Order Code RL33484
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
National Park Management
June 9, 2006
Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinator, and Ross W. Gorte
Specialists in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Susan Boren
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Sandra L. Johnson
Information Research Specialist
Knowledge Services Group
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
National Park Management
Summary
The 109th Congress is considering legislation and conducting oversight on
National Park Service (NPS) related topics. The Administration is addressing park
issues through budgetary, regulatory, and other actions. Earlier Congresses and
Administrations also have dealt with similar issues. While this report focuses on
several key topics, others may be added if circumstances warrant.
Historic Preservation. The NPS administers the Historic Preservation Fund
(HPF), which provides grants to states and other entities to protect cultural resources.
Congress provides annual appropriations for the HPF, and views differ as to whether
to retain the federal role in financing the fund or to rely exclusively on private
support. Legislation has been introduced to reauthorize the HPF, and the Senate
measure (S. 1378) has been reported from committee.
Maintenance Backlog. Attention has focused on the NPS’s maintenance
backlog, estimated by DOI at between $5.80 billion and $12.42 billion for FY2005.
Views differ as to whether the backlog has increased or decreased in recent years, and
the NPS has been defining and quantifying its maintenance needs. H.R. 1124 and S.
886 seek to eliminate the NPS maintenance backlog and the annual operating deficit.
Policy Revisions. The NPS is currently revising its service-wide management
policies — one of the authorities governing decision-making on a wide range of
issues. Draft policies have been controversial, with debate over whether any policy
changes are needed, some of the particular changes that have been proposed, and the
procedure for proposing changes. The House and Senate have held hearings on this
issue, related NPS authorities, and broader management issues.
Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Wild and Scenic Rivers System preserves free-
flowing rivers, which are designated by Congress or through state nomination with
Secretarial approval. The NPS, and other federal agencies with responsibility for
managing designated rivers, prepare management plans to protect river values.
Management of lands within river corridors is sometimes controversial, because of
a variety of issues including the possible effects of designation on private lands and
of corridor activities on the rivers. Legislation is pending to designate, study, or
extend components of the system.
Other Issues. Some other park management topics of interest to the 109th
Congress are covered there. They relate to the competitive sourcing initiative,
whereby certain NPS activities judged to be commercial in nature are subject to
public-private competition; air quality at national park units; and security of park
units, particularly at national icons and along international borders.
This report replaces CRS Issue Brief IB10145, National Park Management,
coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent. It will be updated periodically.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Maintenance Backlog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Policy Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Wild and Scenic Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Competitive Sourcing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Regional Haze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
National Park Management
Introduction
The National Park System is perhaps the federal land category best known to the
public. The National Park Service (NPS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI)
manages 390 units, including 58 units formally entitled national parks and a host of
other designations.1 The system has more than 84 million acres.2 The NPS has an
appropriation of about $2.28 billion for FY2006. As of January 10, 2006, the agency
employed 24,679 federal employees and used an additional 137,000 volunteers. An
estimated 263 million people visited park units in 2004.
The NPS statutory mission is multifaceted: to conserve, preserve, protect, and
interpret the natural, cultural, and historic resources of the nation for the public, and
to provide for their use and enjoyment by the public. The use and preservation of
resources has appeared to some as contradictory and has resulted in management
challenges. Attention centers on how to balance the recreational use of parklands
with the preservation of park resources, and determine appropriate levels and sources
of funding to maintain NPS facilities and to manage NPS programs. In general,
activities that harvest or remove resources from units of the system are not allowed.
The NPS also supports the preservation of natural and historic places and promotes
recreation outside the system through grant and technical assistance programs.
The establishment of several national parks preceded the 1916 creation of the
National Park Service (NPS) as the park system management agency. Congress
established the nation’s first national park — Yellowstone National Park — in 1872.
The park was created in the then-territories of Montana and Wyoming “for the
benefit and enjoyment of the people,” and placed “under the exclusive control of the
Secretary of the Interior” (16 U.S.C. §§21-22). In the 1890s and early 1900s,
Congress created several other national parks mostly from western public domain
lands, including Sequoia, Yosemite, Mount Rainier, Crater Lake, and Glacier. In
addition to the desire to preserve nature, there was interest in promoting tourism.
Western railroads, often recipients of vast public land grants, were advocates of many
of the early parks and built grand hotels in them to support their business.
1 Descriptions of the different designations are on the NPS website at [http://www.
nps.gov/legacy/]. Brief information on each unit is contained in U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
National Park Service, The National Parks: Index 2001-2003 (Washington, DC: 2001).
2 This figure includes an estimated 79 million acres of federal land, 1 million acres of other
public land, and 4 million acres of private land within unit boundaries. NPS policy is to
acquire these nonfederal inholdings from willing sellers as funds are made available or to
create special agreements to encourage landowners to sell.
