Order Code RL33525
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Recreation on Federal Lands
July 11, 2006
Kori Calvert, Coordinator, and Sandra L. Johnson
Knowledge Services Group
Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinator, Ross W. Gorte, Nicole T. Carter,
Nic Lane, David L. Whiteman, and M. Lynne Corn
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Recreation on Federal Lands
Summary
The growing and diverse nature of recreation on federal lands has increased the
challenge of balancing recreation with other land uses, and balancing different types
of recreation. Motorized recreation has been particularly controversial, with issues
centering on access and environmental impacts. The 109th Congress is considering
legislation and conducting oversight on issues involving recreation on federal lands,
including traditional recreational pursuits and newer forms of motorized recreation.
The Administration is addressing these issues through budgetary, regulatory, and
other actions. Several prominent issues are covered in this report.
Motorized Recreation in the National Forests and on BLM Land. The use
of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) on Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) lands has been particularly controversial. Both agencies decide
the extent of allowed OHV use through their planning processes. The FS finalized
new regulations (Nov. 9, 2005) governing OHV use that require designating roads,
trails, and areas open for OHV use and prohibit OHV use outside the designated
system. The BLM is addressing transportation issues through national strategies and
other guidance. A July 13, 2005, House Resources joint subcommittee hearing
examined motorized recreation use on federal lands.
Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles. Personal watercraft (PWC) and
snowmobile use in National Park Service (NPS) units has fueled debate over the
balance between recreation on, and protection of, park lands and waters. Regulatory
actions restricting use of these vehicles have been especially controversial. The NPS
is evaluating PWC and snowmobile use in several areas. Service-wide management
policies encompassing motorized and nonmotorized recreation are being reviewed.
Aircraft Overflights. Grand Canyon National Park is at the center of a conflict
over whether to limit air tours over national parks to reduce noise. The NPS and the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) continue to work to implement a 1987 law
that sought to reduce noise at Grand Canyon, and a 2000 law that regulates
overflights at other park units. Recent regulations require air tour operators to seek
authority to fly over park units; the agencies then must develop Air Tour
Management Plans at those park units. Further, the FAA is developing final safety
regulations for commercial air tours nationally.
The National Trails System. While designation of trails is often popular,
issues remain regarding the funding, expansion, and quality of trails. The 109th
Congress is considering a variety of trail measures, including adding routes to the
National Trail System, authorizing studies of routes for possible additions to the
system, and authorizing land acquisitions from willing sellers. Legislation has been
introduced to create a new category of trails, called National Discovery Trails.
This report replaces CRS Issue Brief IB10141, Recreation on Federal Lands,
coordinated by Kori Calvert and Carol Hardy Vincent. It will be updated periodically
to reflect legislative and regulatory action.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Motorized Recreation on BLM Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Motorized Recreation in the National Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Personal Watercraft (PWC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Snowmobiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Aircraft Overflights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
The National Trails System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Recreation in the National Wildlife Refuge System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Recreation at Federal Water Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Recreation Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Grand Canyon Colorado River Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

---

Recreation on Federal Lands
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. Many 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 many 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; 273 million recreation visits to NPS units
(then 388, now 390 units); 40 million visits to 545 FWS wildlife refuges; and 90
million visits to 308 Bureau of Reclamation recreation sites.1 The FS reports 211
million recreation visits to its national forests and grasslands, and the Corps 400
million visits for the most recent year available.
Over the last 40 years, new forms of motorized recreation — snowmobiles,
personal watercraft, other off-highway vehicles — and nonmotorized vehicles, such
1 For a graph depicting 2005 recreation visits to DOI sites, see p. DH-54 of the FY2007
Interior Budget in Brief at [http://www.doi.gov/budget/2007/07Hilites/DH53.pdf].

---

CRS-2
as mountain bikes, have gained in popularity. For instance, there were roughly 8.6
million visitor-days of motorized recreation on BLM lands during FY2004. 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, for senior citizens, and for 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 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. Agencies were to monitor the effects of OHV use and amend or
rescind area designations or other actions taken pursuant to the 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 damage on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural or
historic resources of particular areas or trails. Areas could remain closed until the
manager determined that “the adverse effects have been eliminated and that measures
have been implemented to prevent future recurrence.” Also, each agency 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.
BLM and FS managers formulate guidance on the nature and extent of land
uses, including OHV use, through regulations, national policies, land and resource

