Order Code RL33525
Recreation on Federal Lands
Updated February 12, 2008
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

---

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 110th Congress is considering
legislation and conducting oversight on issues involving recreation on federal lands,
including traditional recreational pursuits and newer forms of motorized recreation.
The Administration continues to address these issues through budgetary, regulatory,
and other actions. This report covers several prominent issues.
Motorized Recreation on NPS Land: Off-Highway Vehicles, Snowmobiles,
and Personal Watercraft. Off-highway vehicle (OHV), snowmobile, and personal
watercraft (PWC) use at National Park Service (NPS) units has fueled ongoing
debates over the balance between recreation and the protection of parklands and
waters. Several NPS units are conducting environmental studies and developing
regulations for existing OHV use. The agency issued a Record of Decision and final
rule governing winter use for snowmobiles at three Yellowstone area parks beginning
with the 2007-2008 winter season. Since 2003, NPS has completed regulations to
open designated areas at 13 units to PWC use.
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 (ATMPs) at those park units. Provisions of legislation (H.R.
1356, H.R. 2881, S. 1076, and S. 1300) would affect commercial air tours over park
units by expediting and streamlining agency actions, in part because of the delay in
completing ATMPs. Further, the FAA has issued 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 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.
National Trails System. While designation of trails is often popular, issues
remain regarding the funding, expansion, and quality of trails. The 110th Congress
is considering a variety of trail measures, including adding routes to the National
Trails 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.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Motorized Recreation on NPS Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Snowmobiles on NPS Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Aircraft Overflights at NPS Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Personal Watercraft (PWC) at NPS Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Motorized Recreation on BLM Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Motorized Recreation in the National Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
The National Trails System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Recreation in the National Wildlife Refuge System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Recreation at Federal Water Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Recreation Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Grand Canyon Colorado River Recreational Use Management . . . . . 26

---

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 recreation, and allegations 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.
BLM, for example, reports that over 22 million people live within 25 miles of public
lands and that two-thirds of BLM-administered lands are within 50 miles of an urban
area.2 Agency figures indicate an overall increase in recreational visits to federal
lands in recent decades. The FY2008 DOI budget documents cite 471 million
recreational visits to agency-administered sites: 56 million visits to 3,496 BLM
recreational sites; 273 million recreation visits to NPS units (then 390, now 391
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 See [http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/Recreation.1.html].

---

CRS-2
units); 52 million visits to 547 FWS wildlife refuges; and 90 million visits to 308
Bureau of Reclamation recreation sites.3 The FS reports 211 million recreation visits
to its national forests and grasslands, and the Corps 400 million visits for the most
recent year available.
Over the last 40 years, forms of motorized recreation — snowmobiles, personal
watercraft, other off-highway vehicles — and nonmotorized vehicles, such as
mountain bikes, have evolved and gained in popularity. 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,
etc.).
The use of OHVs on federal lands and waters has been particularly contentious,
and lawsuits have challenged their management. OHV supporters contend 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, February 8, 1972) defines an off-road vehicle
(ORV), now commonly referred to as an off-highway vehicle, as “any motorized
vehicle designed for or capable of cross country travel on or immediately over land,
water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain,” with exceptions
for any registered motorboat or authorized or emergency vehicles. It was issued to
“establish policies and provide for procedures that will ensure that the use of off-road
vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the resources
of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to minimize
conflicts among the various uses of those lands.” The order directed each agency to
develop and issue regulations to carry out this purpose and to provide for the
designation of areas and trails on which OHVs may be permitted, and areas in which
such vehicles would not be permitted. Agencies were to monitor the effects of OHV
use and amend or rescind area designations or other actions taken pursuant to the
order as needed to further the policy of the executive order.
A subsequent executive order (E.O. 11989, May 24, 1977) amended the 1972
order to exclude military, emergency, and law enforcement vehicles from the
definition of off-road vehicles (to which restrictions would apply). It provided
authority to immediately close areas or trails if OHVs were causing or would cause
considerable damage on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural or
historic resources of particular areas or trails. Areas could remain closed until the
3 For a graph depicting recreation visits to DOI sites, see p. DH-68 of the FY2008 Interior
Budget in Brief at [http://www.doi.gov/budget/2008/08Hilites/DH51.pdf].

