Order Code RL33484
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
National Park Management
Updated September 25, 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. Legislation to reauthorize the HPF (S.
1378 and H.R. 5861) is being considered. Further, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation has issued a draft revision of its policy statement regarding treatment
of burial sites, and the draft has been controversial.
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 has revised its service-wide management policies
— one of the authorities governing decision-making on a wide range of issues. The
final policies, issued August 31, 2006, dropped many of the proposed changes that
were controversial. 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, and some of these measures have passed the
Senate or House.
Other Issues. Some other park management topics of interest to the 109th
Congress are covered here. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Policy Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Wild and Scenic Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Competitive Sourcing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Regional Haze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

---

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 Carol Hardy Vincent, Nicole T. Carter, and Julie Jennings.
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 Report RL33596, Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service, 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

---

CRS-3
criteria for designating and managing NHAs. (For more information, see CRS
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 Report RL33525, 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

---

CRS-4
tourism. It serves as an adjunct to Save America’s Treasures. For FY2006, Congress
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 establishment
of the new program was not adopted by the House or the Senate Committee on
Appropriations in H.R. 5386, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill for FY2007. (See “Legislative Activity,” below.)
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) was established as an
independent agency by the NHPA to advise Congress and the President on historic
preservation matters. The ACHP has issued a draft revision of its policy statement
regarding treatment of burial sites (71 Fed. Reg. 13066, March 14, 2006). The policy
guides federal agencies in making decisions about burial sites, human remains, and
funerary objects encountered during reviews under §106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account the
effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The ACHP is revising its policies
on the grounds that the current one no longer reflects its position, because since its
issuance in 1988 there have been changes in law and regulations affecting how
human remains and funerary objects are to be considered and treated. The draft
policy has been controversial. It brings to the forefront issues of the power of the
ACHP, the extent to which Indian tribes in particular are being accommodated, and
whether the ACHP can make or is making final decisions in §106 reviews. The draft
policy was open for public comment through July 28, 2006, and the ACHP is
currently assessing the comments received for the development of a final policy.


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, while the level reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee is
$70.7 million. Both the House and the Senate Committee supported $35.7 million
for grants-in-aid to states, $3.9 million for tribal grants, and $1.0 million for HBCUs.
The House-passed bill contained $15.0 million for Save America’s Treasures, and
$3.0 million for Preserve America. The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported
bill contained $30.0 million for Save America’s Treasures, including not more than
$10.0 million for Preserve America grants. (For more information on funding for
historic preservation, see CRS Report RL33617, Historic Preservation: Background
and Funding, by Susan Boren.)

---

CRS-5
H.R. 5861 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. Both bills would extend authority to fund the HPF through FY2015
through annual deposits of $150 million earned from oil and gas development from
the Outer Continental Shelf . They also would make changes to the membership and
operation of the ACHP. Further, the House bill provides that a certified local
government that uses an eligibility determination to initiate local regulatory
requirements must allow due process to property owners who might object to an
eligibility determination on their property. It also seeks to protect applicants who
must submit to §106 review from being required to fund surveys and studies to
determine potential effects on historic properties that are beyond their identified area.
The Senate bill was reported from committee on April 20, 2006 (S.Rept. 109-235)
and the House bill was passed by the House on September 25, 2006.
P.L. 109-234, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the
Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, includes $43.0 million for the HPF.
Of those funds, $40.0 million would be to establish a specialized grants-in-aid
program for the repair and rehabilitation of historic structures damaged by Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, particularly for 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 no 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
FY2006 appropriation for all of HPF’s programs ($72.2 million).
On September 20, 2006, a subcommittee of the House Committee on
Government Reform held oversight hearings on the effects of historic preservation
on economic and community development, and on the implementation of the federal
historic rehabilitation tax credit program administered by the National Park Service
in partnership with the Internal Revenue Service and state historic preservation
officers. A focus was on the benefits of historic preservation in community
development, and in particular on how the state and federal tax credit programs have
worked in partnership to enhance rehabilitation of properties and communities. Since
the inception of the federal rehabilitation tax credit program in 1976, over $36 billion
in private investment in historic buildings has been generated, involving over 32,000
approved projects.3 Some changes to this tax credit program are included in the
Community Restoration and Revitalization Act (H.R. 3159/H.R. 659), which would
allow an increased rehabilitation tax credit for certain low-income buildings. These
bills have been referred to a House committee; there has been no further legislative
action.
3 Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program: Recommendations for Making a
Good Program Better, Report to the National Park System Advisory Board by the
Committee on the Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program. September, 2006.