---

CRS-3
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 NPS units to respond to concerns raised by Bluewater
Network.2 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.
On October 19, 2005, the NPS also released draft Management Policies for
public review through February 18, 2006,3 part of ongoing efforts to review and
revise policies guiding management throughout the National Park System, including
changing recreational uses and evolving technologies.4 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 (§ 1.4.3). The extent to which this and other
changes represented a shift in emphasis for management of motorized and other
recreation is unclear. However, NPS subsequently made extensive changes to its
draft policies based on analysis of over 45,000 comments. On June 19, 2006, NPS
released a revised draft 2006 Management Policies that largely restores current policy
language and its emphasis on conservation (§ 1.4.3).5
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 cover recreation within the National Wildlife Refuge System; recreation
at federal (Corps and Bureau) water sites; recreation fees; and Colorado River
management within Grand Canyon National Park.

While this report focuses on recreation issues on federal lands, it does not cover
additional issues affecting these lands comprehensively. For background on federal
land management generally, see CRS Report RL32393, Federal Land Management
Agencies: Background on Land and Resources Management, coordinated by Carol
Hardy Vincent. Overview information on numerous natural resource use and
protection issues is provided in CRS Report RL32699, Natural Resources: Selected
Issues for the 109th Congress, coordinated by Nicole Carter and Carol Hardy Vincent.
For information on NPS issues, see CRS Report RL33484, National Park
2 Correspondence from NPS to Bluewater Network, including discussion of the unpublished
OHV data, is available at [http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/npsorv/letterfromNPS.pdf].
3 70 Fed. Reg. 60852, Oct. 19, 2005; 70 Fed. Reg. 71557, Nov. 29, 2005.
4 For additional background information on NPS management policies, see CRS Report
RL33484, National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent. See also the
NPS website at [http://www.nps.gov/applications/npspolicy/index.cfm].
5 The revised draft of the NPS 2006 Management Policies is available via the NPS website
at [http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectId=13746].

---

CRS-4
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 RL33399, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007
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 that 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 signs, inadequate 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.
The FY2007 BLM budget justification describes BLM’s “most pressing
challenge” as “comprehensively managing travel, off highway vehicles (OHVs), and
public access in the West” (p. III-128). In FY2007, BLM plans to develop
approximately 67 travel management plans, which will identify and designate roads
and trails for motorized travel, and to begin implementation when the plans are

---

CRS-5
completed. The agency requested $63.8 million for recreation management generally
for FY2007, a 2% reduction from the FY2006 level of $65.1 million. In passing H.R.
5386, the House approved $67.0 million for recreation management in FY2007, a 3%
increase over FY2006 and a 5% increase over the Administration’s request.
BLM has issued two national strategies dealing with transportation on its lands.
The National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on
Public Lands6 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 Plan7 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.8
BLM revised its land use planning handbook in 2005 regarding motorized and
non-motorized recreation.9 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.10 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.
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
conveying BLM land to the State of Idaho to establish a motorized recreation park,
6 The BLM Strategy and related documents are available at [http://www.blm.gov/ohv/].
7 Available at [http://www.blm.gov/mountain_biking/].
8 Available at [http://www.id.blm.gov/publications/data/recvisit.pdf].
9 Available at [http://www.id.blm.gov/publications/data/recvisit.pdf].
10 Available at [http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/071305.htm].

---

CRS-6
establishing a special management area on certain BLM and FS lands to provide
opportunities for motorized and other recreation, and authorizing 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 W. Gorte)
Background. The national forests are managed by the USDA Forest Service
(FS) for a variety of uses, including many types of recreation — sightseeing, OHV
use, backpacking, etc. — while preserving the productivity of the lands. Recreation
use continues to grow, with OHV use among the fastest growing uses.11
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 have recently been
finalized,12 and plan revisions are now expected to proceed.13
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. In 2004, the FS Chief identified unmanaged
recreation — “increasing use of the national forests for outdoor activities ... ,
including the use of off-highway vehicles” — as a threat to the nation’s forests and
grasslands. In particular, OHV use has created many unauthorized roads and trails,
which can be unsafe and harmful to other resources. In response, the FS has finalized
new regulations to require forest plans to identify a system of roads, trails, and areas
for motorized vehicle use and prohibit the use of OHVs and other motorized vehicles
outside the designated system.14 Implementing directives are expected to be
published for public comment during 2006, and decisions governing motorized uses
are then to be made in forest planning (with public involvement) over the next four
years.
Opinions are divided over the importance and impact of the regulations. Some
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
11 Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States, Regions and States (USDA-FS
Southern Research Station, June 2005). Available via the FS website at [http://www.
treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/21307].
12 70 Fed. Reg. 1023, Jan. 5, 2005. Also available via the FS website at [http://www.fs.
fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/rule%20.pdf].
13 Detailed information and documents concerning the 2005 final rule are available via the
FS website at [http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index2.html].
14 70 Fed. Reg. 68264-68291, Nov. 9, 2005.