---

CRS-3
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.4 These management policies largely
retain the 2001 edition’s emphasis on conserving park resources in conservation/use
conflicts (§ 1.4.3).5
The 110th Congress is 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 RL33806, Natural Resources Policy:
Management, Institutions, and Issues, 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 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. For information on appropriations for
federal land management agencies, see CRS Report RL34011, Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
4 For additional background information on NPS management policies, see CRS Report
RL33484, National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent. See also the
NPS website at [http://www.nps.gov/applications/npspolicy/index.cfm].
5 The final version of the 2006 NPS management policies is available via the NPS website
at [http://www.nps.gov/policy/MP2006.pdf].

---

CRS-4
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 snowmobiles at three
Yellowstone area parks; Grand Canyon National Park airtour overflights; personal
watercraft (PWC) at popular NPS-administered water sites; 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.6
Currently, of the 391 NPS units covering over 84 million acres of land, 43 allow
snowmobiles and 13 allow PWC. Also, excluding Alaska, NPS counts 12 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.7 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 local 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,
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. Agency regulations also
require special rulemaking, with environmental impact analysis and public comment,
6 A more detailed discussion of snowmobile, overflight, and PWC management issues at
NPS units and related legislative and regulatory guidance may be found in the following
sections of this report.
7 Figures confirmed with NPS via phone conversation, Jan. 30, 2008.

---

CRS-5
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 NPS
asserts that the survey showed unauthorized OHV use in “several parks” and
generally “less than significant” resource damage.10 Bluewater claims illegal OHV
use in 92 (36%) of those reporting units and resource damage in 71 (28%).
Meanwhile, on November 29, 2005, Bluewater, Wildlands Center for Preventing
Roads, and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) sued NPS and DOI
in the District of Columbia U.S. District Court, alleging that OHVs constitute a
“serious threat” to NPS resources which the agency failed to address. On March 21,
2007, Judge Royce Lamberth dismissed Bluewater from the case for lack of
standing.11 The remaining parties are reported to be working out final details of an
out-of-court settlement.12
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 in Bluewater’s definition. For purposes
of this section, OHV and ORV are synonymous and have the same definition as used by
Bluewater.
9 Park units continued to respond to the survey, with a final total of 310 NPS units
completing it. (Phone conversation with Jerry Case, Regulations Program Manager, NPS,
Jan. 30, 2008.)
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.)
11 See [https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2005cv2302-63] for the court
Order and [https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2005cv2302-64] for Judge
Lamberth’s Memorandum Opinion.
12 Phone conversation with Jerry Case, Regulations Program Manager, NPS, Jan. 30, 2008.

