operations that use the quiet technology. The goal is to achieve the
substantial restoration of natural quiet at Grand Canyon.
Grand Canyon National Park currently is collecting data on the natural ambient sound
level. The data will be used, together with air tour reported flight operations data and radar
tracking data, to model air tour traffic and aircraft noise at the park. The model will be used
to measure success in restoring natural quiet at Grand Canyon.
Other regulatory actions affect commercial air tours at park units. The FAA issued an
Air Tour Act final rule (67 Fed. Reg. 65661, Oct. 25, 2002) that requires air tour operators to
apply for authority to fly over national park and abutting tribal lands. The FAA is to grant
interim operating authority to applicants, and that interim authority was published in the
Federal Register on June 23, 2005, to provide notice and an opportunity for comment through
October 31, 2005. The FAA received applications for operating authority for commercial air
tours over 107 of the 388 park units. Application triggers development of an Air Tour
Management Plan (ATMP) by the FAA and NPS for each unit where none exists. (See
[http://www.atmp.faa.gov/default.htm].) The purpose of a plan is to mitigate or prevent any
harm by commercial air tours to natural and cultural resources, visitor experiences, and tribal
lands. Development of an ATMP requires an environmental analysis under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, U.S.C. § 4321-4370f). The FAA and NPS are
developing their first ATMPs for six areas.
Using an air tour safety rule for Hawaii (SFAR 71, continued by 68 Fed. Reg. 60832) as
a model, on October 22, 2003, the FAA proposed providing safety standards for commercial
air tours nationally, including over Grand Canyon and other park units (68 Fed. Reg. 60572).
The proposed rule seeks to increase the safety of tours by requiring certification of air tour
operators and by establishing safety standards, including regarding low-level flights, over-
water flights, and visibility limits. Opponents assert that the cost of compliance would make
it infeasible for many to continue operating, existing regulations are sufficient to keep tours
safe, and the proposed merger of helicopter and airplane traffic increases the chance of
collisions. The FAA is developing a final rule.
CRS-10

---

IB10141
10-28-05
As part of an overall review of its management policies, the NPS has proposed changes
on overflights and aviation uses (sec. 8.4) and on soundscape management (sec. 4.9). One
proposal would delete existing language stating that the NPS “will preserve, to the greatest
extent possible, the natural scoundscapes of parks.” Another change would replace “adverse
effects” of overflights with “unacceptable impacts” in a number of places. Such changes
could be regarded as having a substantive effect on management of overflights.
Legislative Activity. P.L. 108-176 directed the Secretary of Transportation to issue
a final rule, no later than January 2005, establishing standards for quiet technology that are
reasonably achievable at Grand Canyon. The FAA issued the final rule on March 29, 2005.
The law also established a mediation process for rulemaking disputes. Conferees stated that
they were “greatly disappointed with the lack of progress” in managing the noise in parks
from air tours, and directed the agencies to develop ATMPs expeditiously and collaboratively
and to determine environmental impacts of air tours. A 108th Congress subcommittee hearing
addressed implementation of the Air Tour Act.
The National Trails System (by Sandra L. Johnson)
Background. The National Trails System Act (P.L. 90-543), authorizing the National
Trails System (NTS), became law on October 2, 1968. (See [http://www.nps.gov/nts/].) The
federal portion of the trails system consists of 24 national trails (8 scenic trails and 16 historic
trails, both of which must be designated by Congress) covering almost 50,000 miles, more
than 900 recreation trails, and 2 connecting and side trails. More than 35 years since the trails
system began, issues remain regarding funding and the quality and quantity of trails.
Administrative Actions. On June 3, 2005, the Secretary of the Interior announced
the designation of 37 new National Recreation Trails. Since 2001, the Bush Administration
has designated 128 National Recreation Trails, totaling more than 3,400 miles. These
designations do not require an act of Congress and are part of an ongoing effort to promote
community partnerships and to foster innovative ways to encourage physical fitness.
Legislative Activity. Many trail projects became eligible to receive federal highway
program funds with the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 (ISTEA; P.L. 102-240), reauthorized as the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21, P.L. 105-178). The Recreational Trails Program (RTP), originally a six-
year program authorized under ISTEA and reauthorized under TEA-21, provides funds to
states to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for motorized and
nonmotorized recreational trail uses. TEA-21 was to expire on September 30, 2003.
However, Congress has enacted several extensions to continue funding for highway programs;
the most recent extension (P.L. 109-42) provided funding through August 14, 2005.
On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed into law the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (P.L. 109-59, SAFETEA-LU).
SAFETEA-LU authorizes funds for the Recreational Trails Program at $370 million over five
years ($60 million for FY2005, $70 million for FY2006, $75 million for FY2007, $80 million
for FY2008, and $85 million for FY2009). The measure sets a specified level of $840,000
annually for administrative expenses.
CRS-11

