Order Code IB10141
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Recreation on Federal Lands
Updated March 8, 2006
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
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10141
03-08-06
Recreation on Federal Lands
SUMMARY
The growing and diverse nature of recre-
lands and waters. Regulatory actions restrict-
ation on federal lands has increased the chal-
ing use of these vehicles have been especially
lenge of balancing recreation with other land
controversial. The NPS currently is evaluat-
uses, and balancing different types of recre-
ing PWC and snowmobile use in several
ation. Motorized recreation has been particu-
areas. Service-wide management policies,
larly controversial, with issues centering on
including those encompassing motorized and
access and environmental impacts. The 109th
nonmotorized recreation, are being reviewed.
Congress is considering legislation and con-
ducting oversight on issues involving recre-
Aircraft Overflights. Grand Canyon
ation on federal lands, including traditional
National Park is at the center of a conflict over
recreational pursuits and newer forms of
whether to limit air tours over national parks
motorized recreation. The Administration is
to reduce noise. The NPS and the Federal
addressing these issues through budgetary,
Aviation Administration (FAA) continue to
regulatory, and other actions. The courts also
work to implement a 1987 law that sought to
may continue to intervene. Several prominent
reduce noise at Grand Canyon as well as a
issues are covered in this report.
2000 law that regulates overflights at other
park units. Recent regulations require air tour
Motorized Recreation in the National
operators to seek authority to fly over park
Forests and on BLM Land. The use of off-
units; the agencies then must develop Air
highway vehicles (OHVs) on Forest Service
Tour Management Plans at those park units.
(FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
lands has been particularly controversial.
The National Trails System. While
Both agencies decide the extent of allowed
designation of trails is often popular, issues
OHV use through their planning processes.
remain regarding funding, expansion, and
The FS finalized new regulations (Nov. 9,
quality of trails. The 109th Congress is consid-
2005) governing OHV use that require desig-
ering a variety of trail measures, including
nating roads, trails, and areas open for OHV
adding routes to the National Trail System,
use and prohibit OHV use outside the desig-
authorizing studies of routes for possible
nated system. The BLM issued a national
additions to the system, authorizing land
management strategy (2001) governing motor-
acquisitions from willing sellers, and creating
ized OHV use on BLM lands and is address-
new categories of trails. Legislation has been
ing related transportation issues through other
introduced to create a new category of trails,
national strategies. A July 13, 2005, House
called National Discovery Trails.
Resources joint subcommittee hearing exam-
ined motorized recreation use on federal
Other Issues. Other federal land recre-
lands.
ation issues of interest to the 109th Congress
include recreational uses within the National
Personal Watercraft and Snowmo-
Wildlife Refuge System, recreation at federal
biles. Personal watercraft (PWC) and snow-
water sites (Army Corps of Engineers and
mobile use in National Park Service (NPS)
Bureau of Reclamation), recreation fees, and
units has fueled debate over the balance be-
Grand Canyon Colorado River management.
tween recreation on, and protection of, park
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10141
03-08-06
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
! BLM is currently making off-highway vehicle (OHV) designations during
the planning process on an area-by-area basis.
! On February 15, 2006, the House Resources Committee, National Parks
Subcommittee, held a hearing on NPS Draft Management Policies,
including their potential impact on recreational uses.
! On February 24, 2006, NPS issued proposed rules to allow PWC use within
certain navigational channels at units of Gateway National Recreation Area.
! NPS is developing a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
managing winter recreational use, including snowmobiles and/or mass-
transit snowcoaches, at three Yellowstone area parks.
! The Government Accountability Office released a report on January 27,
2006 (GAO-06-263) on the impact of the delay in implementation of the Air
Tour Act.
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.
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. In 2005, DOI
experienced 461 million recreation visits: 58 million visits to 3,496 BLM recreational sites;
CRS-1

---

IB10141
03-08-06
273 million recreation visits to 388 NPS units; 40 million visits to 545 FWS wildlife refuges;
and 90 million visits to 308 Bureau of Reclamation recreation sites. (See
[http://www.doi.gov/budget/2007/07Hilites/DH53.pdf].) 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. In 2004,
OHV users accounted for between 11 and 12 million recreation visits to national forests and
grasslands. 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
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
CRS-2

