Order Code RL33525
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Recreation on Federal Lands
Updated November 7, 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 different types of recreation with each other and with other
land uses. Motorized recreation has been particularly controversial, with issues
centering on access and environmental impacts. The 109th Congress has been
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. This report covers several prominent issues.
Motorized Recreation on NPS Land: Off-Highway Vehicles, Personal
Watercraft, and Snowmobiles. Off-highway vehicle (OHV), personal watercraft
(PWC), and snowmobile use at National Park Service (NPS) units has fueled ongoing
debates over the balance between recreation and the protection of parklands and
waters. Since 2003, NPS has issued regulations to open designated areas at 13 units
to PWC. The agency is developing a new winter use plan for snowmobiles at three
Yellowstone area parks. OHV use at some units is being challenged in the courts.
Aircraft Overflights. Grand Canyon National Park is at the center of a conflict
over whether or how to limit air tours over national parks to reduce noise. 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.
Motorized Recreation in the National Forests and on BLM Land. The use
of OHVs on Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands has
been 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.
National Trails System. While designation of trails is often popular, issues
remain regarding the funding, expansion, and quality of trails. The 109th Congress
has been 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 NPS Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Personal Watercraft (PWC) at NPS Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Snowmobiles on NPS Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Aircraft Overflights at NPS Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Motorized Recreation on BLM Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Motorized Recreation in the National Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
The National Trails System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Recreation in the National Wildlife Refuge System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Recreation at Federal Water Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Recreation Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Grand Canyon Colorado River Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

---

Recreation on Federal Lands
Introduction
Four federal agencies administer about 95% of the approximately 653 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.1 These agencies manage federal lands for a variety of
purposes relating to the preservation, development, and use of the lands and natural
resources. The NPS administers the National 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, with other uses to the extent that they are compatible. The BLM
manages public lands and the FS manages national forests for similar multiple uses,
including 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.2 The FS reports 211
1 See the U.S. General Services Administration’s Federal Real Property Profile (2004) at
[http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?noc=T&contentType=GSA_DOCU
MENT&contentId=13586]. Table 16 shows federally owned acreage by state.
2 For a graph depicting 2005 recreation visits to DOI sites, see p. DH-54 of the FY2007
(continued...)

---

CRS-2
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
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 sport utility vehicles (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, about 5% of all recreation visits. 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 OHVs on federal lands and waters has been particularly contentious,
and lawsuits have challenged their management. OHV supporters argue that these
vehicles provide outdoor recreation opportunities for the disabled, senior citizens,
and others with mobility limitations; visitor access to hard-to-reach natural areas;
economic benefits to communities serving riders; and, for snowmobiles, increased
access to sites during the winter season. They believe technological advances do and
will continue to limit noise and pollution. Critics of OHVs raise environmental
concerns, including potential 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
2 (...continued)
Interior Budget in Brief at [http://www.doi.gov/budget/2007/07Hilites/DH53.pdf].

---

CRS-3
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
management plans, and area-specific decisions. Legislation establishing NPS units
may provide for specific OHV uses. In addition, NPS administers OHV use via unit-
specific regulations, management plans, and the superintendent’s compendium. On
August 31, 2006, the NPS released final revised management policies to guide
management throughout the National Park System, in part to reflect changing
recreational uses and evolving technologies.3 These management policies largely
retain the 2001 edition’s emphasis on conservation of park resources in conservation/
use conflicts (§ 1.4.3).4
The 109th Congress has been considering legislation and conducting oversight
on issues pertaining to recreation on federal lands. Several major issues are covered
in this report, particularly use of traditional OHVs, PWC, and snowmobiles in certain
National Park System units; overflights of national park units; motorized recreation
on BLM and FS lands; 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 Carol Hardy Vincent, Nicole T. Carter,
and Julie Jennings. For information on NPS issues, see CRS Report RL33484,
National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent. 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. For information on
appropriations for federal land management agencies, see CRS Report RL33399,
3 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].
4 The final version of the 2006 NPS management policies is available via the NPS website
at [http://www.nps.gov/policy/MP2006.pdf].

