Order Code RL33484
National Park Management
Updated August 8, 2007
Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinator, and Ross W. Gorte
Specialists in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Blake Alan Naughton
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Sandra L. Johnson
Information Research Specialist
Knowledge Services Group

---

National Park Management
Summary
The 110th 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
and amend provisions on the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation was enacted
in the 109th Congress (P.L. 109-453). The President’s budget request for the HPF for
FY2008 ($63.7 million) would be a 3% decrease from FY2007. Both the House and
the Senate Appropriations Committee supported higher amounts — $81.5 million
and $80.0 million, respectively.
Maintenance Backlog. Attention has focused on the NPS’s maintenance
backlog, estimated by DOI at between $5.80 billion and $12.42 billion for FY2006,
with a mid-range figure of $9.11 billion. Estimates of the backlog have increased
from an average of $4.25 billion in FY1999 to $9.11 billion in FY2006, although it
is unclear what portion may be attributable to better estimates or the addition of
maintenance work not done on time. The NPS has been defining and quantifying its
maintenance needs. The first cycle of comprehensive condition assessments of NPS
facilities was completed by the end of FY2006. The results are being used in part to
determine the allocation of maintenance funding and to identify assets for disposal.
H.R. 1731, to eliminate the NPS annual operating deficit and maintenance backlog,
has been introduced.

Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Wild and Scenic Rivers System preserves free-
flowing rivers, which are designated by Congress or through state nomination with
approval by the Secretary of the Interior. The NPS manages 36 river units, totaling
3,018.4 miles. 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 has been introduced to designate, study, or extend
components of the system.
Other Issues. Some other park management topics of possible interest to the
110th Congress are covered here. One addresses proposals to boost NPS funding and
programs before the agency’s 100th anniversary in 2016. Another involves various
science-related activities in the National Park System, namely regional haze control,
bio-prospecting, and research. Still another issue pertains to security of park units,
particularly at national icons and along international borders.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Maintenance Backlog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Wild and Scenic Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
National Parks Centennial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Science in the Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

---

National Park Management
Introduction
The National Park System is perhaps the federal land best known to the public.
The National Park Service (NPS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI) manages
391 units, including units formally entitled national parks and a host of other
designations.1 The system has more than 84 million acres.2 The NPS had an
appropriation of about $2.30 billion for FY2007. For FY2008, the Administration
requested $2.36 billion, while the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations
supported $2.51 billion and $2.46 billion, respectively. As of January 10, 2006, the
agency employed 24,679 federal employees and used an additional 137,000
volunteers.
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 2005-2007 (Washington, DC: 2005).
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 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 110th 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; and management of wild and scenic rivers,
which are administered by the NPS or another land management agency. Other
issues addressed are proposals to enhance NPS funding before the agency’s 2016
centennial, science-related activities 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 RL33806, Natural Resources Policy: Management,
Institutions, and Issues, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent, Nicole T. Carter, and
Julie Jennings. Information on appropriations for the NPS is included in CRS Report
RL34011, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations,
coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent. Information on BLM and Forest Service lands
is contained in CRS Report RL33792, Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service: Issues for the 110th Congress, by
Ross W. Gorte, Carol Hardy Vincent, Marc Humphries, and Kristina Alexander.
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 Blake Alan Naughton and Carol Hardy Vincent)
Background. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (P.L.
89-665, 16 U.S.C. §§ 470, et seq.) 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 and Preserve America grants.
The major purpose of the HPF program is to protect cultural resources, and to
enhance economic development and cultural heritage tourism through restoration of
historic buildings, districts, sites, and objects significant in American history and
culture. The HPF has been reauthorized through FY2015.
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,
which no longer receives an annual federal appropriation through the NHPA. 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.
Administrative Actions. President Bush’s annual budget requests 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