---

CRS-6
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.4 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.”5 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
using “misleading” math to appear to be on track to eliminate the backlog.6 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
4 Estimates are from DOI and the FS, and reflect only direct project costs in accordance with
requirements of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
5 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Budget Justifications and Performance
Information, Fiscal Year 2007, p. overview-3 (Washington, DC: 2006).
6 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].

---

CRS-7
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.7 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.
Policy Revisions (by Carol Hardy Vincent)
Background. On August 31, 2006, the NPS issued new service-wide
management policies that govern the way NPS managers make decisions on a wide
range of issues (together with laws, regulations, and other authorities).8 The final
policies appear to have met with broad support from earlier critics of an October 19,
2005 draft, although some recreation advocates prefer the emphasis of the draft over
7 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Budget, Internal Memorandum, Washington, D.C.,
received April 7, 2006.
8 The new policies are available on the NPS website at [http://home.nps.gov/applications/
npspolicy/index.cfm].

---

CRS-8
the final version. The process by which the policies were reformed was controversial.
The NPS Management Policies were last updated in 2001 after a several-year internal
and external review.
Administrative Actions. The NPS, in a news release, cited varied reasons
for initiating a revision of its management policies, namely legal, social, and
technological developments since the issuance of the 2001 policies. With regard to
legal issues, the agency notes new laws, executive orders, and regulations affecting
park management. Social issues appear to include increased responsibilities for
homeland security, population growth near parks, changes in park visitation, and a
focus on strengthening community ties. Technological issues stem from
developments that provide new ways to recreate in parks or reduce adverse affects
on resources.9 According to an NPS spokesman, policy revisions also were
undertaken because coverage of financial issues was needed, including on recreation
fees, concession royalties, and Park Service donations, and because there was some
support in Congress for a review of NPS management policies.
The development of policy changes began with the preparation of draft changes
by a senior DOI official. That initial, internal proposal was intended to promote in-
house discussion of management policies, according to DOI. Nevertheless, it 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, including by the National Leadership Council — a group of senior
park managers who set policy and overall direction for the NPS, before its
publication.
On October 19, 2005, the NPS published draft Management Policies (70 Fed.
Reg. 60852), with a public comment period through February 18, 2006. Some park
groups and environmentalists were concerned that changes would fundamentally alter
park protections and potentially lead to damaging park resources. One much-
discussed proposal sought to require “balance” between conservation and enjoyment
of park resources, whereas the then-existing policy stated that “conservation is to be
predominant” in conservation/enjoyment conflicts. This controversy illustrates a
long-standing tension in the Park Service’s mission to protect park resources while
providing for their use and enjoyment by the public.
9 National Park Service, news release of June 19, 2006, entitled Kempthorne: Park
Management Policies Will Assure Legacy of Conservation, available on the NPS website
at [http://home.nps.gov/applications/release/Detail.cfm?ID=681].

---

CRS-9
The NPS received approximately 45,000 comments, and made revisions to the
draft policies based on these comments. The draft underwent further review, for
example by the National Leadership Council. On June 19, 2006, the NPS issued
revised draft management polices. That version was widely viewed as shifting park
priorities back to preservation, and was thus generally supported by conservation
interests. Some critics viewed the policies as favoring conservation over recreation,
and thus as insufficiently allowing for public use and enjoyment of NPS lands and
resources. Others viewed the policies as failing to address or resolve certain issues.
After a final review and relatively minor revisions, the polices were made final on
August 31, 2006.
The final policies contain a list of underlying principles, including that the
policies must “ensure that conservation will be predominant when there is a conflict
between the protection of resources and their use” (p. iv). In testimony on June 20,
2006, the NPS Deputy Director outlined the “improvement” from the 2001 to 2006
policies, primarily changes in emphasis and clarity in many areas. They include a
commitment to civic engagement, cooperative conservation, and improvements in
workforce and business practices. Other changes involve additional guidance on
relationships between parks and Native Americans, and recognition of the importance
of clean air, clean water, and soundscapes. Still other changes involve new guidance
on determining what is an appropriate or inappropriate use of parks, and management
of uses to avoid impairment of resources.10 In testimony on July 25, 2006, the NPS
Director further elaborated that the 2006 policies ensure that Americans will continue
to enjoy national parks.
Legislative Activity. House and Senate committees have held several
hearings on park management policies. For instance, 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 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 then-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
10 National Park Service, testimony of Stephen P. Martin, June 20, 2006, available on the
website of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources at [http://energy.senate.
gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=1564&Witness_
ID=4235].