---

CRS-4
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations, coordinated
by Carol Hardy Vincent and Susan Boren.
Current Issues
Motorized Recreation on NPS Land (by Kori Calvert)
Background. National Park System units may comprise many different
features, including historic, scenic, or scientific resources, outstanding natural and
cultural attributes, and outdoor recreational opportunities. Balancing appropriate
recreational use and parkland enjoyment with the protection and preservation of
resources is a significant ongoing challenge to both NPS administrators and the
congressional committees conducting agency oversight. Motorized recreation in
particular, and the extent and effect of motorized access, can be contentious. Debate
often focuses on a particular form of motorized recreation within an individual park
unit or a small number of units. Such issues include personal watercraft (PWC) at
popular NPS-administered water sites; snowmobiles at three Yellowstone area parks;
Grand Canyon National Park airtour overflights; and other forms of off-highway
vehicles (OHVs) — four-wheel drive vehicles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and dune,
sand, and swamp buggies — at areas such as Big Cypress National Preserve. This
section focuses primarily on these latter forms of OHVs.5
Currently, of the 390 NPS units covering over 84 million acres of land, 43 allow
snowmobiles and 13 allow PWC. Also, excluding Alaska, NPS counts 15 park units
allowing other types of OHV use by the general public. Some additional units permit
OHV access to inholders, Native Americans, or others for specific limited purposes
under a variety of authorizations.6 Manufacturers and various user groups contend
that NPS limits on OHV use unfairly restrict access, establish a precedent for other
federal land managers to impose or extend restrictions, and may be economically
harmful to gateway communities and industries serving users. Opponents of
motorized recreation in NPS units cite damage to the environment and cultural
artifacts; safety concerns; conflicts with other forms of recreation; and inadequate
NPS staff to effectively monitor motorized use and its impact on park resources.
Opponents also cite the NPS statutory mandate to protect park resources and the
availability of other federal lands (FS, BLM) where OHV use may be permitted.
Administrative Actions. As noted above, federal guidance on OHV use on
NPS lands is provided in E.O. 11644 and E.O. 11989, in agency regulations and
policies, and in other authorities. An NPS unit’s enabling legislation may establish
specific activities as an appropriate use — e.g., water-oriented recreation,
5 A more detailed discussion of snowmobile, PWC, and overflight management issues at
NPS units and related legislative and regulatory guidance may be found in separate sections
of this report.
6 Figures confirmed with NPS via phone conversation, Sept. 22, 2006. NPS also provided
examples of areas with authorized administrative use of OHVs: Badlands National Park,
Redwoods National Park, Canyon de Chelly National Monument, Grand Portage National
Monument, Cumberland Island National Seashore, and Channel Islands National Seashore.