---

CRS-4
heritage through education and heritage tourism. It serves as an adjunct to Save
America’s Treasures, which provides grants to preserve nationally significant
heritage resources such as buildings, districts, films, books, and records. 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. For FY2006, Congress provided that a portion of Save
America’s Treasures funds could be allocated to Preserve America grants. The first
round of Preserve America grants ($3.5 million) was announced on March 9, 2006.
For FY2008, the Administration requested $63.7 million for the HPF, a 3%
decrease from the FY2007 level of $65.7 million. That FY2007 level included $10.0
million in supplemental funding for a specialized grants-in-aid program for the repair
and rehabilitation of historic structures damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,
particularly properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In Interior
appropriations legislation for FY2008, both the House and the Senate Committee on
Appropriations supported higher levels of funding for the HPF than enacted in
FY2007 and requested by the President for FY2008. Specifically, the House
approved $81.5 million while the Senate Committee recommended $80.0 million
(including $5.0 million for Preserve America in another line item).
The Administration’s request included $20.0 million for Save America’s
Treasures and the Preserve America program, an increase over the FY2007
appropriation of $13.0 million for both programs. The House and the Senate
Committee on Appropriations supported higher levels — $30.0 million and $35.0
million, respectively. While the Administration sought the same amount of funding
for each of the two programs — $10.0 million each — both the House and the Senate
Committee on Appropriations supported more money for Treasures than for Preserve
America. Specifically, the House approved $20.0 million for Treasures and $10.0
million for Preserve America, while the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $30.0 million for Treasures and $5.0 million for Preserve America.
In report language, the Senate Appropriations Committee expressed the belief that
the Save America’s Treasures program enjoys widespread support, and that its $30.0
million recommendation was consistent with the “historic level of funding” for the
program (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 28).
Legislative Activity. P.L. 109-453 reauthorized the HPF (NHPA § 108)
through FY2015. It extended through FY2015 the authority to fund the HPF through
annual deposits of $150 million earned from oil and gas development in the Outer
Continental Shelf. Congress determines the level of appropriations for the HPF each
year as part of its consideration of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill. P.L. 109-453 also amended provisions pertaining to the operation
of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 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 new law
expands the size of the Advisory Council and authorizes an appropriation of “such
sums as may be necessary.” (For more information on historic preservation, see CRS
Report RL33617, Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan Boren.)

---

CRS-5
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 FY2006,
based on varying assumptions, at between $5.80 billion and $12.42 billion with a
mid-range figure of $9.11 billion.3 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 FY2006, the FS
estimates its backlog at $5.59 billion, while DOI estimates the FWS backlog at
between $1.42 billion and $1.92 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 $13.20 billion and $20.41 billion, with a mid-range figure of
$16.80 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 FY2008 states that there has been an “almost $5 billion
federal investment in addressing the facility maintenance backlog.”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 FY2008 NPS budget focuses on funds for cyclic (regular) maintenance as
a way to prevent deterioration of facilities, which increases the maintenance backlog.
The Administration proposes $461.7 million for total maintenance, including regular
and deferred maintenance, which is an increase of 19% from the $389.1 million
appropriated for FY2006 (the most recent year available). The portion of the request
for deferred maintenance is not readily available. The National Parks Conservation
Association, a leading park advocacy group, praised the overall FY2008 budget as
a step towards eliminating what they estimate to be a systemwide NPS annual
3 Another DOI source, from March 2007, reports an NPS deferred maintenance backlog of
$7.94 billion, of which $4.34 billion is park roads.
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 2008 (Washington, DC: 2007), p. Overview-2.

---

CRS-6
shortfall exceeding $800 million.6 In Interior appropriations legislation for FY2008,
the House and the Senate Committee on Appropriations, respectively, supported $8.0
million and $7.0 million less than the Administration requested for maintenance.

DOI estimates of the NPS backlog have increased from an average of $4.25
billion in FY1999 to $9.11 billion in FY2006. It is unclear what portion of the
change is due to the addition of maintenance work that was not done on time or the
availability of more precise estimates of the backlog. Further, it is unclear how much
total funding has been provided for backlogged maintenance over this period.
Annual presidential budget requests and appropriations laws do not typically specify
funds for backlogged maintenance, but instead combine funding for all NPS
construction, facility operation, and regular and deferred maintenance. According to
the DOI Budget Office, the appropriation for NPS deferred maintenance increased
from $223.0 million in FY1999 to $311.1 million in FY2006, with a peak in FY2002
at $364.2 million.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. More recent information is not available from the
DOI Budget Office.
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. The first cycle of
comprehensive condition assessments of NPS facilities was completed by the end of
FY2006. The NPS uses two industry standard measurements of its facilities. The
“Asset Priority Index” (API) is a rating of each asset’s importance to the NPS
mission. The “Facility Condition Index” (FCI) quantifies the condition of a facility
by dividing the deferred maintenance backlog by the current replacement value of the
facility. These ratings are used in part to determine the allocation of maintenance
funding among NPS facilities. They also are used to determine whether to retain
assets given their condition and uses. The NPS, like the other land management
agencies, is identifying for disposal assets that are not critical to the agency’s mission
and that are in relatively poor condition, as one way to reduce the maintenance
backlog.
Legislative Activity. Legislation relating to the maintenance backlog of the
NPS has been reintroduced in the 110th Congress. H.R. 1731 seeks to eliminate the
annual operating deficit and maintenance backlog in the National Park System by the
2016 centennial anniversary of the NPS. The bill proposes the creation of 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 FY2008, there
6 National Parks Conservation Association, Administration’s Budget Makes Unprecedented
Step Toward Restoring National Parks for Centennial, Feb. 5, 2007, available on the web
at [http://www.npca.org/media_center/press_releases/2007/page.jsp?itemID=29410057].
7 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Budget, Internal Memorandum (Washington, DC),
received April 7, 2006.