---

CRS-6
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, four
additional units remain open to public OHV use while it conducts environmental
studies and develops special regulations: Glen Canyon13 and Curecanti NRAs, and
Cape Hatteras14 and Cape Lookout National Seashores.15 Special circumstances
apply to two additional areas identified in the NPS survey, Little River Canyon
National Preserve and Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area.16 Also,
Lake Meredith NRA requires new regulations to expand current boundaries for OHV
riders. NPS is encouraging OHV education via the websites of units permitting OHV
use. The agency also is encouraging units with illegal OHV use to pursue
enforcement actions. However, some believe NPS budgetary and staff constraints
could limit enforcement effectiveness.17 Site-specific conflicts among various
constituencies continue. For instance, there is ongoing disagreement at Big Cypress
National Preserve over designated OHV trails within the Bear Island unit, the effects
of OHV use on endangered Florida panthers and their habitat, and the
representational composition of the advisory committee established to enable various
stakeholders to put forth alternative approaches and recommendations for OHV
management within the preserve. A coalition of conservation groups filed a lawsuit
on December 21, 2007, in response to the opening of OHV trails in Bear Island. At
Cape Hatteras National Seashore, environmental groups, represented on the advisory
committee created to assist in the development of a long-term OHV management
13 72 Fed. Reg. 50393 (Aug. 31, 2007). Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for an Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan, Glen Canyon National Recreation
Area, Arizona and Utah. See the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment website
at [http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?parkId=62&projectId=19520] for details.
14 72 Fed. Reg. 72316 (Dec. 20, 2007). Establishment of Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory
Committee for Off-Road Vehicle Management, Cape Hatteras National Seashore. The
committee is to assist in the development of special regulations for off-road vehicle
management at Cape Hatteras. On July 17, 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Terrance Boyle
issued a Court Order indicating that off-road use at the Seashore does not comply with
federal management requirements; however, the Order does not mandate restricting OHV
access. See [http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?parkId=358&projectId=10641]
for further information.
15 72 Fed. Reg. 44178 (August 7, 2007). Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) for an Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan (ORV Management
Plan) for Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC. For further information, see
[http://parkplanning.nps.gov/parkHome.cfm?parkId=359].
16 NPS determined that Little River Canyon permits OHVs only on designated backcountry
area multiple-use numbered roads serving hikers, horseback riders, ATVs, and four-wheel
drive vehicles. This is not considered to be off-road use. For additional information, see
[http://www.nps.gov/liri/planyourvisit/atv.htm]. Big South Fork is closed to recreational
OHV riders and currently has no designated trails for them. For additional information, see
[http://www.nps.gov/biso/upload/atv_use.pdf].
17 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
plan, have sued NPS. In their complaint of October 18, 2007, the plaintiffs allege
that the OHV use permitted under the existing interim NPS management plan fails
to provide adequate protection for seashore resources, including rare turtle, avian,
and plant species.18 Some have expressed concern that the lawsuit will disrupt the
work of the advisory committee.
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. To date, no formal proposals have been issued.
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 included
in the initial draft 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 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 generally are 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 other
provisions, as a positive step for incorporating local views on the importance of
recreation to the economy of these communities.
Legislative Activity. General legislation on OHV use in NPS units has not
been introduced in the 110th Congress to date. One measure enacted in the 109th
Congress (P.L. 109-362, §10) affects OHV use in a particular area and is illustrative
of OHV controversies. The law seeks to guarantee truck access to designated
beaches within California’s Redwood National and State Parks for traditional
commercial surf fishing, overriding a park policy phasing out beach driving permits.
It directs the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for authorized vehicle access,
limits the number of permits to the total number of valid permits held on the act’s
18 See [http://www.southernenvironment.org/lawlibrary/coast/2007-10-18_hatteras.pdf] for
a copy of the complaint. Information on current OHV policies at Cape Hatteras National
Seashore is available at [http://www.nps.gov/archive/caha/bdriv.htm].

---

CRS-8
date of enactment, and provides that the permits “shall be perpetual.” Local
commercial fishermen have opposed park policies restricting trucks on beaches
where they traditionally netted and loaded catches of smelt. Some critics, however,
assert that vehicular traffic can diminish visitor enjoyment of the park’s natural
values, conflicts with establishing legislative language to preserve the park’s coastal
redwood forests and associated streams and seashores for such enjoyment,19 and may
contradict existing regulations.

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 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
modified its strict enforcement stance: snowmobiles would not be banned in the 43
park units permitting such use prior to the April 2000 announcement, pending formal
rulemaking and public comment. 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.20 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.21
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
19 P.L. 90-545, Oct. 2, 1968.
20 66 Fed. Reg. 7260 (Jan. 22, 2001).
21 68 Fed. Reg. 69267 (Dec. 11, 2003).