---

CRS-7
national forest lands and resources. Others counter that the regulations 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.
The FY2007 FS budget proposes cutting recreation funds. Recreation
management would be funded at $250.9 million, a $7.9 million (3%) reduction from
the FY2006 level of $258.8 million. Trails funding would be $60.3 million, a $13.9
million (19%) reduction from the FY2006 level of $74.2 million, with a greater
reduction (in dollars and percentage) in trails construction than in maintenance.
Legislative Activity. The House-passed FY2007 Interior appropriations bill,
H.R. 5386, restored or increased FS recreation and trails funding, compared to the
request. Recreation management was approved at $262.0 million, $3.2 million (1%)
above FY2006 and $11.1 million (4%) above the request. Trails funding was
approved at $73.4 million, $0.8 million (1%) below FY2006 (all in construction) and
$13.1 million (22%) above the request (increasing both construction and
maintenance).
On July 13, 2005, two subcommittees of House Resources held a joint hearing
to examine motorized recreation use on federal lands. (See “Legislative Activity”
under BLM, above.) To date, no comprehensive legislation addressing OHV use in
national forests generally has been introduced in the 109th Congress.
Personal Watercraft (PWC) (by Kori Calvert)
Background. PWCs are high-speed, very shallow draft, and highly
maneuverable watercraft “operated by a person or persons sitting, standing, or
kneeling on the vessel rather 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 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 390 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.15
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
15 65 Fed. Reg. 15077, effective April 20, 2000.

---

CRS-8
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
assessments. PWCs could continue to operate during the rulemaking process, but
only until specified “grace period” 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 11 designated areas:
in 2003, Lake Mead and Glen Canyon (Lake Powell) NRAs, and Assateague
National Seashore; in 2004, Lake Meredith, Lake Roosevelt, Amistad, and
Chickasaw NRAs; in 2005, Bighorn Canyon NRA, Fire Island National Seashore,
and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore; and in 2006, Gulf Islands National Seashore.
Five areas are working on environmental reviews and special regulations on PWC
use, and the NPS has proposed rules to allow PWCs in three: Cape Lookout National
Seashore (Dec. 29, 2005), Gateway NRA (Feb. 24, 2006), and Curecanti NRA
(March 17, 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.

The June 2006 NPS draft Management Policies include new language on PWCs
(§ 8.2.3.3) that would allow PWC designation by special regulation or specified CFR
criteria only in the 21 areas previously discussed. “PWC use is prohibited in all other
NPS areas.” As in the current 2001 Management Policies, such use may be
authorized if an evaluation of a park’s enabling legislation and other specified criteria
confirm PWC use as “an appropriate use.”
Legislative Activity. On May 10, 2006, the House Appropriations
Committee adopted by voice vote an amendment to the FY2007 Interior bill urging
NPS to complete PWC rulemakings “in an efficient and timely manner.” (See
“Administrative Actions,” above; and H.Rept. 109-465.) A March 15, 2006 House
Government Reform subcommittee hearing examined NPS rulemaking efforts
governing PWC use, status of park-specific rules, and reasons for and impacts of
rulemaking delays.16 On May 4, 2005, a House Resources subcommittee oversight
hearing considered PWC use in the National Park System.17 Agency representatives
and other 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.
16 Taking on Water: The National Park Service’s Stalled Rulemaking Effort on Personal
Watercraft, available via the GPO website at [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.128&filename=27092.pdf&directory=/diskb/wais/data/
109_house_hearings].
17 Available at [http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/050405.htm].

---

CRS-9
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
within 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 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.18 However, a June 2001
Bush Administration lawsuit settlement with the International Snowmobile
Manufacturers Association (ISMA) and the State of Wyoming required NPS to
revisit the snowmobile ban and consider any additional information on “cleaner,
quieter” snowmobile technology. The new NPS final rule 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.19
Subsequent legal challenges effectively split the 2003-2004 winter season, with
each sub-season managed under different rules with significantly different limits on
daily snowmobile entries. 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. Subsequently, NPS
issued a final rule to implement a temporary winter use management plan effective
for three winter seasons, through 2006-2007.20 The 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 Available Technology
(BAT) requirements to reduce snowmobile emissions and noise, but no “adaptive
management strategy” component.
18 66 Fed. Reg. 7260, Jan. 22, 2001.
19 68 Fed. Reg. 69267, Dec. 11, 2003.
20 69 Fed. Reg. 65348, Nov. 10, 2004. Available via the NPS website at [http://www.nps.
gov/yell/planvisit/winteruse/fedregfinalrule11-10.pdf].