CRS-2
There also were efforts to protect the sites and structures of early Native
American cultures and other special sites. The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorized
the President to proclaim national monuments on federal lands that contain “historic
landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or
scientific interest” (16 U.S.C. §431). Most national monuments are managed by the
NPS. (For more information, see CRS Report RS20902, National Monument Issues,
by Carol Hardy Vincent.)
There was no system of national parks and monuments until 1916, when
President Wilson signed a law creating the NPS to manage and protect the national
parks and many of the monuments. That Organic Act provided that the NPS “shall
promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks,
monuments, and reservations ... to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic
objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such
manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations” (16 U.S.C. §1). President Franklin D. Roosevelt greatly expanded the
system of parks in 1933 by transferring 63 national monuments and historic military
sites from the USDA Forest Service and the War Department to the NPS.
The 109th Congress is considering legislation or conducting oversight on many
NPS-related topics. Several major topics are covered in this report: historic
preservation through the Historic Preservation Fund, which is administered by the
NPS; the NPS maintenance backlog; an NPS review of agency policies; and
management of wild and scenic rivers, which are administered by the NPS or another
land management agency. Other issues addressed in brief are activities of the NPS
under the President’s Competitive Sourcing Initiative, air quality at national park
units, and security of NPS units and lands.
While in some cases the topics covered are relevant to other federal lands and
agencies, this report does not comprehensively cover topics primarily affecting other
lands/agencies. For background on federal land management generally, see CRS
Report RL32393, Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and
Resources Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent. Overview information
on numerous natural resource issues, focused on resource use and protection, is
provided in CRS Report RL32699, Natural Resources: Selected Issues for the 109th
Congress, coordinated by Nicole Carter and Carol Hardy Vincent. Information on
appropriations for the NPS is included in CRS Report RL33399, Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations, coordinated by Carol
Hardy Vincent and Susan Boren. Information on BLM and Forest Service lands is
contained in CRS Issue Brief IB10076, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands
and National Forests, coordinated by Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent.
Several other NPS-related topics are not covered in this brief. Some of them,
or other topics, may be added to this brief if events warrant. For example, how
national park units are created and what qualities make an area eligible to be an NPS
unit are of continuing interest. (For more information, see CRS Report RS20158,
National Park System: Establishing New Units, by Carol Hardy Vincent.) Second,
legislation has been considered in recent Congresses to study, designate, and fund
particular National Heritage Areas (NHAs) as well as to establish a process and
criteria for designating and managing NHAs. (For more information, see CRS
CRS-3
Report RL33462, Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues, by
Carol Hardy Vincent and David Whiteman.) Third, recent decades have witnessed
increased demand for a variety of recreational opportunities on federal lands and
waters. New forms of motorized recreation have gained in popularity, and the use
of motorized off-highway vehicles (OHVs) has been particularly contentious. (For
more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10141, Recreation on Federal Lands,
coordinated by Kori Calvert and Carol Hardy Vincent.) Fourth, the management of
the NPS concessions program, which provides commercial visitor services, continues
to receive oversight. Finally, the role of gateway communities in NPS planning and
the impact of land uses on gateway communities have received increased attention.
Current Issues
Historic Preservation (by Susan Boren)
Background. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA; P.L.
89-665, 16 U.S.C. §479) created a program of state grants for historic preservation
under the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF). The program has been expanded to
include Indian tribal grants; grants for Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians;
restoration grants for buildings at historically black colleges and universities
(HBCUs); and Save America’s Treasures grants. The major purpose of the HPF
program is to protect cultural resources.
Administered by the National Park Service, the HPF provides grants-in-aid to
states and territories for activities specified in the NHPA. These grants are funded
on a 60% federal/ 40% state matching share basis. States carry out program purposes
directly through State Historic Preservation Offices or through subgrants and
contracts with public and private agencies, organizations, institutions of higher
education, and private individuals. Under current law, 10% of each state’s annual
allocation distributed by the Secretary of the Interior is to be transferred to local
governments that are certified eligible under program regulation.
Some Members of Congress support proposals to eliminate a federal
government role in financing the HPF, leaving such programs to be sustained by
private support. A case in point is the National Trust for Historic Preservation, for
which permanent federal funding was eliminated in FY1998. Others assert that a
federal role in supporting historic preservation is necessary and should be
maintained. One example of a program receiving bipartisan support is the Save
America’s Treasures program, currently funded under the HPF. The HPF, authorized
by the National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 2000 (NHPA; P.L. 106-
208), expired at the end of FY2005 but has continued to be funded.