---

CRS-9
for three winter seasons, through 2006-2007.22 The interim rule’s intent was to
provide certainty to gateway communities, businesses, and park visitors while NPS
completed long-term environmental impact analyses of motorized oversnow vehicles
on the three area parks and developed a new long-term plan to manage winter
recreational use. The temporary rule expired at the conclusion of the 2006-2007
winter season. Without a new rule and winter use plan in place for the 2007-2008
winter season, snowmobiles and snowcoaches would be prohibited. However, on
September 24, 2007, NPS released its Winter Use Plans Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) evaluating seven alternative plans for snowmobile and snowcoach
winter use management.23 A subsequent Record of Decision (ROD, signed
November 20, 2007) and a final rule promulgated on December 13, 2007, provide
long-term regulatory guidance for managing snowmobile and snowcoach use within
the three area parks.24
For the 2007-2008 winter season, the new NPS plan mirrors the interim rule it
replaces, continuing with 720 guided best available technology (BAT) snowmobiles
per day in Yellowstone, and combined daily access for 140 snowmobiles in Grand
Teton and the Rockefeller Parkway — most with BAT emission and noise pollution
standards but no guiding requirements. The plan caps daily Yellowstone snowcoach
entries at 78 and maintains the requirement limiting all snowcoach and snowmobile
travel to existing park roads groomed for their use. Avalanche control operations
will continue, allowing motorized oversnow travel via Sylvan Pass near
Yellowstone’s East Entrance.
The final rule mandates more restrictive measures beginning with the 2008-2009
winter season, but also allows park management to use “adaptive management” to
adjust snowmobile and snowcoach numbers up or down based on impact monitoring.
It allows 540 BAT snowmobiles and 83 snowcoaches per day in Yellowstone, all
commercially guided, with no more than 11 snowmobiles per group, including the
guide. A combined 65 snowmobiles — 62% with BAT requirements but none with
guiding requirements — may access Grand Teton and the Rockefeller Parkway daily.
By the 2011-2012 season, all snowcoaches must meet BAT emission and sound level
requirements. Sylvan Pass will continue to remain open to motorized oversnow
travel within specified limitations. Beginning with the 2008-2009 season, avalanche
hazard reduction operations will cease. The pass will be open or closed to oversnow
travel, both motorized and non-motorized, based on avalanche forecasting
safety/danger determinations. However, NPS agrees to work cooperatively with the
state of Wyoming, Park County, and the town of Cody to reach consensus by June
1, 2008 (and promulgate new regulations, if necessary) on avalanche mitigation and
22 69 Fed. Reg. 65348 (Nov. 10, 2004). Available via the NPS website at [http://www.nps.
gov/yell/planvisit/winteruse/fedregfinalrule11-10.pdf].
23 72 Fed. Reg. 54456 (Sept 25, 2007). The FEIS and additional winter use documentation
are available at [http://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/winteruse/index.htm]. The FEIS summary
is at [http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/upload/summary_updated9-12-07.pdf].
24 See 72 Fed. Reg. 70892 (Dec. 13, 2007), available via the Yellowstone website at
[http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/upload/rod_final.pdf], and 72 Fed. Reg. 70781 (Dec.
13, 2007) at [http://www.nps.gov/yell/parkmgmt/upload/finalrule13Dec2007.pdf] for the
ROD and final rule, respectively.

---

CRS-10
safe oversnow travel via Sylvan Pass. NPS also will conduct a five-year study on the
effects of road grooming on bison movements within Yellowstone.25
According to NPS, “[t]his rule strikes a balance between the use of snowmobiles
and snowcoaches in the Parks and is designed to protect against the adverse impacts
that occurred from the historical types and numbers of snowmobiles used.”26
However, winter recreational use and its surrounding legal controversies remain
contentious. For example, in an October 29, 2007, letter to NPS Director Mary
Bomar, 86 Members of Congress called for a phase-out of snowmobiles in favor of
multi-passenger snowcoaches.27 Further, NPS once again is a defendant in three
dueling lawsuits filed in two different federal district court jurisdictions by
snowmobile advocates and opponents; none seek an emergency injunction. The State
of Wyoming, filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming on
December 13, 2007, seeks to overturn and increase the reduced number of daily
snowmobile entries, and contests the 100% commercial guiding requirement and the
management plan for Sylvan Pass.28 In the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, two separate sets of environmental groups are challenging the new winter
use plan, calling for reinstatement of the snowmobile ban set forth in the Clinton
Administration rule.29
The final NPS management policies released on August 31, 2006, added new
language to cover both snowmobiles and oversnow vehicles (§ 8.2.3.2). They state
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 FY2008 Interior appropriations bill (S. 1696, §
116), as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 110-91), directed
NPS to keep Yellowstone’s interim snowmobile use rule in force throughout the
2007-2008 winter season. The stipulation assured continuity should implementation
of a new NPS final winter use plan be delayed. However, the FY2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161) did not include such language. NPS issued a
Record of Decision (ROD) and final rule within the necessary time parameters.
Lawsuits challenging the NPS ROD did not request preliminary injunctions, allowing
local operations to continue uninterrupted throughout the 2007-2008 winter season.
In their Explanatory Statement, the Appropriations Committees stated their belief
25 For additional information, see the Yellowstone National Park Winter Planning website
at [http://www.eenews.net/features/documents/2007/12/17/document_pm_01.pdf]. For
background information on snowmobiles in NPS park units generally, see CRS Report
RL31149, Snowmobiles: Environmental Standards and Access to National Parks, by James
E. McCarthy.
26 72 Fed. Reg. 70781.
27 See [http://holt.house.gov/pdf/Yellowstone_letter.pdf].
28 Wyoming v. U.S. Department of the Interior et al., D. Wyo., No. 07-CV-319B.
29 Greater Yellowstone Coalition et al. v. Kempthorne, D.D.C., No. 07-CV-2111; and
National Parks Conservation Association v. U.S. Department of the Interior, D.D.C.