---

IB10141
03-08-06
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 on the nature
and extent of land uses, including OHV use, through regulations, national policies, land and
resource management plans, and area-specific decisions. In 2004, the NPS conducted an
internal survey of current OHV use, authorized and unauthorized, and the extent of OHV
damage (if any) at all 388 NPS units to respond to concerns raised by Bluewater Network.
Currently, NPS is developing regulatory guidance and planning documents for individual
park units, and considering what elements of OHV management may best fit under a national
OHV management strategy. Meanwhile, on November 29, 2005, Bluewater Network and
two other conservation groups sued DOI and NPS over alleged OHV damage to park
resources.
The NPS also released draft Management Policies for public review through February
18, 2006 (70 Fed. Reg. 60852, Oct. 19, 2005; 70 Fed. Reg. 71557, Nov. 29, 2005), part of
ongoing efforts to review and revise policies guiding management throughout the national
park system, including changing recreational uses and evolving technologies. (See
[http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?projectId=13746&documentID=12825] for the
proposed Management Policies and an annotated comparison between the 2001 document
and current draft proposal.) 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 policies 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.
CRS-3

---

IB10141
03-08-06
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.
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. 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. 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 October 31, 2005, the following designations had been made: open, where OHV use is
permitted anywhere, 81.1 million acres; limited, where OHV use is in some way restricted,
126.7 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 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.
CRS-4

---

IB10141
03-08-06
BLM has issued two national strategies dealing with transportation on its lands. The
National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands
([http://www.blm.gov/ohv/]) 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). The National Mountain Bicycling Strategic
Action Plan ([http://www.blm.gov/mountain_biking/] addresses mountain bicycling and
other muscle-powered mechanical transport. Further, to guide BLM managers in taking
actions affecting recreation during FY2003-FY2007, in May 2003 BLM issued The BLM’s
Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services. The document 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.
BLM revised its land use planning handbook in 2005 regarding motorized and non-
motorized recreation. The agency 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. 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). Some pending
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
03-08-06
backpacking, etc. — while preserving the productivity of the lands. Most forms of recreation
use continue to grow, with OHV use among the fastest growing uses. (See Off-Highway
Vehicle Recreation in the United States, Regions and States (USDA-FS Southern Research
Station, June 2005), available on February 23, 2006, at [http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/
programs/ohv/OHV_final_report.pdf].)
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 has finalized new
regulations (70 Fed. Reg. 68264-68291, Nov. 9, 2005) to require that forest plans, as part of
travel management, identify a system of roads, trails, and areas designated for motorized
vehicle use, including OHVs. The regulations also prohibit the use of OHVs and other
motorized vehicles outside the designated system. Proposed directives to implement the new
regulation are expected to be published for public comment during 2006. Decisions
governing motorized uses are then to be made with public involvement at each of the 110
national forest planning units within the next four years.
Opinions are divided over the importance and impact of the 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] and “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.
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
03-08-06
Personal Watercraft (PWC) (by Kori Calvert)
Background. PWCs are high-speed, very shallow draft, and highly maneuverable
watercraft “operated by a person or persons sitting, standing, or kneeling on the vessel rather
than within the confines of the hull” (36 C.F.R. §1.4). Often used to perform stunt-like
maneuvers, PWCs include watercraft known by their brand and generic names as jet ski, sea
doo, surf jet, water sled, wavejammer, wetjet, waverunner, and wet bike. While PWCs
represent a small segment of the recreational boat market, the number of PWC accidents has
raised concerns. Critics of PWC use cite environmental issues, including noise, air, and
water pollution; damage to land, plants, and wildlife; and public safety. Supporters of access
for PWCs argue that technological advances will enable manufacturers to produce cleaner,
more efficient machines, and point to the economic benefits to communities serving users.
PWC users assert that in park units that allow motorized boating generally, PWCs also
should be allowed. Recent controversies have focused on regulatory actions that would
restrict recreational use or “access” of these vehicles, often in specific park units.
Administrative Actions. The NPS currently is evaluating PWC use in several of its
388 units. That effort began in 2000 when the agency issued a rule prohibiting PWC use in
66 of the 87 units where motorized boats were allowed (65 Fed. Reg. 15077, effective April
20, 2000). The rule allowed PWC use to continue until April 22, 2002, at the remaining 21
areas while the NPS evaluated whether to permanently authorize PWC use and develop
special regulations. The rule recognized that certain National Recreation Areas (NRAs),
such as Lake Mead and Glen Canyon, might choose to continue PWC use because their
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 ten designated areas: Lake Mead,
Glen Canyon (Lake Powell), Lake Meredith, Amistad, Lake Roosevelt, Chickasaw and
Bighorn Canyon NRAs; Assateague and Fire Island National Seashores; and Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshore. Six areas closed to PWCs are working on environmental reviews and
special regulations on PWC use. The NPS has proposed rules to allow PWCs in three: Gulf
Islands National Seashore (March 17, 2005), Cape Lookout National Seashore (Dec. 29,
2005), and Gateway NRA (Feb. 24, 2006). 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.
CRS-7