---

CRS-5
snowmobiling for subsistence or recreational purposes, or OHV travel to reach
hunting or fishing areas. Under NPS regulations (36 C.F.R. § 4.10), OHV use may
be allowed in four types of NPS units whose primary purposes include outdoor
recreational opportunities for their visitors — national recreation areas, national
seashores, national lakeshores, and national preserves. OHV use is an “appropriate
use” of those areas when managed to protect park resources and visitors.7 Agency
regulations also require special rulemaking, with environmental impact analysis and
public comment, to designate routes and areas for off-road motor vehicles in park
units. Additional unit-level direction for previously designated routes (such as
temporary route closures) may be included in a park’s general management plan
and/or determined by the park superintendent (36 C.F.R. § 1.5).
As OHV use on federal lands grew in recent decades, particularly in western
states, unauthorized use also is reported to have increased in some areas, including
parklands. In 1999, the environmental organization Bluewater Network surveyed
108 NPS units and reported findings on the ecological effects of OHV use at those
units. The organization determined that there was unauthorized use in 40 of them.8
Bluewater and other groups also petitioned NPS in December 1999 to take specific
OHV actions: to ban OHV use in all NPS off-road areas, to define “off-road vehicle
usage” as any use not on “pavement or high-standard gravel roads,” and to develop
procedures for monitoring OHV use and regulatory compliance. In 2004, the NPS
met with Bluewater and agreed to conduct a service-wide survey to determine the
extent of authorized and unauthorized OHV use, its impacts, and any OHV
monitoring activity. Of the then 388 NPS park units, 256 initially responded.9
Bluewater claims illegal OHV use in 92 (36%) of those reporting units and resource
damage in 71 (28%). NPS asserts that the survey showed unauthorized OHV use in
“several parks” and generally “less than significant” resource damage.10
The NPS survey identified eight park units with authorized public OHV use and
special regulations in place: Big Cypress National Preserve; Gateway and Lake
Meredith National Recreation Areas (NRAs); and Assateague, Cape Cod, Fire Island,
Gulf Islands, and Padre Island National Seashores. According to the agency, seven
7 52 Fed. Reg. 10670-10686, 10673 (April 2, 1987).
8 Off-the-Track: America’s National Parks under Siege is available via the Bluewater
Network website at [http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/reports/rep_pl_offroad_offtrack.pdf].
Bluewater’s use of the term “off-road vehicle” (ORV) encompasses ATVs, four-wheel drive
vehicles (jeeps, SUVs, etc.), and dune, sand, and swamp buggies. Two-wheeled vehicles
(motorcycles) and snowmobiles are not included. For purposes of this section, OHV and
ORV are synonymous.
9 Park units have continued to respond to the survey. As of September 2006, 54 additional
units (310 units in all) have completed the survey. (Phone conversation with NPS, Sept. 22,
2006.)
10 Letter from Steve P. Martin, NPS Deputy Director of Operations, to Bluewater Network
Executive Director Russell Long, May 3, 2005. Available via the Bluewater website at
[http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/npsorv/letterfromNPS.pdf]. See also Bluewater’s
response to NPS, available at [http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/npsorv/lettertoNPS.pdf].
NPS provided copies of the initial 256 survey responses to Bluewater Network. (Phone
conversation with NPS, Sept. 22, 2006.)

---

CRS-6
additional units remain open to public OHV use while the agency conducts
environmental studies and develops special regulations: Little River Canyon
National Preserve; Glen Canyon, Curecanti, and Lake Meredith NRAs; Big South
Fork National River and Recreation Area; and Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout
National Seashores. NPS is encouraging units with illegal OHV use to pursue
enforcement actions. However, some believe NPS budgetary and staff constraints
could limit enforcement effectiveness.11
The NPS convened a workshop in March 2005 to discuss OHV management
within two contexts — appropriate agency-wide OHV policies, and each park unit’s
unique establishing purposes. Issues explored included what OHV management
elements might best fit under a coordinated national management strategy; whether
BLM and FS OHV strategies contain transferable elements; and what issues might
be addressed via formal guidance from the NPS Director. The latter could include
OHV monitoring protocols; consistent OHV incident reporting requirements; interim
OHV use management guidelines for NPS units developing regulations; definitions
of OHV, off-road, off-highway, routes, and areas; and clarifying regulations that
define park roads. Creation of an OHV-use national website also was discussed. To
date, no formal proposals have been issued. Meanwhile, on November 29, 2005,
Bluewater and two other conservation groups filed a lawsuit against NPS and DOI
in the District of Columbia U.S. District Court. The plaintiffs allege that OHVs
constitute a “serious threat” to NPS resources that the agency has failed to address.
Recreation was a key area of debate during an NPS rewrite of its management
policies. On August 31, 2006, the NPS released the final version of its 2006
management policies, which guide management throughout the National Park
System, including recreational uses. One much-discussed proposed change would
have required “balance” between conservation and enjoyment of park resources,
although the final policy states that “conservation is to be predominant” in
conservation/enjoyment conflicts (§ 1.4.3). NPS rewrote its draft policies extensively
based on analysis of over 45,000 comments, ultimately retaining in large part the
2001 policy language and its emphasis on conservation. The 2006 document also
cites OHV language in 36 C.F.R. § 4.10(b) that limits OHV use to four specific types
of NPS units, restrictive language not included in the 2001 edition. Park and
environmental groups are generally supportive of the final management policies but
cautious about future policy implementation and enforcement. Policy critics view
the document as favoring conservation over recreation and are uncertain how the
preservation and protection of natural soundscapes may affect motorized recreation.
However, some critics point to new language that promotes public collaborative
relationships between NPS and gateway communities, among others, as a positive
step for incorporating local concerns regarding the economic impacts of recreation
to these communities.
11 Letter to Steven P. Martin, NPS Deputy Director, from Robert D. Rosenbaum, Arnold &
Porter LLP (on behalf of Bluewater Network et al.), June 13, 2005, available via the
Bluewater website at [http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/npsorv/lettertoNPS.pdf].