Administrative Actions. President Bush’s annual budget requests, including
the request for FY2007, have recommended funding for a Preserve America program
(previously established by Executive Order 13287). The program consists of
competitive grants providing one-time assistance to encourage community
preservation of cultural, historic, and natural heritage through education and heritage
tourism. It serves as an adjunct to Save America’s Treasures. For FY2006, Congress
CRS-4
provided that a portion of Save America’s Treasures funds could be allocated to
Preserve America’s grants. The first round of Preserve America grants for FY2006
(totaling $3.5 million) was announced on March 9, 2006. Funds for Save America’s
Treasures were first appropriated in FY1999 and used to restore such historic
documents as the Star Spangled Banner, the Declaration of Independence, and the
U.S. Constitution. These projects require a 50% cost share, and no single project can
receive more than one grant from this program.
The FY2007 Administration budget contained $71.9 million for the Historic
Preservation Fund. It proposed shifting funding for National Heritage Areas to the
HPF, as part of a new America’s Heritage and Preservation Partnership Program.
Funding for Heritage Partnerships was proposed to be cut from $13.3 million in
FY2006 to $7.4 million for FY2007. The Save America’s Treasures program would
have been cut in half, from $29.6 million to $14.8 million, but the Preserve America
grants would have doubled — from $5.0 million to $10.0 million. The
Administration’s budget proposals were not adopted by the House in H.R. 5386, the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for FY2007. (See
“Legislative Activity” below.)
In other action, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has proposed
principles for a policy revision that is controversial with the public and Indian tribes
(70 Fed. Reg. 52066, September 1, 2005). The Advisory Council was established as
an independent agency by the NHPA to advise Congress and the President on historic
preservation matters. Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account the
effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The proposed principles bring to
the forefront the issue of the power of the Advisory Council, including the extent to
which its policies have the force of law and whether it is allowed to make final
decisions in §106 reviews. Issues concerning the Advisory Council are being
considered as part of NHPA reauthorization.
Legislative Activity. Most of the recent congressional action on historic
preservation has been in appropriations, since the authorization typically has been for
five-year periods (most recently through FY2005). P.L. 109-54 provided $72.2
million for HPF for FY2006. The FY2007 House-passed appropriation for HPF is
$58.7 million, including $15.0 million for Save America’s Treasures, $35.7 million
for grants-in-aid to states, $3.9 million for tribal grants, $1.0 million for HBCUs, and
$3.0 million for Preserve America. (For more information on funding for historic
preservation, see CRS Report 96-123, Historic Preservation: Background and
Funding, by Susan Boren.)
H.R. 3446 and S. 1378 seek to reauthorize the HPF (§108, NHPA) and to amend
provisions pertaining to the operation of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation. H.R. 3446 would reauthorize the HPF through FY2011, while S. 1378,
as reported from committee on April 20, 2006 (S.Rept. 109-235), would extend the
HPF through FY2015.
On June 8, 2006, the conference report on H.R. 4939 was filed (H.Rept. 109-
494) to provide FY2006 emergency supplemental appropriations for hurricane
recovery. The conference report would provide $43.0 million for the HPF, of which
$40.0 million would be to establish a specialized grants-in-aid program for the repair
CRS-5
and rehabilitation of historic structures damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,
particularly those properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Grants would be directed to endangered historic properties in major disaster areas
including those within National Heritage Areas. A nonfederal match is not required,
and not more than 5% of the funds may be used for administrative expenses. The
remaining $3.0 million would be for §106 assistance. The President’s FY2006
supplemental request and the House-passed bill would have provided $3.0 million
for the HPF for rehabilitation of historic structures. The Senate-passed bill would
have provided $83.0 million for the HPF, an amount that exceeded the current
FY2006 appropriation for all of HPF’s programs ($72.2 million).
Maintenance Backlog (by Carol Hardy Vincent)
Background. The NPS has maintenance responsibility for buildings, trails,
recreation sites, and other infrastructure. There is debate over the levels of funds to
maintain this infrastructure, whether to use funds from other programs, and how to
balance the maintenance of the existing infrastructure with the acquisition of new
assets. Congress continues to focus on the agency’s deferred maintenance, often
called the maintenance backlog — essentially maintenance that was not done when
scheduled or planned. DOI estimates deferred maintenance for the NPS for FY2005,
based on varying assumptions, at between $5.80 billion and $12.42 billion with a
mid-range figure of $9.11 billion. While the other federal land management agencies
— the Forest Service (FS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) — also have maintenance backlogs, congressional and
administrative attention has centered on the NPS backlog. For FY2005, the FS
estimates its backlog at $5.97 billion, while DOI estimates the FWS backlog at
between $1.73 billion and $2.34 billion and the BLM backlog at between $0.39
billion and $0.47 billion. The four agencies together have a combined backlog
estimated at between $13.88 billion and $21.20 billion, with a mid-range figure of
$17.54 billion, according to the agencies.3 The NPS and other agency backlogs have
been attributed to decades of funding shortfalls. The agencies assert that continuing
to defer maintenance of facilities accelerates their rate of deterioration, increases their
repair costs, and decreases their value.