---

IB10141
03-08-06
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].) Witnesses discussed PWC recreational activity and management at NPS
units; the effects of PWC use on human health and safety, the environment, local businesses,
and other recreational activities; and industry emission- and sound-reduction technologies.
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.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/todo/winter/brimmer_order.pdf].) These conflicting
rulings created confusion for park visitors, local communities, and businesses, with many
unsure whether they could visit the park in winter and what winter use rules were in effect.
NPS issued a final rule (69 Fed.Reg. 65348, Nov. 10, 2004) to implement a temporary
winter use management plan for the two parks and connecting parkway, to be in effect for
three winter seasons, through 2006-2007. (See [http://www.nps.gov/yell/press/04114.htm].)
This interim rule allows up to 720 commercially guided Yellowstone snowmobile entries
daily. 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
CRS-8

---

IB10141
03-08-06
Available Technology (BAT) requirements to reduce snowmobile emissions and noise, but
no “adaptive management strategy” component.
The interim rule’s intent is to provide certainty to gateway communities, businesses, and
park visitors. December 2005 through January 2006 winter use statistics do show 39 percent
and 9 percent increases in snowmobile and snowcoach visitors, respectively, over the same
time period for the previous winter season. Snowfall levels, resistance to guided
snowmobiling, the increased availability of snowcoaches, and lingering uncertainty about
winter use rules may affect final winter use statistics. Meanwhile, the interim rule provides
NPS sufficient time to finish long-term environmental impact analyses of motorized
oversnow vehicles on the three area parks’ resources (including wildlife, the natural
soundscape, and emissions data), and to develop a new long-term plan to manage winter
recreational use. The NPS anticipates releasing a draft environmental impact statement (EIS)
evaluating alternative winter use scenarios, varying limits on mass-transit snowcoach and
snowmobile entries, and guiding and technology requirements by early fall 2006. (See
[http://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/winteruse/index.htm].)
Judicial proceedings also 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, calling it “...the best compromise currently
available.” (See [http://www.nps.gov/yell/technical/planning/winteruse/plan/wlraorder.pdf].)
(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. Such
routes or areas shall be designated 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 FY2005 and FY2006 Interior appropriations
legislation (P.L. 108-447 and P.L. 109-54) included language to ensure that judicial rulings
could not deny snowmobiles entry into the three Yellowstone area parks during the 2004-2005
and 2005-2006 winter use seasons, respectively.

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
CRS-9

---

IB10141
03-08-06
Grand Canyon that would provide a “substantial restoration of the natural quiet” and
prohibited flights below the canyon’s rim. It required an NPS study of the effects of all
aircraft overflights, which was submitted to Congress in 1994.
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (Title VIII, P.L. 106-181,
hereafter “Air Tour Act”) regulates commercial air tours at other park units. It requires the
FAA and NPS to create management plans for air tours at individual park units and within a
half-mile of their boundaries. Each plan could prohibit or limit air tours, such as by route and
altitude restrictions. The act also requires the FAA to establish “reasonably achievable”
requirements for quiet aircraft technology for the Grand Canyon within one year and to
designate, by rule, Grand Canyon routes or corridors for aircraft and helicopters using quiet
technology. Quiet aircraft would not be subject to existing caps on canyon overflights.
Administrative Actions. Several actions have been taken to achieve the substantial
restoration of natural quiet at Grand Canyon. First, a limitations rule capped the annual
number of commercial air tour overflights at Grand Canyon (65 Fed. Reg. 17708, effective
May 4, 2000). Second, the airspace rule expanded flight-free zones and restrictive routing
over the canyon. East end Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) airspace changes were delayed
until February 20, 2011 (71 Fed. Reg. 9439). Third, 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. Fourth, data on the
natural ambient sound level is being collected and 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 is being used to measure success in restoring natural quiet. Most recently, the
FAA and NPS published a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement on
options that could be taken to restore natural quiet at Grand Canyon (71 Fed. Reg. 4192, Jan.
25, 2006). There is a public comment period through April 27, 2006.
Other regulatory actions affect commercial air tours at park units. The Air Tour Act final
rule (67 Fed. Reg. 65661, Oct. 25, 2002) requires air tour operators to apply for authority to
fly over national park and abutting tribal lands. The FAA received applications for
commercial air tours over 107 of the 388 park units, and has granted interim operating
authority to applicants. 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
currently are developing their first ATMPs for six areas. On September 30, 2005, the FAA
and NPS released an implementation plan for the development of the ATMPs that sets out the
roles and responsibilities of the two agencies in developing ATMPs.
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report (GAO-06-263, Jan. 27, 2006)
addressed the impact of the delay in implementation of the Air Tour Act. The report
concludes that the delay has had little effect on park units, but has limited the ability of tour
operators to make major business decisions. The agency identified four issues for Congress
and the agencies to address to improve implementation, relating to the lack of flexibility for
CRS-10