---

CRS-7
Legislative Activity. On July 13, 2005, House Resources conducted a joint
subcommittee hearing on motorized recreation use on federal lands.12 Agency
representatives discussed the continuing increase in and demand for motorized
recreation on federal lands, and related OHV management challenges. Additional
testimony covered the economic, environmental, and health effects of OHV use.
Personal Watercraft (PWC) at NPS Sites (by Kori Calvert)
Background. PWC 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, PWC 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 PWC 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 PWC 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, PWC 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.13
The rule allowed PWC use to continue until April 22, 2002, at the remaining 21 units
while the NPS evaluated whether to permanently authorize PWC use and develop
special regulations. The rule recognized that certain 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 PWC from the 21 areas unless the NPS
initiated park-specific rules and environmental assessments. PWC could continue
to operate during the rulemaking process, but only until specified “grace period”
deadlines.
The NPS prohibited PWC use (effective April 22, 2002) in 5 of the 21 areas that
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 agency lifted PWC bans at 13
NPS units and authorized their use in designated areas: in 2003, at Lake Mead and
Glen Canyon (Lake Powell) NRAs, and Assateague National Seashore; in 2004, at
Lake Meredith, Lake Roosevelt, Amistad, and Chickasaw NRAs; in 2005, at Bighorn
12 See [http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/071305.htm].
13 65 Fed. Reg. 15077 (March 21, 2000); effective April 20, 2000.

---

CRS-8
Canyon NRA, Fire Island National Seashore, and Pictured Rocks National
Lakeshore; and in 2006, at Gulf Islands and Cape Lookout National Seashores and
Curecanti NRA. The NPS has proposed rules to allow PWC in one unit, Gateway
NRA (Feb. 24, 2006), while Padre Island National Seashore and Big Thicket
National Preserve remain closed to PWC pending completion of environmental
assessments and rulemaking.

The 2006 NPS management policies (§ 8.2.3.3) state that personal watercraft
use is generally prohibited (36 C.F.R. § 3.24) but may be allowed via special
regulation if such use has been identified as “an appropriate use that will not result
in unacceptable impacts.” This revised language could be regarded as a shift in
emphasis from the 2001 management polices, which prohibited PWC use unless such
use is confirmed “appropriate for a specific park.”
Legislative Activity. On May 10, 2006, the House Appropriations
Committee adopted an amendment by voice vote to include report language
accompanying the FY2007 Interior appropriations bill (H.R. 5386) urging NPS to
complete PWC rulemakings “in an efficient and timely manner.”14 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.15 On May 4, 2005, a House Resources subcommittee oversight
hearing considered PWC use in the National Park System.16 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.
Snowmobiles on NPS Land (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 National 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
14 See [http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr465)], H.Rept.
109-465, p. 45.
15 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on House Government Reform. Subcommittee on
Regulatory Affairs. Taking on Water: The National Park Service’s Stalled Rulemaking
Effort on Personal Watercraft. Available 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].
16 Available at [http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/050405.htm].