---

IB10141
10-28-05
S. 54, which has passed the Senate and been referred to the House Resources Committee,
would require the Secretary of the Interior to update the feasibility and suitability studies of
adding new routes to the Oregon, Mormon, California, and Pony Express National Historic
Trails. Several of the routes and cutoffs proposed for study are already a part of one or
another of these designated trails. Designation of new routes to the system requires
subsequent legislation.
On February 9, 2005, H.R. 690 was introduced to amend the National Systems Trails Act
by adding National Discovery Trails as a new category of long-distance trails, and by
designating the American Discovery Trail (ADT) as the nation’s first coast-to-coast National
Discovery Trail. The ADT would connect several national scenic, historic, and recreation
trails, as well as many other local and regional trails.
Measures introduced in the 109th Congress to designate, study, or extend specific
components of the National Trails System are shown in the following table. The table
includes bills that could involve management by the NPS or other agencies. Bills related to
the system more generally are listed in the “Legislation” section. Also, on July 26, 2005, the
House Resources subcommittee on National Parks conducted an oversight hearing on the
implementation of the National Trails System Act. Issues covered by agency and other
witnesses include trail designations, maintenance, and management; land acquisitions; private
landowner concerns; and public-private initiatives and collaborative efforts. (See
[http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/072605.htm].)
Bill Number
Type
Title
Status
H.R. 690
Desig.
National Discovery Trails Act
Introduced
H.R. 1250
Study
Arizona Trail Feasibility Study Act
Introduced
S. 588
Hearing held
H.R. 2053
Desig.
Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail
Introduced
S. 958
Senate calendar
H.R. 1796
Study
Mississippi River Trail Study Act
Introduced
H.R. 2964
Study
Chisholm Trail and Great Western Trail
Introduced
H.R. 3085
Study
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail
Introduced
S. 54
Study
Amends the National Trails System Act to require
Passed Senate
Extend
the Secretary of the Interior to update the
Referred to House
feasibility and suitability studies of four national
Resources
historic trails, and for other purposes
Committee
H.R. 2361
Study
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic
P.L. 109-54
H.R. 2588
Watertrail
Introduced
S. 336
Hearing held
H.R. 3615
Study
1855 Treaty Trail
Introduced
CRS-12

---

IB10141
10-28-05
Other Issues
The 109th Congress may evaluate several other recreation issues affecting federal land
through legislation or oversight. These include recreation within the National Wildlife Refuge
System; recreation at federal water sites (Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of
Engineers), either site-specific or in general; recreation fees; and Grand Canyon Colorado
River management.
Recreation in the National Wildlife Refuge System. (by M. Lynne Corn) The
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is dedicated primarily to conserving animals and
plants. Other uses — hunting, fishing, recreation, timber harvest, grazing, etc. — are
permitted only to the extent that they are compatible with the purposes for which the
individual refuges were created. Some have characterized the NWRS as intermediate in
protection between the BLM and FS lands on the one hand and NPS lands on the other, but
this is not entirely accurate. The NWRS resembles the FS or BLM lands in allowing some
commercial uses, but in certain cases, uses (e.g., public access) can be substantially more
restricted than for NPS lands. For example, some refuges (especially island refuges for nesting
seabirds) may be closed to the public — more restrictive than for an NPS area, given the NPS
mandate to provide for public enjoyment of park resources.
Recreational conflicts within the NWRS were more frequent before the 1997 enactment
of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (P.L.105-57; 16 U.S.C. 668dd).
A key provision of this law designates “compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses
involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental
education and interpretation as priority public uses of the refuge system.” It also requires that
priority public uses must “receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses in
planning and management within the System.” The law continues the statutory policy that
activities that are not wildlife-dependent (e.g., grazing, growing hay, etc.) may be permitted,
provided they are wildlife-compatible. Final regulations for determining compatibility were
published on October 18, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 62457). Some interest groups argued that the
regulations did not allow for sufficient public access for some forms of recreation, such as use
of off-road vehicles or personal watercraft. Others felt that the regulations struck a proper
balance among user groups.
A recent controversy concerns applications for amateur radio operators to have access
to three remote island refuges (Farallon, Navassa, and Desecheo) to transmit from these
locations. To protect the refuges’ seabird colonies and vegetation, FWS does not allow access
or consider radio transmission a priority or compatible use. Two bills would require the
Interior Secretary to open these refuges for at least one period each year under special use
permits. H.R. 298 applies to the three refuges, while H.R. 1183 (which has been ordered
reported) applies to Navassa and Desecheo. Supporters include radio operators but also those
who favor wider public access to federal lands in general. Opposition includes scientists and
environmental groups based on risk to the colonies through human interference, introduction
of invasive species, and precedent for wider access to sensitive islands.
Recreation at Federal Water Sites. (by Nicole Carter) In addition to land-based
recreation, the nation’s waters provide a variety of recreational opportunities. Much of the
recreation on federally owned or managed waters and adjacent lands occurs at U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (in the Department of Defense) and Bureau of Reclamation (in DOI) sites,
CRS-13