---

CRS-10
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.
A June 20, 2006, Senate Energy and Natural Resources subcommittee took
testimony from two witnesses on the revisions to park management policies,
primarily the June 19, 2006, version. The NPS Deputy Director described the process
for revising the policies, and differences between the 2001 and June 19, 2006, park
policies (discussed above under “Administrative Actions”). A witness from the
National Parks Conservation Association expressed general support for the June 19,
2006, version of the park policies, as apparently having “discarded the broad changes
that caused so much national concern.”11 His testimony compared selected provisions
of the 2001 policies with the June 2006 and earlier proposed revisions.

A subcommittee of the House Resources Committee held a hearing on park
management policies on July 25, 2006. In an opening statement, the subcommittee
chairman expressed the concern of some Members that the June 19, 2006, policy
proposals subordinate the enjoyment and use of park units to the conservation of
resources. He expressed support for the October 2005 proposals as more accurately
reflecting the mission of the NPS, and compared relevant provisions of that draft with
the June 19, 2006, one. Further, the chairman outlined “failures” in the park system
that were not addressed by the latest draft policies, including inconsistency in
implementing construction requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act
and actions that the NPS should take to increase visitation.12 As the sole witness, the
NPS Director provided an overview of the areas of emphasis of the June 19, 2006,
draft policies, and also described the changes as an “improvement” over the 2001
policies. She summarized the process through which the NPS was developing
revised policies.13

Congressional hearings have been held on park management issues other than
the policy revisions. For instance, with regard to park management generally, 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.
11 National Parks Conservation Association, testimony of Thomas C. Kiernan, June 20,
2006, available on the website of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
at [http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing
_ID=1564&Witness_ID=2337].
12 Opening Statement of Chairman Stevan Pearce, Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Resources, Oversight Hearing on NPS Management Polices, July 25, 2006.
13 National Park Service, testimony of Fran Mainella, July 25, 2006, available on the website
of the House Committee on Resources at [http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/
109/nprpl/072506.htm].

---

CRS-11
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 (16 U.S.C. §§1271-1287).14 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).15 Congress may
consider, among other sources, these NRI rivers which are believed to possess
“outstandingly remarkable” values. The Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture
are to report to the President as to the suitability of study areas for wild and scenic
designation. The President then submits his recommendations regarding designation
to Congress.
Administrative Actions. Wild and scenic rivers designated by Congress
generally are managed by one of the four federal land management agencies — NPS,
FWS, BLM, and FS. Management varies with the class of the designated river and
the values for which it was included in the system. Components of the system
managed by the NPS become a part of the National Park System. 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.
14 The text of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is available on the NPS website at
[http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wsract.html].
15 For further Information on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, see the NPS website at
[http://www.nps.gov/rtca/nri/].

---

CRS-12
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
Hearing Held
Economic Enhancement Act (designate
S. 2567
Hearing Held
segments of the Amargosa River in CA)
Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act
Desig.
H.R. 5885
Introduced
(CT)
S. 3723
Introduced
Fossil Creek Wild and Scenic River Act
Desig.
H.R. 5957
Introduced
(AZ)
S. 3762
Introduced
Lower Farmington River and Salmon
Study
H.R. 1344
Passed House
Brook Wild and Scenic River Study Act
S. 435
Passed Senate
of 2005 (CT)
Mt. Hood Stewardship Legacy Act
Desig.
H.R. 5025
Passed House
Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness
S. 3854
Introduced
Act (both to designate waterways in the
Mt. Hood NF (OR))
Musconetcong Wild and Scenic Rivers
Desig.
H.R. 1307
Passed House
Act (NJ)
S. 1096
Passed Senate
Northern California Coastal Wild
Desig.
H.R. 233
Senate Calendar
Heritage Wilderness Act (Black Butte
S. 128
Passed Senate
River segments)
Owyhee Initiative Implementation Act
Desig.
S. 3794
Introduced
(ID) (to designate rivers in Idaho)
Perquimans River Wild and Scenic River
Study
H.R. 4105
Introduced
Study Act (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

---

CRS-13
Title
Type
Status
Upper White Salmon Wild and Scenic
Desig.
H.R. 38
P.L. 109-44;
Rivers Act (WA)
S. 74
Indef. Postponed
Washington County Growth and
Desig.
S. 3636
Introduced
Conservation Act (to designate segments
H.R. 5769
Hearing Held
of the Virgin River and its tributaries
across federal land within and adjacent to
Zion National Park, UT)
Chamber-Passed Bills.
The 109th Congress has enacted H.R. 38 (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. Several other bills have passed the House
or Senate, as discussed below.