Administrative Actions. In FY2002, the Bush Administration proposed to
eliminate the NPS backlog (estimated at $4.9 billion in 2002) over five years. The
NPS budget justification for FY2007 states that, beginning with FY2002, “nearly
$4.7 billion has been invested in deferred maintenance.”4 The figure reflects total
appropriations for line items of which deferred maintenance is only a part.
Specifically, according to the NPS, it consists of appropriations for all NPS facility
maintenance, NPS construction, and the NPS park roads and parkway program
funded through the Federal Highway Administration. It also includes fees used for
maintenance. The National Parks Conservation Association claims that the
Administration has supported little new money to address park maintenance, and is
3 Estimates are from DOI and the FS, and reflect only direct project costs in accordance with
requirements of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
4 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Budget Justifications and Performance
Information, Fiscal Year 2007, p. overview-3 (Washington, DC: 2006).
CRS-6
using “misleading” math to appear to be on track to eliminate the backlog.5 It further
contends that national parks on average have about 2/3 of the funding they need, and
that sufficient operating funds are necessary for stemming the growth of the backlog.
It is uncertain if the NPS backlog has decreased, increased, or remained the
same in recent years. For instance, while estimates of the backlog increased from an
average of $4.25 billion in FY1999 to $9.11 billion in FY2005, it is unclear what
portion of the change is due to the addition of maintenance work that was not done
on time or the availability of more precise estimates of the backlog. Further, it is
unclear how much total funding has been provided for backlogged maintenance over
this period. Annual presidential budget requests and appropriations laws do not
typically specify funds for backlogged maintenance, but instead combine funding for
all NPS construction, facility operation, and regular and deferred maintenance.
According to the DOI Budget Office, the appropriation for NPS deferred
maintenance increased from $223.0 million in FY1999 to $311.1 million in FY2006,
with a peak in FY2002 at $364.2 million.6 For FY2007, the Administration
requested $208.1 million, a $103.0 million (33%) reduction from the FY2006 level
and a $14.9 million (7%) reduction from the FY1999 level.
The NPS has been defining and quantifying its maintenance needs. These
efforts, like those of other land management agencies, include developing
computerized systems for tracking and prioritizing maintenance projects and
collecting comprehensive data on the condition of facilities — expected by the end
of FY2006.
Legislative Activity. H.R. 1124 and S. 886 seek to eliminate the annual
operating deficit and maintenance backlog in the National Park System. They would
create the National Park Centennial Fund in the Treasury, to be comprised of monies
designated by taxpayers on their tax returns. If monies from tax returns are
insufficient to meet funding levels established in the bill, they are to be supplemented
by contributions to the Centennial Fund from the General Fund of the Treasury. For
FY2006, there is to be deposited in the Centennial Fund $150.0 million, with an
increase of 15% each year though FY2016. The Fund would be available to the
Secretary of the Interior, without further appropriation, as follows: 60% to eliminate
the NPS maintenance backlog, 20% to protect NPS natural resources, and 20% to
protect NPS cultural resources. The Senate bill would terminate the fund on October
1, 2016. Under the House bill, after that date money in the Centennial Fund is to be
used to supplement annual appropriations for park operations. The bills also would
require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to submit to Congress biennial
reports on the progress of the NPS in eliminating its deficit in operating funds and
the funding needs of national parks compared with park appropriations, among other
issues. In addition, on May 10, 2005, a Senate subcommittee held a hearing on NPS
funding issues, including the maintenance backlog.
5 National Parks Conservation Association, The Burgeoning Backlog: A Report on the
Maintenance Backlog in America’s National Parks (May 2004), p. 6, available on the web
at [http://www.npca.org/across_the_nation/visitor_experience/backlog/backlog.pdf].
6 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Budget, Internal Memorandum, Washington, D.C.,
received April 7, 2006.
CRS-7
Policy Revisions (by Carol Hardy Vincent)
Background. The NPS currently is revising its service-wide management
policies, which govern the way NPS managers make decisions on a wide range of
issues (together with laws, regulations, and other authorities). Draft management
policies have been controversial. The NPS Management Policies were last updated
in 2001 after a several year internal and external review. (The policies are contained
on the NPS website at [http://data2.itc.nps.gov/npspolicy/index.cfm]).