---

IB10141
10-28-05
primarily at federal reservoirs. These agencies’ 4,300 recreation areas attract nearly 500
million visits per year (400 million at Corps-managed areas; 90 million at Bureau sites).
While these federal reservoirs often are operated primarily for irrigation, navigation,
hydropower, and/or flood control, they also provide recreation and other benefits. Reservoir
operations can be contentious because decisions on water releases represent tradeoffs among
the multiple reservoir and river uses and among different types of recreation, such as
birdwatching, boating, fishing, hunting, sightseeing, swimming, and whitewater activities.
Although there is no central water recreation issue, the 109th Congress is considering
questions related to the maintenance of recreational facilities under constraints on recreational
spending, relative priority of multiple reservoir uses, and policies for recreational
development and land use at Corps and Bureau projects. Congress also may oversee the
Bureau’s implementation of a recreation fee authority and may consider changes to the
Bureau’s limited authority to manage for recreation. Discussions on the timing of water
releases at the Bureau’s Glen Canyon Dam for water supply and recreation in the Grand
Canyon are likely to continue. (See “Grand Canyon Colorado River Management,” below.)
The President’s FY2006 budget proposed a Corps recreation initiative. First, the
Administration proposed that the Corps have authority to collect entrance fees in addition to
the user fees it already collects; some other agencies providing recreational services collect
entrance fees. Second, the Administration proposed a Corps program for a limited number
of demonstration projects to modernize facilities through partnerships with local communities
and private entities. No mention of these proposals was made in S.Rept. 109-84 or H.Rept.
109-86 for the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of FY2006 (H.R. 2419),
which funds the Corps’ civil works program.2
Two authorization bills include changes to Corps recreation. H.R. 2864, Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2005, would adjust the existing user fee
authorization, while the proposals in S. 728, WRDA 2005, would make more extensive
changes. Section 2004 of S. 728 includes recreation-related provisions. One provision, which
is similar to the Administration’s proposal, would require that the Corps implement a
recreation admission fees. User and admission fees collected would be available directly to
the Corps. This contrasts with the deposit into general Treasury accounts of current
collections from Corps user fees. A second provision in §2004 would allow the Corps to
enter into a contract with public or private entities to provide visitor services.
Recreation Fees. (by Carol Hardy Vincent) The 108th Congress established a new
recreation fee program for the four major federal land management agencies (NPS, BLM,
FWS, and FS) as well as the Bureau of Reclamation. Provisions of P.L. 108-447 (Division
J, Title VIII) provide guidance on establishing entrance, standard, expanded, and special
recreation permit fees. They outline criteria for establishing fees, and prohibit charging fees
for certain activities or services. The law provides for public input in setting fees, including
establishing Recreation Resource Advisory Committees to make fee recommendations. It
authorizes the creation of an interagency national recreation pass and of regional multi-entity
2 The Senate report included language rejecting a change proposed by the Administration to the
periodic sand nourishment policies for Corps coastal storm damage reduction projects. The report
emphasized the economic significance of beach tourism.
CRS-14