---

CRS-10
The interim rule’s intent is to provide certainty to gateway communities,
businesses, and park visitors while NPS completes long-term environmental impact
analyses of motorized oversnow vehicles on the three area parks, and develops a new
long-term plan to manage winter recreational use. The agency anticipates releasing
a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by fall 2006. The EIS will evaluate
several alternative winter use scenarios, each with varying mass-transit snowcoach
and snowmobile entry levels, commercial guiding requirements, and Best Available
Technology standards for snowcoaches and snowmobiles.21 Meanwhile, the 2005-
2006 winter use statistics show 19.9% and 15.3% increases in snowmobile and
snowcoach visitors, respectively, over the previous winter season.
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.”22 23
The June 2006 NPS draft Management Policies add new language to cover both
snowmobiles and oversnow vehicles (§ 8.2.3.2). It states that “[r]outes and areas
may be designated for snowmobile and oversnow vehicle use only by special
regulation and when determined through park planning to be an appropriate use.
Such designations can only occur on routes and water surfaces that are used by motor
vehicles or motorboats during other seasons.”
Legislative Activity. The House version of the FY2007 Interior
appropriations bill (§ 124, H.R. 5386) contains language to ensure that the three
Yellowstone area parks remain open to snowmobiles throughout the 2006-2007
winter use season. The FY2005 and FY2006 Interior appropriations laws (P.L. 108-
447 and P.L. 109-54) included similar language to ensure that judicial rulings could
not deny snowmobiles entry during the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 winter use
seasons, respectively. The Senate-reported version of H.R. 5386 (§ 124) extends the
NPS interim rule for three years to 2010, or until the agency issues a new final rule
on winter use. It also mandates that if court rulings prevent implementation of a new
winter use rule, the current interim rule shall be reinstated for up to three years. Also,
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.24
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)
21 For additional information on the EIS process and its status, see the Yellowstone National
Park Winter Planning website at [http://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/winteruse/index.htm].
22 Available at [http://www.nps.gov/yell/technical/planning/winteruse/plan/wlraorder.pdf].
23 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.
24 Available at [http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/041205.htm].

---

CRS-11
controls airspace and aircraft overflights. This has created a conflict between
resource management and aviation access authorities and their constituencies. Grand
Canyon National Park has been the focal point of a conflict between groups seeking
to limit overflights of national parks due to concerns about noise and safety, and air
tour operators whose economic stability, with ripple effects on local businesses, may
depend on providing overflights. The National Parks Overflights Act of 1987 (P.L.
100-91) directed NPS to recommend a flight control plan for Grand Canyon that
would provide a “substantial restoration of the natural quiet” and prohibited flights
below the canyon’s rim. It required an NPS study of the effects of all aircraft
overflights, which was submitted to Congress in 1994.
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (Title VIII, P.L. 106-
181, hereafter “Air Tour Act”) regulates commercial air tours at other park units. It
requires the FAA and NPS to create management plans for air tours at individual
park units and within a half-mile of their boundaries. Each plan could prohibit or
limit air tours, such as by route and 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.25
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, 2011.26 Third, the FAA issued a final rule establishing a standard
for quiet technology for certain aircraft in commercial air tour operations over Grand
Canyon.27 The rule identifies which aircraft meet the standard. In future rulemaking,
the FAA will address the routes or corridors for commercial air tour operations that
use the quiet technology. Fourth, data on natural ambient sound levels are 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 Grand Canyon. 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.28
The public comment period ended on April 27, 2006.
Other regulatory actions affect commercial air tours at park units. The Air Tour
Act final rule29 requires air tour operators to apply for authority to fly over national
park and abutting tribal lands. The FAA received applications for commercial air
25 65 Fed. Reg. 17708, effective May 4, 2000.
26 71 Fed. Reg. 9439, Feb. 24, 2006.
27 70 Fed. Reg. 16084, March 29, 2005.
28 71 Fed. Reg. 4192, Jan. 25, 2006.
29 67 Fed. Reg. 65661, Oct. 25, 2002.