Administrative Actions. On October 19, 2005, the NPS published draft
Management Policies (70 Fed. Reg. 60852), with a public comment period through
February 18, 2006. The NPS received approximately 45,000 comments, and made
revisions to the draft policies based on these comments. The draft is undergoing
further review, for example by the National Leadership Council — a group of senior
park managers who set policy and overall direction for the NPS. The NPS expects
to publish final management policies by the end of August 2006.
According to an NPS spokesman, policy revisions are being proposed to address
recent changes in certain areas, such as recreation and technology. Also, coverage
of financial issues is needed, including on recreation fees, concession royalties, and
Park Service donations. Further, there is some support in Congress for a review of
NPS management policies, according to the spokesman. Some park groups and
environmentalists have been concerned that changes would fundamentally alter park
protections and potentially lead to damaging park resources. One much discussed
proposed change would require “balance” between conservation and enjoyment of
park resources, whereas current policy states that “conservation is to be predominant”
in conservation/enjoyment conflicts. This controversy illustrates a continuing tension
between the Park Service’s mission to protect park resources while providing for
their use and enjoyment by the public.
The development of policy changes began with the preparation of draft changes
by a senior DOI official. That earlier, internal proposal was criticized by some park
groups and environmentalists as shifting the NPS focus from preservation to
recreation; removing protective limits on activities that might impair park resources,
for instance, motorized recreation; eliminating the scientific underpinning of NPS
management; giving too much control to local communities in managing park units;
weakening protections for air quality, water, and wildlife; and increasing commercial
development of park units. Further, some observers criticized DOI for initiating
changes to NPS policies without notifying NPS employees and consulting with the
public. That initial draft was reported by the press to have been opposed by the
NPS’s seven regional directors. The agency subsequently convened a working group
of 16 senior staff, who produced a new draft. That draft was to have been reviewed
by the National Leadership Council and others before its publication in the Federal
Register on October 19, 2005, according to an NPS spokesman.
Legislative Activity. On November 1, 2005, a Senate subcommittee held a
hearing on the draft policies. Witnesses expressed differing opinions on issues
including the reasons the policies are being revised; the intent of the 1916 Park
Service Organic Act regarding preservation and recreation; the extent to which the
policies should emphasize recreation; the impact of proposed changes on park
CRS-8
protections and the impairment standard; and whether the draft changes would blur
or clarify how park employees are to manage resources.
The NPS Organic Act and its implementation through daily park management
were the subject of a December 14, 2005 House Resources subcommittee hearing.
Witnesses offered different views on the intent of the NPS Organic Act, particularly
with regard to preservation, use, and impairment of NPS resources. Witnesses also
presented varying opinions on whether the existing park management policies, or the
proposed policy revisions, more accurately reflect the letter and intent of the Organic
Act. Whether the management policies should be rewritten, and the proposed
changes themselves, also were a matter of much debate. Some witnesses claimed
that the NPS has limited access for recreation in recent years, in favor of preservation
of resources, and suggested alternative approaches. In addition, at a February 15,
2006 hearing, the subcommittee heard differing views from Administration and
private witnesses as to whether park policies should be changed and whether the
particular changes in the draft would be beneficial or detrimental.
Also with regard to park management, a subcommittee of the House
Government Reform Committee is in the midst of a series of oversight hearings on
the role and management of park units. These hearings, being held throughout the
country, are examining the issues facing the variety of park units in different areas
of the country. They have encompassed diverse issues, including the adequacy of
park budgets, backlog in maintaining NPS facilities, control of invasive species,
nature and extent of visitor services, and protection of park resources. A report
summarizing the critical issues discussed, together with recommendations, is
anticipated at the conclusion of the hearings.
Wild and Scenic Rivers (by Sandra L. Johnson)
Background. The NPS manages 28 river units, totaling 2,826.3 miles, within
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The system was authorized on October
2, 1968, by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542; 16 U.S.C. §§1271-1287).
(See [http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wsract.html].) The act established a policy of
preserving designated free-flowing rivers for the benefit and enjoyment of present
and future generations, to complement the then-current national policy of
constructing dams and other structures along many rivers. The act requires that river
units be classified and administered as wild, scenic, or recreational rivers, based on
the condition of the river, the amount of development in the river or on the
shorelines, and the degree of accessibility by road or trail at the time of designation.
Typically rivers are added to the system by an act of Congress, but they also may
be added by state nomination with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.