---

IB10141
10-28-05
passes. Each agency can spend the revenue collected without further appropriation. In
general, not less than 80% of the fees are to be spent at the collecting site, but that amount can
be reduced to not less than 60%. The balance of the collections is available to be used
agency-wide. The collections can be used for specified purposes, such as repair, maintenance,
and facility enhancement. The agencies are to report to Congress on the program every three
years, and the program is to terminate 10 years after enactment. The new recreation fee
program supersedes the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (“Fee Demo”), begun in
1996 as a three-year trial but extended several times. The Fee Demo program was
controversial, and the new program, authorized on December 8, 2004, sought to eliminate
some of these concerns.
DOI and the Department of Agriculture are implementing the new law. They are
developing long-term fee guidance and the America the Beautiful Pass, which will cover
entrance and standard fees for the five agencies. During the transition to the new program,
the agencies have agreed that existing passes will be honored, no new fee areas will be
created, and existing fees will be evaluated against the criteria and prohibitions set out in the
new law. The 109th Congress is overseeing agency efforts to establish, collect, and spend
recreation fees under the new program. On February 17, 2005, a Senate subcommittee held
a hearing on NPS implementation of the program, with a focus on the development of the
America the Beautiful Pass. On October 26, 2005, a Senate subcommittee held a hearing on
the implementation of the new fee program.
Grand Canyon Colorado River Management. (by David Whiteman) The NPS
has regulated recreational use of the Colorado River inside Grand Canyon National Park since
the 1970s, particularly with respect to river running boat trips, in order to protect river
resources and ensure a high-quality visitor experience. This is a prime example of how
recreational pastimes that push deeper into pristine backcountry areas of national parks have
increased the resource management challenges of many popular parks. Decades of conflict
have ensued over motorized boating on the Colorado River and the use of helicopters to ferry
commercial boating passengers in and out of the canyon. These activities have been opposed
by environmental groups favoring the preservation of wilderness-like values in the river
corridor. Commercial outfitters for river trips favor access for motorized boating on the
grounds that this long-standing use does not harm resources, and is the only practical way to
offer short-duration trips.
On October 1, 2004, the NPS released the draft of a new Colorado River Management
Plan ([http://www.nps.gov/grca/crmp/]) that will govern recreational river use for 10 or more
years. Currently, Colorado River recreational use is divided between two primary user groups:
professionally outfitted commercial concessioners and non-commercial, self-guided private
boaters. More than 8,000 private boaters are reported to be waiting for permits, a wait that
can be more than 10 years, and the NPS has imposed a moratorium on any new additions to
that list. The proposed management plan would alter the existing ratio of river access between
the two groups, reallocating more access to the self-outfitted sector and restricting commercial
motorized trips to a shorter season. On January 25, 2005, the two principal user groups
announced joint compromise recommendations that propose to allot more access for non-
commercial boaters; extend the commercial outfitter season six additional weeks to spread
out impacts; and continue the use of motors, mostly for commercial outfitters. (See
[http://www.gcroa.org/pdf/joint%20recommendations%20-%20final.pdf].) Environmental
groups generally oppose the river users reported agreement.
CRS-15

---

IB10141
10-28-05
Public comment on the draft plan ended February 1, 2005, and was considerable. The
NPS is analyzing nearly 20,000 comments, and determining whether to adopt any elements
from the user groups’ compromise in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The
NPS planning team leader anticipates a November 2005 FEIS release date for publication in
the Federal Register.
LEGISLATION
P.L. 109-59, H.R. 3 (Young, Don); S. 732 (Inhofe)
Authorizes funds for federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit
programs, and the Recreational Trails Program. Enacted August 10, 2005 (P.L. 109-59).
H.R. 1261 (Ryun)
Amends the National Trails System Act to improve the efficiency and fairness of
acquiring railroad rights-of-way for interim use as public trails by applying the procedures
applicable to other federal real estate acquisitions. Introduced March 10, 2005; referred to
Committee on Resources.

H.R. 3603 (Simpson)
Includes provisions related to motorized recreation on BLM and FS lands in Central
Idaho. Introduced July 28, 2005; referred to Committee on Resources.
S. 974 (Sarbanes); H.R. 2332 (Beauprez)
Amends the Nationals Trails System Act to clarify federal authority related to land
acquisition from willing sellers for the majority of the trails in the system. S. 974 introduced
April 28, 2005; referred to Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. H.R. 2332
introduced May 12, 2005; referred to Committee on Resources.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
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 RS22171, Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Issue Brief IB10145, National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL31149, Snowmobiles: Environmental Standards and Access to National
Parks, by James E. McCarthy.
CRS Issue Brief IB10019, Western Water Resource Issues, by Betsy A. Cody and Pervaze A.
Sheikh.
CRS-16

---