---

CRS-12
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.30 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, 42 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 January 2006 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report addressed the
impact of the delay in implementation of the Air Tour Act.31 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 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. A more recent GAO
report32 addresses NPS collection of air tour fees.
The FAA is developing a final rule to provide safety standards for commercial
air tours nationally, including over Grand Canyon and other park units.33 The
proposed rule seeks to increase air tour safety by requiring certification of tour
operators and by establishing safety standards, especially for 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 (§ 8.4) and on soundscape management (§
4.9). One proposal in the January 2006 draft Management Policies would delete
existing language stating that the NPS “will preserve, to the greatest extent possible,
the natural soundscapes of parks.” The revised June 2006 draft restores the deleted
soundscape language. Another change in both 2006 drafts the would replace
30 The FAA provides information on the National Parks Air Tour Management Program via
their website at [http://www.atmp.faa.gov/default.htm].
31 U.S. Government Accountability Office, National Parks Air Tour Management Act: More
Flexibility and Better Enforcement Needed, GAO-06-263, (Washington, DC: GPO, Jan.
2006), 64 p. Available on the GAO website at [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06263.pdf].
32 U.S. Government Accountability Office, National Parks Air Tour Fees: Effective
Verification and Enforcement Are Needed to Improve Compliance, GAO-06-468,
(Washington, DC: GPO, May 2006), 37 p. Available on the GAO website at [http://www.
gao.gov/new.items/d06468.pdf].
33 68 Fed. Reg. 60572.

---

CRS-13
“adverse effects” of overflights with “unacceptable impacts” in a number of places.
This change 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, 1968.34 The federal portion
of the trails system consists of 24 national trails (8 scenic 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. Issues involve the funding,
quality, and quantity of trails.
Administrative Actions. On June 1, 2006, the Secretary of the Interior
announced the designation of 36 new National Recreation Trails (NRTs). Since
2001, the Bush Administration has designated 164 National Recreation Trails,
totaling more than 4,200 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.
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.35 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.
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
34 See [http://www.nps.gov/nts/] for establishing legislation and background information on
the National Trails System.
35 See [http://www.blm.gov/nlcs/nsht/NSHTSWfinalSig.pdf].

---

CRS-14
Program (RTP), 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 authorized 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.

Legislation (H.R. 690) introduced on February 9, 2005, would add National
Discovery Trails as a new category of long-distance trails within the National Trails
System, and designate the American Discovery Trail (ADT) as the nation’s first
coast-to-coast National Discovery Trail. The ADT would connect several national
scenic, historic, and recreation trails, as well as many other local and regional trails.
Two willing seller bills (H.R. 2332, S. 974) would provide federal authority to
acquire land from willing sellers to complete nine national scenic and historic trails.
These proposals would not commit the federal government to purchase any land or
spend any money, but would allow managers to purchase land to protect the national
trails as opportunities arise and funds are appropriated. Another bill (H.R. 1261)
would amend 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 estate acquisitions.
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 not included.
Title
Bill Number
Type
Status
Amends the National Trails System Act to
S. 54
Study
Passed Senate
require the Secretary of the Interior to update
Extension
the feasibility and suitability studies of four
national historic trails, and for other purposes
Arizona Trail Feasibility Act
H.R. 1250
Study
Introduced
S. 588
Hearing Held
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National
H.R. 2361
Study
P.L. 109-54
Historic Trail
H.R. 2588
Introduced
S. 336
Hearing held
H.R. 5466
Desig.
Introduced
S. 2568
Desig.
Ordered
reported
Chisholm Trail and Great Western Trail
H.R. 2964
Study
Introduced
1855 Treaty Trail
H.R. 3615
Study
Introduced
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail
H.R. 5053
Extension
Introduced
Extension Act of 2006
Mississippi River Trail Study Act
H.R. 1796
Study
Introduced

---

CRS-15
Title
Bill Number
Type
Status
National Discovery Trails Act
H.R. 690
Desig.
Introduced
Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail
H.R. 2053
Desig.
Introduced
S. 958
Passed Senate
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail
H.R. 3085
Study
Introduced
S. 1970
Reported
(S.Rept. 109-
239)
Also, on July 26, 2005, a House Resources subcommittee conducted an
oversight hearing on the implementation of the National Trails System Act. Issues
covered by agency and other witnesses included trail designations, maintenance, and
management; land acquisitions; private landowner concerns; and public-private
initiatives and collaborative efforts.36
Other Issues
The 109th Congress is evaluating several other recreation issues affecting federal
land. These include recreation within the National Wildlife Refuge System;
recreation at federal water sites (Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of
Engineers); 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 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 (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
36 Available at [http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/072605.htm].