---

IB10141
03-08-06
determining which parks need plans, an absence of NPS funding for plan development,
limited ability to verify and enforce the number of air tours, and inadequate FAA guidance
on the act’s safety requirements.
The FAA is developing a final rule to provide 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 air tour safety by requiring certification of 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
agency expects to issue a final rule by fall of 2006.
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. To date, general legislation on aircraft overflights has not been
introduced in the 109th Congress. P.L. 108-176 directed the Secretary of Transportation to
issue a final rule 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.
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. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages more
miles of National Historic Trails than any other federal agency. On February 13, 2006, the
BLM released its first National Scenic and Historic Trails Strategy and Work Plan for
congressionally-designated trails under its jurisdiction. The 10-year Plan provides guidance
to establish a coordinated and consistent trails-focused administrative infrastructure; develop
national policies to protect and sustain trail resources within BLM’s multiple-use mandate;
manage trail resources to enhance visitor experiences and promote “appropriate public
access;” and maintain and advance BLM’s partnerships with trail organizations and other
agencies. (See [http://www.blm.gov/nlcs/nsht/NSHTSWfinalSig.pdf].)
CRS-11

---

IB10141
03-08-06
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. 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.

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
Passed Senate
Referred to House
Resources
Committee
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. 1970
Hearing held
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
CRS-12

---

IB10141
03-08-06
Bill Number
Type
Title
Status
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
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 (reported on Dec. 6, 2005;
H.Rept. 109-320) applies only to Navassa and Desecheo. Supporters include radio operators
CRS-13

---

IB10141
03-08-06
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,
primarily at federal reservoirs. These agencies’ more than 4,000 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 often 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.)
Two authorization bills include changes to Corps recreation. The House version of a
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA, H.R. 2864) would adjust the existing user fee
authorization. The Senate version (S. 728) would make more extensive changes. One
provision of S. 728, which is similar to the Administration proposal from the FY2006 and
FY2007 budget requests, would require the Corps to implement 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 S. 728 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
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
CRS-14

---

IB10141
03-08-06
program supersedes the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (“Fee Demo”), which had
been controversial.
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, with particular 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 ever 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, the proportion of commercially
outfitted versus noncommercial, private boater access, 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 277-mile
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 November 8, 2005, the NPS released a new Colorado River Management Plan
([http://www.nps.gov/grca/crmp/]) governing 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. Historically, about 70% of river access permits have gone to commercial outfitters.
More than 7,000 private boaters are reported to be waiting for permits, a wait that can be more
than 10 years; the NPS has imposed a moratorium on any new additions to that list.
The new management plan alters 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. Both user groups are allowed longer trips in the spring
and fall. In addition, the waiting list is to be discontinued, phased-out and replaced by a
“hybrid weighted” lottery system. In January 2005, the two principal user groups had devised
joint compromise recommendations that proposed to allot more access for non-commercial
boaters; extend the commercial outfitter season; and continue the use of motors, mostly for
commercial outfitters. Environmental groups generally opposed the river users agreement and
say that the new management plan does not adequately protect park resources. A coalition
of environmental groups filed suit in federal court, February 16, 2006, to force a re-evaluation
of the government’s approach to ecosystem recovery.
CRS-15

---

IB10141
03-08-06
The NPS analyzed nearly 20,000 comments, and adopted some elements of the user
groups’ compromise in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The NPS is
expected to issue a Record of Decision (ROD) finalizing the new plan sometime this spring.
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. 1183 (Rahall)
Requires Interior Secretary to provide public recreational access to Navassa and
Desecheo NRWs, under certain specified conditions. Introduced March 9, 2005; referred to
Committee on Resources. Reported Dec. 6, 2005; H.Rept. 109-320.
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. Subcommittee hearing held October 27, 2005.
S. 974 (Allard); 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-16

---