On December 16, 2005, the Senate passed S. 435, to 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. A companion bill, H.R. 1344, passed the House
on September 25, 2006.
Also on December 16, 2005, the Senate passed S. 1096 — the Musconetcong
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act — to designate 24.2 miles of the river in northwestern
New Jersey. The House passed a companion bill, H.R. 1307, on July 24, 2006. Both
bills also provide for the designation of an additional 4.3 miles of the Musconetcong
River as a recreational river, if the Secretary of the Interior determines that there is
adequate local support.
On July 24, 2006, the House also passed H.R. 5025, to designate 25 miles of
waterways in the Mount Hood National Forest (OR) as additions to the Wild and
Scenic Rivers System. A Senate companion bill, S. 3854, seeks to designate the
same segments and additional ones for a total of 81 miles of waterways in the Mount
Hood National Forest. The bill has been referred to committee.
Both the House and Senate have passed companion legislation, H.R. 233 and
S. 128, to designate segments totaling 21 miles of the Black Butte River (CA) as a
wild or scenic river. Both bills also require the Secretary of Agriculture to report to
Congress regarding a fire management plan for the segments and the cultural and
historic resources in those segments.

---

CRS-14
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.
(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. During FY2006, the NPS planned to
conduct a preliminary planning effort for 150 FTEs,16 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, and the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, included similar provisions for FY2007 in their versions of 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
16 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-15
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
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.17 In August 2006, the National Parks Conservation Association released
a new report asserting that “air pollution is among the most serious and wide-ranging
problems facing the parks today.... We’ve made some important advances ... but
much more remains to be done.”18 The report includes 10 recommendations to
improve air quality in the National Park System.

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.
17 See 2005 Annual Performance and Progress Report: Air Quality in National Parks,
available on the NPS website at [http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/index.cfm].
18 National Parks Conservation Association, Turning Point, p. 4, available on the web at
[http://www.npca.org/turningpoint/Full-Report.pdf].

---

CRS-16
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.19 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
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].)
Several 109th Congress hearings have been held on illegal border issues affecting
federal lands along the northern and southern U.S. borders, including NPS lands.
Hearings have addressed the adverse affects of such activities on federal lands, how
to reduce harm from illegal border activities, efforts of various agencies to secure
federal lands along the borders, and the demands on law enforcement personnel of
the federal land management agencies. Illegal activities at issue have included drug
trafficking, alien smuggling, money laundering, organized crime, and terrorism.
Such activities are reported to have caused damage to federal lands, including by
creating illegal roads, depositing large amounts of trash and human waste, increasing
risk of fire from poorly tended camp fires, destroying vegetation and cultural
resources, and polluting waterways. The effects on federal lands of border
enforcement activities, in response to illegal immigration, also has been addressed.
Some agency witnesses discussed the implementation of a recent memorandum of
understanding between the Departments of Homeland Security, Interior, and
Agriculture on initiatives to improve handling of illegal border activities and their
impacts on federal lands.
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
19 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-17
and the Senate Committee on Appropriations 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 or the Senate
Committee on Appropriations was not specified in H.R. 5386.
For Additional Reading
CRS Report RL32017, Circular A-76 Revision 2003: Selected Issues, by L. Elaine
Halchin.
CRS Report RL32833, Competitive Sourcing Legislation, 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 RL33596, Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and the Forest Service, coordinated by Ross W. Gorte and 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 RL33617, Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Report RS22298, Historic Preservation: Federal Laws and Regulations
Related to Hurricane Recovery and Reconstruction, by Douglas Reid Weimer.

CRS Report RL33399, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007
Appropriations, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent and Susan Boren.
CRS Report RL33531, Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding
History, and Current Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RS20902, National Monument Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RS20158, National Park System: Establishing New Units, by Carol
Hardy Vincent.

---

CRS-18
CRS Report RL32699, Natural Resources: Selected Issues for the 109th Congress,
coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent, Nicole T. Carter, and Julie Jennings.
CRS Report RL33525, Recreation on Federal Lands, coordinated by Kori Calvert
and Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL31149, Snowmobiles: Environmental Standards and Access to
National Parks, by James E. McCarthy.
CRS Report RS20702, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter.
CRS Report RL32483, Visibility, Regional Haze, and the Clean Air Act: Status of
Implementation, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett.
CRS Report RL30809, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and Federal Water Rights, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL31447, Wilderness: Overview and Statistics, by Ross W. Gorte.

---