---

CRS-16
on October 18, 2000.37 Some interest groups contended that the regulations did not
allow for sufficient public access for some forms of recreation, such as use of OHVs
or PWCs. 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 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,
potential introduction of invasive species, and precedent for wider access to sensitive
islands.
Recreation at Federal Water Sites. (by Nicole Carter and Nic Lane)
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.
Bureau of Reclamation. (by Nic Lane) An ongoing issue involves the
Bureau’s Lake Berryessa in Sonoma County, CA. Formed when the Bureau built
Monticello Dam in 1957, the lake is a popular recreation area where the Bureau has
let long-term contracts with seven concessionaires who provide recreation support
services. Six of these contracts, which have been in place for 40-plus years, will
expire in 2008-2009. The seventh, an interim contract, expired at the end of 2005.
The Bureau is considering significant changes to contract structure upon renewal,
including actions that will affect long-term camping (trailer parking) at the lake. This
is contentious for the concessionaires and current occupants of long-term sites. A
Record of Decision38 clarifying the Bureau’s intent for the management of long-term
camp sites at the lake was signed on June 2, 2006. The ROD specifies requirements
for concession operations and occupancy on federal lands. Reclamation indicates
that management decisions in the final ROD reflect a combination of proposed
management plans based on comments from the public and affected parties.
37 65 Fed. Reg. 62457, Oct. 18, 2000.
38 The Record of Decision is available at [http://www.usbr.gov/mp/berryessa/index.html].

---

CRS-17
Corps of Engineers. (by Nicole Carter) 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. 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
in 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 current practice of depositing Corps
user fees in the general Treasury. 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.
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 agencies (excluding the Bureau of
Reclamation) anticipate collecting about $208 million in fees in FY2006 and $240
million in fees in FY2007, with NPS collections accounting for about two-thirds of
the totals. 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.39
39 For more information on recreation fees, see CRS Report RS22171, Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act, by Carol Hardy Vincent.

---

CRS-18
Grand Canyon Colorado River Management. (by David Whiteman) The
NPS regulates and manages river-running boat trips on the Colorado River inside
Grand Canyon National Park to protect river resources and ensure a high-quality
visitor experience. The 277-mile river canyon is a popular destination for multi-day
raft trips, one of the most iconic of national park experiences. Decades of conflict
have ensued over motorized boating, helicopter flights used to ferry commercial
boating passengers in and out of the canyon, and the proportion of commercial
outfitters versus noncommercial private boaters. Historically, about 70% of river
access permits have gone to commercial concessioners, with about 30% to
noncommercial self-guided private boaters. These activities have been opposed by
groups favoring the preservation of wilderness-like values in the river corridor.
Commercial river trip outfitters assert that access for motorized boating does not
harm resources and is the only practical way to offer popular short-duration trips.
In late 2005, the NPS proposed a new Colorado River Management Plan
(CRMP)40 governing recreational river use for at least 10 years and establishing goals
and objectives for a longer time frame. The NPS analyzed nearly 20,000 comments
before completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement and issuing a Record of
Decision on March 23, 2006. The new management plan alters the allocation of river
access between commercial and noncommercial users, with more access for the self-
outfitted sector and a shorter season for commercial trips. The waiting list for
noncommercial users is to be phased-out and replaced by a “hybrid” weighted lottery
system.41 Complaints thus far contend that, even though noncommercial users have
more overall access, they are largely relegated to off-season periods and are allowed
less time on the river. Also, some interests fear that accommodations for motorized
use could jeopardize long-pending prospects for wilderness designation.
On February 16, 2006, a coalition of conservation groups filed suit in federal
court to force Interior to re-evaluate its approach to river canyon ecosystem recovery.
They cite continuing damage to beaches, vegetation, unique species, and cultural
resources from the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam, and contend that the new
CRMP does not adequately protect park resources from user impacts. Another
coalition of conservation and boating groups filed a separate suit on March 28, 2006,
over motorized use and perceived inequities of the new river use plan.
40 Additional background information and related documents are available on the NPS
CRMP website at [http://www.nps.gov/grca/crmp/].
41 Information on Colorado River permits and the transition process is available on the NPS
CRMP website at [http://www.nps.gov/grca/river/].

---