---

CRS-9
announcement, pending formal rulemaking and public comment. 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.17 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.18
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 2006-2007.19 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.
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) in winter 2006-2007. The draft EIS
will evaluate several alternative winter use scenarios, each with varying mass-transit
snowcoach and snowmobile entry levels, commercial guiding requirements, and BAT
standards for snowcoaches and snowmobiles.20
17 66 Fed. Reg. 7260 (Jan. 22, 2001).
18 68 Fed. Reg. 69267 (Dec. 11, 2003).
19 69 Fed. Reg. 65348 (Nov. 10, 2004). Available via the NPS website at [http://www.nps.
gov/yell/planvisit/winteruse/fedregfinalrule11-10.pdf].
20 For additional information on the EIS process and status, see the Yellowstone National
Park Winter Planning website at [http://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/winteruse/index.htm].
For background information on snowmobiles in park units generally, see CRS Report
(continued...)

---

CRS-10
The final NPS management policies released on August 31, 2006, added new
language to cover both snowmobiles and oversnow vehicles (§ 8.2.3.2). It states that,
outside Alaska, special regulations are required to designate snowmobile and
oversnow vehicle routes after park planning determines such use to be appropriate.
Designated routes are limited to those used by motorboats and motorized vehicles in
other seasons.
Legislative Activity. The House-passed 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 Appropriations Committee-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.21
Aircraft Overflights at NPS Sites (by Carol Hardy Vincent and Kori
Calvert)
Background. The NPS is to provide for the public enjoyment of parklands
while protecting resources, while the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
controls airspace and aircraft overflights. This has created a conflict between
resource management and aviation access authorities and their constituencies. Grand
Canyon National Park has been the focal point of a conflict between groups seeking
to limit overflights of national parks due to concerns about noise and safety, and air
tour operators whose economic stability, with ripple effects on local businesses, may
depend on providing overflights. The National Parks Overflights Act of 1987 (P.L.
100-91) directed NPS to recommend a flight control plan for Grand Canyon that
would provide a “substantial restoration of the natural quiet” and prohibited flights
below the canyon’s rim. It required an NPS study of the effects of all aircraft
overflights, which was submitted to Congress in 1994.22
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
20 (...continued)
RL31149, Snowmobiles: Environmental Standards and Access to National Parks, by James
E. McCarthy.
21 Available at [http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/041205.htm].
22 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Report to Congress: Report on Effects
of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System, listed under the topic heading “NPS
Documents” at [http://www.nps.gov/archive/grca/overflights/documents/index.htm].

---

CRS-11
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 required 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.23
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, 2011.24 Third, the FAA issued a final rule establishing a standard
for quiet technology for certain aircraft in commercial air tour operations over Grand
Canyon.25 The rule identifies which aircraft meet the standard. In future rulemaking,
the FAA is expected to 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.26 The public comment period ended on April 27, 2006.
Other regulatory actions affect commercial air tours at park units. The Air Tour
Act final rule27 requires air tour operators to apply for authority to fly over national
park and abutting tribal lands. The FAA received applications for commercial air
tours over 107 of the 388 park units, and has granted interim operating authority to
applicants. Application triggers development of an Air Tour Management Plan
(ATMP) by the FAA and NPS for each unit where none exists.28 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 five 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.
23 65 Fed. Reg. 17708 (April 4, 2000), effective May 4, 2000.
24 71 Fed. Reg. 9439 (Feb. 24, 2006).
25 70 Fed. Reg. 16084 (March 29, 2005).
26 71 Fed. Reg. 4192 (Jan. 25, 2006).
27 67 Fed. Reg. 65661 (Oct. 25, 2002).
28 The FAA provides information on the National Parks Air Tour Management Program via
their website at [http://www.atmp.faa.gov/default.htm].

---

CRS-12
A January 2006 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report addressed the
impact of the delay in implementation of the Air Tour Act.29 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.