---

CRS-7
is to be deposited in the Centennial Fund $200.0 million, with an increase of 15%
each year though FY2016. The fund is to 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. After October 1, 2016, money in the Centennial Fund is to be used to
supplement annual appropriations for park operations. The bill also would require
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to submit to Congress biennial reports
on the progress of Congress in eliminating the NPS deficit in operating funds and on
the funding needs of national parks compared with park appropriations, among other
issues.8
Wild and Scenic Rivers (by Sandra L. Johnson)
Background. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was authorized
on October 2, 1968, by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1271-1287).9
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 eight rivers as part of the system. Today
there are 165 river units with 11,408.9 miles in 38 states and Puerto Rico,
administered by the NPS, other federal agencies, and several state agencies. The
NPS manages 36 of these river units, totaling 3,018.4 miles.10 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).11
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 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,
8 Other legislation to create a National Park Centennial Fund is discussed below in the
section entitled “National Parks Centennial.”
9 The text of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is available on the NPS website at
[http://www.rivers.gov/wsract.html].
10 These figures reflect exclusive and shared NPS management of river units.
11 For further Information on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, see the NPS website at
[http://www.nps.gov/rtca/nri/].

---

CRS-8
FWS, BLM, and FS. Management varies with the class of the designated river and
the values for which it was included in the system. Components of the system
managed by the NPS become a part of the National Park System. The act requires
the managing agency of each component of the system to prepare a comprehensive
management plan to protect river values. The managing agency also establishes
boundaries for each component of the system, within limitations. Management of
lands within river corridors has been controversial in some cases, with debates over
the effect of designation on private lands within the river corridors, the impact of
activities within a corridor on the flow or character of the designated river segment,
and the extent of local input in developing management plans.
State-nominated rivers may be added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System only if the river is designated for protection under state law, is approved by
the Secretary of the Interior, and is permanently administered by a state agency.
Management of state-nominated rivers may be complicated because of the diversity
of land ownership.
Legislative Activity. The 110th Congress is considering legislation to
designate, study, or extend components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Such
measures are shown in the following table. The table includes bills that could
involve management by the NPS or other agencies.
Title or River
Type
Bill No.
Status
California Wild Heritage Act of 2007
Desig./
H.R. 860
Introduced
(designates CA river segments; study Carson
Study
S. 493
Introduced
River, East Fork, CA)
Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act (CT)
Desig.
H.R. 986
Passed House
S. 553
Comm. Reported
Fossil Creek Wild and Scenic River Act (AZ)
Desig.
H.R. 199
Introduced
S. 86
Introduced
Lewis and Clark Mt. Hood Wilderness Act of
Desig.
S. 647
Ordered Reported
2007 (designates waterways in the Mt. Hood
National Forest (OR))
New River Wild and Scenic River Act of 2007
Desig.
S. 1057
Hearings Held
(designates NC and VA river segments)
Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act
Desig.
H.R. 1975
Introduced
(designates ID, MT, and WY river segments)
Owyhee Initiative Implementation Act of 2007
Desig.
S. 802
Introduced
(ID)
Perquimans River Wild and Scenic River Study
Study
H.R. 3139
Introduced
Act of 2007 (NC)
Snake Headwaters Legacy Act of 2007 (WY)
Desig.
S. 1281
Hearings Held
Taunton River (MA)
Desig.
H.R. 415
Introduced
S. 868
Introduced