Congress initially designated 789 miles of 8 rivers as part of the system. Today there
are 164 river units with 11,357.7 miles in 38 states and Puerto Rico, administered by
the NPS, other federal agencies, and several state agencies. Congress also commonly
enacts legislation to authorize the study of particular rivers for potential inclusion in
the system. The NPS maintains a national registry of rivers that may be eligible for
inclusion in the system — the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI; see
[http://www.nps.gov/rtca/nri]). Congress may consider, among other sources, these
NRI rivers which are believed to possess “outstandingly remarkable” values. The
CRS-9
Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture are to report to the President as to the
suitability of study areas for wild and scenic designation. The President then submits
his recommendations regarding designation to Congress.
Administrative Actions. Wild and scenic rivers designated by Congress
generally are managed by one of the four federal land management agencies — NPS,
FWS, BLM, and FS. Management varies with the class of the designated river and
the values for which it was included in the system. Components of the system
managed by the NPS become a part of the National Park System. The act requires the
managing agency of each component of the system to prepare a comprehensive
management plan to protect river values. The managing agency also establishes
boundaries for each component of the system, within limitations. Management of
lands within river corridors has been controversial in some cases, with debates over
the effect of designation on private lands within the river corridors, the impact of
activities within a corridor on the flow or character of the designated river segment,
and the extent of local input in developing management plans.
State-nominated rivers may be added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System only if the river is designated for protection under state law, is approved by
the Secretary of the Interior, and is permanently administered by a state agency.
Management of state-nominated rivers may be complicated because of the diversity
of land ownership.
Legislative Activity. Measures to designate, study, or extend specific
components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System are shown in the following table.
The table includes bills that could involve management by the NPS or other agencies.
Title
Type
Status
Alaska Rainforest Conservation Act
Desig./
H.R. 1155
Introduced
(designate and study rivers within the
Study
Chugach NF and designate rivers within
the Tongass NF)
California Wild Heritage Act of 2006
Desig./
H.R. 5006
Introduced
(designate 22 river segments; study
Study
S. 2432
Introduced
Carson River, East Fork, CA)
Eastern Sierra Rural Heritage and
Desig.
H.R. 5149
Introduced
Economic Enhancement Act (designate
S. 2567
Hearing Held
segments of the Amargosa River in CA)
Lower Farmington River and Salmon
Study
H.R. 1344
Introduced
Brook Wild and Scenic River Study Act
S. 435
Passed Senate
of 2005 (CT)
Mt. Hood Stewardship Legacy Act
Desig.
H.R. 5025
Hearing Held
(designate waterways in the Mt. Hood NF
(OR))
CRS-10
Title
Type
Status
Musconetcong Wild and Scenic Rivers
Desig.
H.R. 1307
House Calendar
Act (NJ)
S. 1096
Passed Senate
Northern California Coastal Wild
Desig.
H.R. 233
Hearing Held
Heritage Wilderness Act (Black Butte
S. 128
Passed Senate
River segments)
Perquimans River Wild and Scenic River
Study
H.R. 4105
Introduced
Study Act of 2005 (NC)
Rockies Prosperity Act (Title IV, to
Desig.
H.R. 1204
Introduced
designate certain National Forest System
watercourses in ID, MT, and WY)
Taunton Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
Desig.
H.R. 3321
Introduced
(MA)
S. 2033
Introduced
Upper White Salmon Wild and Scenic
Desig.
H.R. 38
P.L. 109-44;
Rivers Act (WA)
S. 74
Indef. Postponed
The Senate passed two wild and scenic river bills on December 16, 2005. S.
435 would direct the NPS to study a 40-mile stretch of the Farmington River and
Salmon Brook (CT) for possible inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System. As a result of reduced funding for the Rivers and Trails Studies program for
FY2006, the NPS had requested that the date for submitting the study be changed
from not later than three years following enactment to not later than three years after
funds are made available. This change is included in the Senate-passed bill. Some
river proponents objected to the delay in the start of the study. S. 1096, the
Musconetcong Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, would designate 24.2 miles of the river
in northwestern New Jersey. A House committee reported a companion bill — H.R.
1307. In earlier action, the Senate also passed S. 128, to designate segments of the
Black Butte River (CA) as a wild or scenic river, and H.R. 38 was enacted (P.L 109-
44) to designate a portion of the White Salmon River (WA) as a component of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Other Issues
Competitive Sourcing. (by Carol Hardy Vincent) The Bush
Administration’s Competitive Sourcing Initiative seeks to expand on earlier
programs to subject federal agency activities judged to be commercial in nature to
public-private competition. The Administration’s goal is to save money through
competition. For the NPS, areas of focus include maintenance, administration, and
cultural resource positions. Rangers, fee collectors, and park guides are among those
positions classified as either “inherently governmental” or “core to the mission,” and
thus not subject to competitive review. Concerns include whether the initiative
would save the agency money, whether it is being used to accomplish policy
objectives by outsourcing particular functions, whether it would weaken the morale
and diversity of the NPS workforce, and whether the private sector could provide the
same quality of service. The NPS has long contracted many jobs to private industry.