The FAA is developing a final rule to provide safety standards for commercial
air tours nationally, including over Grand Canyon and other park units.30 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.
As part of an overall review of its management policies, the NPS has made
some changes to policies on overflights and aviation uses (§ 8.4) and on soundscape
management (§ 4.9). The new policies, issued August 31, 2006, replaced “adverse
effects” of overflights with “unacceptable impacts” in a number of places. Some
regard this change as potentially easing restrictions on overflights. One proposal in
a draft of the management policies would have deleted existing language stating that
the NPS “will preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural soundscapes of
parks.” The final policies retained this soundscape language.
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, 2005.31 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.
29 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].
30 68 Fed. Reg. 60572 (Oct. 22, 2003).
31 70 Fed. Reg. 16084 (March 29, 2005).

---

CRS-13
A recent GAO report addresses NPS collection of air tour fees.32 The report
determined that some, but not all, fees have been collected from air tour operators at
the three national parks where fees are charged: Grand Canyon, Haleakala, and
Hawaii Volcanoes. It concluded that the ability of the NPS to collect fees is hindered
because the agency cannot verify the number of tours over the parks, cannot
effectively enforce compliance, and the two key laws have different geographic
applicability. The report states that Congress should consider reconciling the
geographic applicability of the relevant laws. It further recommends that the
Secretary of Transportation direct the FAA to take certain actions to ensure that the
NPS receives information on air tour operations at Grand Canyon, and report to
Congress on the likely effects on air tour operators of air tour fees, as required under
the Air Tour Act.
The Administration requested $2.4 million for NPS development of air tour
management plans in FY2007, over the $0.5 million appropriation to the NPS for
FY2006. The NPS FY2007 budget request notes that under a memorandum of
understanding between the NPS and the FAA, the NPS is to pay 40% of the costs of
developing ATMPs. It further states that while the FAA has obligated more than $20
million over the past several years, the sole NPS appropriation was $0.5 million for
FY2006. In its FY2007 funding bill (H.R. 5386), the House Committee on
Appropriations instead included $651,000 over the FY2006 level for the NPS for
development of ATMPs. The amount appears to have been retained by the House.
In reporting H.R. 5386, the Senate Committee on Appropriations did not include
additional funding for the NPS for developing ATMPs. The committee stated in
report language that it “sees little point in investing in new air tour management
plans” until the NPS and FAA overcome the issues discussed in the GAO report on
NPS collection of air tour fees.33 (S.Rept. 109-275, pp. 23-24).
Motorized Recreation on BLM Land (by Carol Hardy Vincent)
Background. The proximity of BLM lands to many areas of population
growth in the West has contributed to an increase in recreation on some BLM lands.
BLM lands are used for diverse forms of recreation, including hunting, fishing,
visiting cultural and natural sites, birdwatching, hiking, picnicking, camping, boating,
mountain biking, and off-highway vehicle driving. The growing and diverse nature
of recreation on BLM lands has increased the challenge of managing different types
of recreation, such as low impact (e.g., hiking) and high impact (e.g., OHV) uses. It
also has increased the challenge of managing recreation and other land uses. For
instance, in some areas recreation and energy development have come in conflict,
with hunters, fishermen, outfitters and guides, and other recreationists at odds with
energy producing interests seeking to maintain or increase energy development on
public lands. Overall, access to BLM lands for a variety of recreational purposes is
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 See [http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(sr275)], S.Rept. 109-
275, p. 23-24.

---

CRS-14
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
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. The
Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $65.2 million for recreation
management, about equal to the FY2006 level, a 2% increase over the
Administration’s request, and 3% less than the House passed level.
BLM has issued two national strategies dealing with transportation on its lands.
The National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on
Public Lands34 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
34 The BLM Strategy and related documents are available at [http://www.blm.gov/ohv/].