---

CRS-9
The 109th Congress enacted legislation to designate, study, or extend specific
components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Upper White Salmon River
Act (P.L. 109-44) adds a 20-mile portion of the river to the system. The Northern
California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act (CA) (P.L. 109-362) designates 21
miles in three segments of the Black Butte River as wild and scenic river
components. The Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic
River Study Act (P.L. 109-370) directs the NPS to conduct a feasibility study to
evaluate whether the 40-mile stretch of the lower Farmington River and Salmon
Brook (CT) would qualify for possible inclusion in the system. Several other 109th
Congress bills passed the House or Senate but were not enacted into law.
Other Issues
National Parks Centennial. (by Carol Hardy Vincent) To be ready for the
NPS’s 100th anniversary in 2016, the Administration and Congress have proposed
multi-year initiatives to strengthen visitor services and other park programs. The
National Park Centennial Initiative, announced by President Bush in August 2006,
seeks to add up to $3 billion in new funds for the parks over the next 10 years
through a joint public/private effort. The initiative has three components: (1) a
commitment to add $100.0 million annually in discretionary funds; (2) a challenge
for the public to donate at least $100.0 million annually; and (3) a commitment to
match the public donations with federal funds of up to $100.0 million annually.
For this third component, the President proposed establishing a mandatory
program with $100.0 million annually for 10 years. Companion legislation (H.R.
2959 and S. 1253) has been introduced to create a mandatory program along the lines
of the President’s initiative. The bills would establish the National Park Centennial
Challenge Fund in the Treasury consisting of cash donations and matching
appropriations from the general fund of the Treasury. The match may not exceed
$100.0 million for each of 10 years beginning with FY2008. The funds are available,
without further appropriation, to finance “signature projects and programs.” These
projects and programs will be identified by the NPS Director as helping prepare the
national parks for another century of conservation, preservation, and enjoyment.
Another House bill (H.R. 3094) also would establish a National Park Centennial
Fund in the Treasury, consisting of $100.0 million annually over 10 years, but would
take a different approach. The funds would be derived from fees for commercial
activities on DOI lands. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to
promulgate regulations to establish new fees or increase existing fees for commercial
activities, including leases. The funds would be available beginning with FY2009,
without further appropriation, for projects approved in Interior appropriations laws.
The Administration is to include a list of proposals for funding in its annual budget
submissions to Congress. The proposals must meet be consistent with certain criteria
and initiatives set out in the bill. The bill specifies the appropriation of funds among
six park initiatives, with 10% of the funds to each of diversity, support for park
professionals, environmental leadership, and natural resource protection and 30% to

---

CRS-10
each of education and line item construction. No matching funds would be required,
but the Secretary of the Interior may accept donations for projects.12
House and Senate subcommittees held hearings on these legislative proposals
in August 2007. One issue of discussion was the role of philanthropic, corporate,
foundation, and other private donors in raising money for the parks. Some observers
believe that non-federal funding has been successful in expanding and enhancing a
variety of important park programs and is necessary to supplement a shortfall in
federal appropriations. Other observers are concerned that non-federal funding will
lead to commercialization of national parks and excessive private influence over park
operations. Related issues of debate at the hearings included whether to first seek
private contributions and then provide a federal match, whether to provide federal
funding without a private matching requirement, and whether to allow non-cash
contributions. Other issues of discussion were how to finance the Centennial Fund;
the role of the NPS and Congress in determining projects eligible for funding; and
which, if any, categories of funding (e.g., natural resource protection) to specify in
legislation.
In furtherance of the first component of the Administration’s initiative, for
FY2008 the Administration requested an additional $100.0 million in centennial
funding within the line item “Operation of the National Park System.” In Interior
appropriations legislation for FY2008, the House and the Senate Appropriations
Committees supported this increase. In furtherance of the third component of the
Administration’s initiative, the House also approved $50.0 million to be available for
matching donations in FY2008. The Senate Committee on Appropriations did not
provide money for the program, while expressing support for the concept and a
preference that the authorizing committee address the issue (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 25).
The Administration had not requested an annual appropriation for this component,
but rather $100.0 million in mandatory funding.
Science in the Parks. (by Ross W. Gorte) Various science-related issues
pertain to park management. One involves monitoring and protecting air quality —
the regional haze issue. In the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress
established a national goal of protecting Class I areas — most then-existing national
parks and wilderness areas — from future visibility impairment and remedying any
existing impairment resulting from manmade air pollution. (Newly designated parks
and wilderness areas can be classified as Class I only by state actions; they do not
automatically become Class I areas.) One program to control this “regional haze” is
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. It 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, assert that the 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, and reports annually
12 Another House bill (H.R. 1731) to establish a National Park Centennial Fund is described
above, in the Maintenance Backlog section, as a primary intent of the fund would be to
eliminate the NPS maintenance backlog.