CRS-11
(For information on competitive sourcing generally, see CRS Report RL32017,
Circular A-76 Revision 2003: Selected Issues, by L. Elaine Halchin.)
The NPS competitive sourcing “green plan” covers competitive sourcing
activities planned for FY2005-FY2008. In FY2006, the NPS plans to conduct a
preliminary planning effort for 150 FTEs,7 four standard studies for 549.5 FTEs, and
six streamlined studies for 255.5 FTEs, for a total of 955 FTEs during FY2006. For
FY2007, the agency expects to review about 700 FTEs and subsequently to
implement related efficiencies. (For information on competitive sourcing targets, see
CRS Report RL32079, Federal Contracting of Commercial Activities: Competitive
Sourcing Targets, by L. Elaine Halchin.)
P.L. 109-54, the FY2006 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, placed a cap of $3.45 million on DOI competitive sourcing
studies during FY2006, but did not specify the portion to be allocated to the NPS.
The law also provided that agencies include, in any reports to the Appropriations
Committees on competitive sourcing, information on costs associated with sourcing
studies and related activities. The House included similar provisions for FY2007 in
H.R. 5386, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for
FY2007. These provisions originated out of concern that some agencies were
spending significant sums on competitive sourcing where the Administration did not
request or receive funds for this purpose, and were not providing Congress with
complete information on costs and implications. P.L. 109-115 restricts competitive
sourcing government-wide.
Regional Haze. (by Ross W. Gorte) In 1977 amendments to the Clean Air
Act, Congress established a national goal of protecting Class I areas — most then-
existing national parks and wilderness areas — from future visibility impairment and
remedying any existing impairment resulting from manmade air pollution. (Newly
designated parks and wilderness areas can be classified as Class I only by state
actions.) The program to control this “regional haze” has several facets, including
the development of state implementation plans and the imposition of Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) on large sources of air pollution built between 1962 and
1977. (For a general description of the regional haze program, see CRS Report
RL32483, Visibility, Regional Haze, and the Clean Air Act: Status of
Implementation, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett). A related program, Prevention
of Significant Deterioration, provides that permits may not be issued to major new
facilities within 100 kilometers of a Class I area if federal land managers, such as at
the NPS, allege that the facilities’ emissions “may cause or contribute to a change in
the air quality” in a Class I area (42 U.S.C. §7457).
DOI’s strategic plan (2004) contains two air quality goals for Class I areas,
related to compliance with national ambient air quality standards and visibility
objectives. At 68 park units, the NPS monitors one or more key air quality
indicators, such as ozone, visibility, and atmospheric deposition, and reports annually
7 A full-time equivalent (FTE) is the “staffing of Federal civilian employee positions,
expressed in terms of annual productive work hours” (U.S. Office of Management and
Budget, Circular No. A-76 (Revised), p. D-5).
CRS-12
on progress towards meeting air quality goals. The latest report (2005) examined
data collected between 1995-2004. It concluded that of the reporting park units, 68%
showed stable or improving air quality trends generally, 78% met national ambient
air quality standards, and 100% met visibility goals. The agency expressed that
meeting air quality goals is challenging because the NPS does not have direct
authority to control pollution sources outside of park units. Nevertheless, NPS
expects further improvement in meeting goals as regulations to reduce tailpipe
emissions from motor vehicles and pollution from electric-generating facilities take
full effect.8
In 2002, President Bush proposed the Clear Skies Act to amend the Clean Air
Act, including a provision to significantly reduce the geographic area under the
authority of federal land managers for the siting of power plants. The Clear Skies
Act of 2005 (S. 131) was reintroduced in the 109th Congress with a provision
reducing the area over which federal land managers may prevent the permitting of
new power plants to within 50 kilometers of a Class I park or wilderness area. The
Clear Skies Act also would provide a mechanism for existing facilities to avoid
imposition of BART by complying with new statutory standards delineated in the
bill. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a markup on the
bill on March 9, 2005, but the bill was not reported (9-9).
Security. (by Carol Hardy Vincent) Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks on the United States, the NPS has sought to enhance its ability to prepare for
and respond to threats from terrorists and others. Activities have focused on security
enhancements at national icons and along the U.S. borders, where several parks are
located. The United States Park Police (USPP) have sought to expand physical
security assessments of monuments, memorials, and other facilities, and increase
patrols and security precautions in Washington monumental areas, at the Statue of
Liberty, and at other potentially vulnerable icons. Other activities have included
implementing additional training in terrorism response for agency personnel, and
reducing the backlog of needed specialized equipment and vehicles. NPS law
enforcement rangers and special agents have expanded patrols, use of electronic
monitoring equipment, intelligence monitoring, and training in preemptive and
response measures. The NPS has taken measures to increase security and protection
along international borders and to curb illegal immigration and drug traffic through
park borders.