---

CRS-15
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 Plan35 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.36
BLM revised its land use planning handbook in 2005 regarding motorized and
non-motorized recreation.37 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.38 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, which passed the House, 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, 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
35 Available at [http://www.blm.gov/mountain_biking/].
36 Available at [http://www.id.blm.gov/publications/data/recvisit.pdf].
37 Available at [http://www.blm.gov/nhp/200/wo210/landuse_hb.pdf].
38 Available at [http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/071305.htm].

---

CRS-16
use, backpacking, etc. — while preserving the productivity of the lands. Recreation
use continues to grow, with OHV use among the fastest growing uses.39
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 been finalized,40 and
some plan revisions are now proceeding.41
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. The FS has finalized 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.42 Implementing directives are expected to be published for public
comment, and decisions governing motorized uses are then to be made in forest
planning (with public involvement) over the next few 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
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 proposed 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.
39 Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States, Regions and States (USDA-FS
Southern Research Station, June 2005), at [http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/21307].
40 70 Fed. Reg. 1023 (Jan. 5, 2005). The final rule describing the FS land management
planning framework is available at [http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/rule%20.pdf].
41 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].
42 70 Fed. Reg. 68264-68291 (Nov. 9, 2005).

---

CRS-17
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). The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended funding levels
much closer to the Administration’s request, with recreation management at $252.0
million ($6.8 million (3%) below FY2006 and $1.1 million (0.4%) above the request)
and trails funding at $61.9 million ($12.3 million (17%) below FY2006 and $1.6
million (3%) above the request, with the additional funding all in construction).
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.
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, 1968.43 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; land acquisition for trails; and the creation of a new
category 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.
BLM manages more miles of National Historic Trails than any other federal
agency. On February 13, 2006, BLM released its first National Scenic and Historic
Trails Strategy and Work Plan for congressionally-designated trails under its
jurisdiction.44 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.
43 See [http://www.nps.gov/nts/] for establishing legislation and background information on
the National Trails System.
44 See [http://www.blm.gov/nlcs/nsht/NSHTSWfinalSig.pdf].

---

CRS-18
Legislative Activity. Many trail projects became eligible to receive federal
highway program funds with the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA; P.L. 102-240), reauthorized as the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21, P.L. 105-178). The Recreational Trails
Program (RTP), 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. P.L. 109-
5945 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 (S. 3979) introduced September 28, 2006, would clarify federal
authority relating to land acquisition from willing sellers for the North Country
National Scenic Trail. 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. 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. The 104th through
the 108th Congresses considered, but did not enact, ADT legislation. 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 in the table.
Title
Bill
Type
Status
Number
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
Butterfield Overland Trail Study Act
H.R. 5980
Study
Introduced
45 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).

---

CRS-19
Title
Bill
Type
Status
Number
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National
H.R. 2361
Study
P.L. 109-54
Historic Trail
H.R. 2588
Study
Introduced
S. 336
Study
Hearing held
H.R. 5466
Desig.
Hearing held
S. 2568
Desig.
Senate Calendar
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
S. 3513
Introduced
Mississippi River Trail Study Act
H.R. 1796
Study
Passed House
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
Passed Senate
S. 1970
Senate Calendar
Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary
H.R. 5895
Desig.
Introduced
Route National Historic Trail
S. 3737
Introduced
Also, on July 26, 2005, a House Resources subcommittee held 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.46
Other Issues
The 109th Congress has been 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 or extractive uses, but in certain
cases, some uses (e.g., public access) can be substantially more restricted than for
46 Available at [http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/072605.htm].