---

CRS-11
on progress towards meeting air quality goals. The latest report (2005) 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.13 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.”14 The report includes 10 recommendations to
improve air quality in the National Park System.
Another science-related issue is possible commercialization (bio-prospecting)
of unique organisms found in some NPS units (notably Yellowstone National Park).
The NPS completed a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on benefits-
sharing (agreements for using the results of research on organisms in the parks) in
September 2006. The public comment period closed on January 29, 2007.15 The
preferred alternative would require researchers to enter into a benefits-sharing
agreement before using research results for commercial purposes. To date, a final
EIS and record of decision have not been issued.
A third science-related issue is research in the parks. Research support for
natural resources includes research on air quality, cooperative ecosystem studies
units, and research learning centers. Additional research is conducted in many parks,
although “parks do not have specific funds allocated for research, but may choose to
fund individual projects in any given year.”16 Funding for natural resources research
support has risen little in recent years, from $9.3 million in FY2002 to $9.5 million
in FY2006 (the most recent year available). The Administration has proposed an
increase to $9.8 million for FY2008. The Park Service also conducts cultural
resources applied research. This program includes archaeological resource
inventories; reports on cultural landscapes and on historic and prehistoric structures;
museum collections; and ethnographic and historical research. Funding has risen
modestly in recent years, from $18.0 million in FY2002 to $18.3 million in FY2006
(the most recent year available), with a proposed increase to $20.1 million for
FY2008. The House and Senate fund both these natural and cultural research
programs as part of NPS Resource Stewardship (under Operation of the National
Park System). For FY2008, the House approved, and the Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended, matching the Administration’s request for this account.
The completeness and adequacy of these programs and funds to address Park Service
research needs and performance is unclear.

13 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].
14 National Parks Conservation Association, Turning Point, p. 4, available on the web at
[http://www.npca.org/turningpoint/Full-Report.pdf].
15 71 Fed. Reg. 56168 (Sept. 26, 2006). The EIS is available on the NPS website, at [http://
parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkId=442&projectId=12515&documentId=16763].
16 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Budget Justifications and Performance
Information, Fiscal Year 2008 (Washington, DC: 2007), p. ONPS-11-12.

---

CRS-12
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) has sought to expand physical
security assessments of monuments, memorials, and other facilities, and increase
patrols and security precautions in Washington monument areas, at the Statue of
Liberty, and at other potentially vulnerable icons. Other activities have included
implementing additional training in terrorism response for agency personnel, and
reducing the backlog of needed specialized equipment and vehicles. NPS law
enforcement rangers and special agents have expanded patrols, use of electronic
monitoring equipment, intelligence monitoring, and training in preemptive and
response measures. The NPS has taken measures to increase security and protection
along international borders and to curb illegal immigration and drug traffic through
park borders.
A June 2005 GAO report examined the challenges for DOI in protecting
national icons and monuments from terrorism, and actions and improvements the
department has taken in response.17 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.
Legislation pertaining to immigration reform and border security contains
provisions affecting national park units along U.S. borders. For example, S. 330 and
S. 1348 call 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.
S. 1348, S. 1639, and H.R. 1645 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 (under S. 1348 and H.R. 1645); and require a
recommendation to Congress for the NPS and other agencies to recover costs related
to illegal border activity. These three bills also would require the development of a
border protection strategy that protects NPS units (and other federal land areas). In
June 2007, the Senate considered S. 1348 and S. 1639 but did not vote on final
passage because cloture was not invoked. S. 1269 provides for the construction of
a fence and other barriers along the southern border. The Secretary of Homeland
Security is to create and control a border zone consisting of U.S. land within 100
yards of the border. The head of the NPS, and of other agencies that manage lands
along the border, are to transfer land to the Security of Homeland Security without
reimbursement.
17 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: Actions Needed to Better
Protect National Icons and Federal Office Buildings from Terrorism, GAO-05-790
(Washington, DC: June 2005). See [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05790.pdf].

---

CRS-13
The 110th Congress may hold oversight hearings on border issues affecting
federal lands along the northern and southern U.S. borders, including NPS lands.
Such hearings in the 109th Congress addressed the damage of illegal border activities
to federal lands; how to reduce harm from illegal border activities; efforts of various
agencies to secure federal lands along the borders; implementation of a memorandum
of understanding among the Departments of Homeland Security, Interior, and
Agriculture on initiatives to improve handling of illegal border activities and their
impacts on federal lands; 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 damaged 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 were addressed at 109th Congress hearings.

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 FY2008, the President requested
$88.1 million for the USPP, a 3% increase over FY2007 ($85.2 million). The
increase would be used to hire new officers and to increase officers’ pay and benefits,
among other purposes. The House and the Senate Committee on Appropriations
supported this level in Interior appropriations legislation for FY2008. The President
also requested $158.6 million for law enforcement in FY2008, a 28% increase over
the $124.4 million appropriated for FY2006 (the most recent year available). A
portion of the increase is for temporary visitor and resource protection personnel,
particularly at park units with relatively high crime and low levels of protection
staffing during peak summer visitation. The House and the Senate Committee on
Appropriations appeared to support this level.

---