A June, 2005 report of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined
the challenges for DOI in protecting national icons and monuments from terrorism,
and actions and improvements the department has taken in response.9 GAO
concluded that since 2001, DOI has improved security at key sites, created a central
security office to coordinate security efforts, developed physical security plans, and
established a uniform risk management and ranking methodology. GAO
8 See 2005 Annual Performance and Progress Report: Air Quality in National Parks, on
the NPS website at [http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/index.cfm] on June 8, 2006.
9 Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: Actions Needed to Better Protect
National Icons and Federal Office Buildings from Terrorism, GAO-05-790 (DC: June
2005).
CRS-13
recommended that DOI link its rankings to security funding priorities at national
icons and monuments and establish guiding principles to balance its core mission
with security needs. (See [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05790.pdf].)
At a July 9, 2005 House subcommittee hearing, witnesses differed on the extent
to which the NPS should be responsible for border security. (See [http://
resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/070905.htm].) An NPS official
testified that the agency’s core mission makes it “imperative” that the agency help
secure international borders of parks and “aggressively” address border issues. He
asserted that cross-border, illegal immigration and smuggling activities threaten the
park mission, natural and historic resources, safety of visitors and employees, and
national security. An official from the Border Patrol described cooperative border
efforts with the NPS. Other witnesses testified that the Border Patrol should handle
immigration and other border issues, because the NPS lacks sufficient resources,
training, and equipment. A representative from the National Parks Conservation
Association contended that the financial impact of homeland security and border
measures has had an adverse impact at park units, and that the NPS has been
“woefully underfunded” to meet border and homeland security demands. However,
in separate testimony, NPS Director Fran Mainella stated that since 2001, overall
base funding for NPS law enforcement and security has increased 25%.
House and Senate bills pertaining to immigration reform and border security
contain provisions affecting national park units along U.S. borders. For example, as
passed by the House, H.R. 4437 would require an evaluation of security
vulnerabilities on DOI lands along U.S. borders and would require the Secretary of
Homeland Security to provide border security assistance on these lands. S. 2611,
which has passed the Senate, calls for a study of the construction of physical barriers
along the southern border of the United States, including their effect on park units
along the borders. Among other provisions, S. 2611 also would increase customs and
border protection personnel to secure park units (and other federal land) along U.S.
borders; provide surveillance camera systems, sensors, and other equipment for lands
on the border, with priority for NPS units; and require a recommendation to Congress
for the NPS and other agencies to recover costs related to illegal border activity.
Congress appropriates funds to the NPS for security efforts, and the adequacy
and use of funds to protect NPS visitors and units are of continuing interest. Funds
for security are appropriated through multiple line items, including those for the
USPP and Law Enforcement and Protection. For FY2007, the President requested
$84.8 million for the USPP, a 6% increase over FY2006 ($80.2 million). The House
approved this level in H.R. 5386, the FY2007 Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill. The President also requested $128.2 million for law
enforcement, a 3% increase over FY2006 ($124.2 million). The amount approved
by the House was not specified in H.R. 5386.
CRS-14
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 RL32017, Circular A-76 Revision 2003: Selected Issues, by L. Elaine
Halchin.
CRS Report RL32079, Federal Contracting of Commercial Activities: Competitive
Sourcing Targets, by L. Elaine Halchin.
CRS Report RL32393, Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land
and Resources Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL32667, Federal Management and Protection of Paleontological
(Fossil) Resources Located on Federal Lands: Current Status and Legal Issues,
by Douglas Reid Weimer.
CRS Report RL33462, Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues,
by Carol Hardy Vincent and David Whiteman.
CRS Report 96-123, Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Report RL33399, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007
Appropriations, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent and Susan Boren.
CRS Report RS21503, Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
CRS Report RS20902, National Monument Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RS20158, National Park System: Establishing New Units, by Carol
Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL32699, Natural Resources: Selected Issues for the 109th Congress,
coordinated by Nicole Carter and Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Issue Brief IB10141, Recreation on Federal Lands, coordinated by Kori Calvert
and Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL31149, Snowmobiles: Environmental Standards and Access to
National Parks, by James E. McCarthy.
CRS Report RS20702, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter.
CRS Report RL32483, Visibility, Regional Haze, and the Clean Air Act: Status of
Implementation, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett.
CRS-15
CRS Report RL31447, Wilderness: Overview and Statistics, by Ross W. Gorte.