---

CRS-20
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 on October 18, 2000.47 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 PWC. Others felt that the regulations struck a proper
balance among user groups.
An NWRS budget controversy may affect recreation, especially on less
well-known refuges. Costs of operation have increased on many refuges, partly due
to special problems such as hurricane damage and more aggressive border
enforcement. Reductions in funding for operations in the NWRS, combined with the
need to meet fixed costs such as rent, salaries, and utilities, have led to cuts in
funding for programs to aid endangered species, reduce infestation by invasive
species, protect water supplies, address habitat restoration, and ensure staffing at the
less popular refuges. The Northeast Region (roughly Virginia to Maine, with 71
refuges) has taken the lead in addressing this issue by attempting to consolidate
management at refuges, and increasing the number of refuges which are not staffed
on a regular basis (termed “de-staffing” in the region). The region also is attempting
to consolidate some services in order to spread resources more effectively.
Implications for recreation could include reduced trash collection, fewer visitor
services, less trail maintenance, etc. Other regions are observing actions in the
Northeast, and working on their own plans to address reduced operating budgets. On
July 20, 2006, the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans held an
oversight hearing on staffing and management in the NWRS (hearing record not yet
published).
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 and along rivers and
other waterways. 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 and federally maintained waterways often are
operated primarily for navigation, hydropower, flood control and/or irrigation, they
also provide recreation and other benefits. Reservoir and waterway operations can
47 65 Fed. Reg. 62457 (Oct. 18, 2000).

---

CRS-21
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 involving the
Bureau’s Lake Berryessa in Sonoma County, CA, is indicative of the type of land use
conflicts that can arise at federal recreation sites. 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 Decision (ROD) clarifying the Bureau’s intent for the management of
long-term camp sites at the lake was signed on June 2, 2006.48 The ROD specifies
requirements for concession operations and occupancy on federal lands. The Bureau
indicates that management decisions in the final ROD reflect a combination of
proposed management plans based on comments from the public and affected parties.
Corps of Engineers. (by Nicole Carter) The 109th Congress has been
considering questions related to the maintenance of recreational facilities (under
constraints on the agency’s recreational spending), relative priority of multiple
reservoir uses, and policies for recreational development and land use at Corps
projects. Two versions of H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act, include
changes to Corps recreation. The House-passed version would adjust the existing
user fee authorization. The Senate-passed version would make more extensive
changes. One provision of the Senate-passed version 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 the Senate-
passed version 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 for 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 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
48 See [http://www.usbr.gov/mp/mp150/envdocs/CCAO_Berryessa_ROD%20Final.pdf] for
the complete text of the Record of Decision.

---

CRS-22
the collections is available to be used agency-wide. 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 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 is
to 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. In September 2006, the GAO issued a report on
agency management of the recreation fee program.49 GAO determined that while
interagency working groups have made progress implementing the recreation fee law,
some issues are unresolved. For instance, some agencies lack accounting procedures
and controls for collected fees, not all federal units are in compliance with the law,
and the Bureau of Reclamation has not determined how the law applies to its
operations.
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.50
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 foster a high-quality
visitor experience. The 277-mile river canyon is a popular destination for multi-day
raft trips. Decades of conflict have ensued over motorized boating on the river,
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. The
motorized activities have long 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.
49 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Agencies Can Better Implement the Federal
Lands Recreation Enhancement Act and Account for Fee Revenues, GAO-06-1016
(Washington, DC: GPO, Sept. 2006), 111 p. Available via the GAO website at
[http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d061016.pdf].
50 For additional information on recreation fees, see CRS Report RS22171, Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act, by Carol Hardy Vincent.

---

CRS-23
In late 2005, the NPS proposed a new Colorado River Management Plan
(CRMP)51 governing recreational river use for at least 10 years and establishing goals
and objectives for a longer time frame. This 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. A
“hybrid” weighted lottery system for noncommercial users is being phased in, and the
park plans to issue 197 noncommercial launch permits for 2007.52 Some
noncommercial users have expressed concern that while they have more overall
access, they are largely relegated to off-season periods and are allowed less time on
the river. Also, some conservation interests fear that accommodating 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 upstream 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.
51 Additional background information and related documents are available on the NPS
CRMP website at [http://www.nps.gov/grca/crmp/].
52 Information on Colorado River trips is available on the NPS CRMP website at
[http://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/whitewater-rafting.htm]. For weighted lottery
information, see [http://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/weightedlottery.htm].

---