---

CRS-11
that this was in the best interest of all parties.30 The 110th Congress also included
language in the FY2007 Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 110-5,
§ 20516) to keep the NPS Yellowstone interim rule in effect throughout the 2006-
2007 winter use season. Such language was meant to ensure that judicial rulings
could not deny snowmobiles entry. Earlier legislation contained similar provisions
beginning with the 2004-2005 season.
Aircraft Overflights at NPS Sites (by Carol Hardy Vincent)
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 1994.31
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (Title VIII, P.L. 106-
181, hereafter “Air Tour Act”) regulates commercial air tours at other park units. It
requires the FAA and NPS to create management plans for air tours at individual
park units and within a half-mile of their boundaries. Each plan could prohibit or
limit air tours, such as by route and altitude restrictions. The act also 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.32
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, 2011.33 Third, the FAA issued a final rule establishing a standard
for quiet technology for certain aircraft in commercial air tour operations over Grand
30 Congressional Record, Dec. 17, 2007, H16130-H16131.
31 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].
32 65 Fed. Reg. 17708 (April 4, 2000), effective May 4, 2000.
33 71 Fed. Reg. 9439 (Feb. 24, 2006).

---

CRS-12
Canyon.34 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.
The FAA and NPS published a notice of intent to prepare an environmental
impact statement (EIS) on options that could be taken to restore natural quiet at
Grand Canyon.35 The agencies are developing a draft EIS. They currently are
considering seven alternatives, including the status quo, with a range of options for
restoring natural quiet while allowing for a viable air tour industry. Changes under
consideration include altered flight free zones, different altitudes and locations of air
tour routes, quiet aircraft technology incentives, and limitations on the number and
timing of flights.
Other regulatory actions affect commercial air tours at park units. The Air Tour
Act final rule36 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 106 of the 391 park units, and has granted interim operating authority to
all applicants. Application triggers development of an Air Tour Management Plan
(ATMP) by the FAA and NPS for each unit where none exists.37 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. The agencies have
revised the implementation plan to make clarifications and incorporate information
learned from ongoing development of ATMPs.
The Air Tour Act required the FAA and the NPS to establish an advisory group
to provide continuing advice regarding commercial air tours over and near national
parks. Accordingly, the agencies established the National Parks Overflights
Advisory Group, composed of representatives of general aviation, air tour operations,
environmental groups, and Native American tribes. The group is co-chaired by the
FAA Administrator and the NPS Director or their designees. It meets one to three
times per year, and notices of its meetings are published in the Federal Register. The
group provides advice on a range of issues, including (1) implementation of the Air
Tour Act, (2) quiet aircraft technology for use in commercial air tours over parks, (3)
safety and environmental issues related to air tours.
34 70 Fed. Reg. 16084 (March 29, 2005).
35 71 Fed. Reg. 4192 (Jan. 25, 2006).
36 67 Fed. Reg. 65661 (Oct. 25, 2002).
37 The FAA provides information on the National Parks Air Tour Management Program via
their website at [http://www.atmp.faa.gov/default.htm].

---

CRS-13
A January 2006 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report addressed the
impact of the delay in implementation of the Air Tour Act.38 The report concluded
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 issued a final rule to provide safety standards for commercial air tours
nationally, including over Grand Canyon and other park units.39 The rule seeks to
increase air tour safety through measures including requirements for enhanced
passenger briefings, provision of life preservers and helicopter floats for certain over-
water flights, and development and compliance with a helicopter performance plan
for each commercial air tour.
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
would have deleted existing language stating that the NPS “will preserve, to the
greatest extent possible, the natural soundscapes of parks,” but the final policies
retained this soundscape language.
Legislative Activity. Provisions of broad aviation legislation (H.R. 1356,
H.R. 2881, S. 1076, and S. 1300) would affect commercial air tours over park units.
They seek to expedite and streamline agency actions, in part because of the difficulty
in completing ATMPs. H.R. 1356, H.R. 2881, and S. 1076 are similar. They include
provisions allowing that in lieu of an ATMP, the NPS Director and FAA
Administrator could enter into a voluntary agreement with a commercial air tour
operator that would govern commercial air tours over a park unit. Another change
would exempt park units with 50 or fewer annual air tour flights from the
requirement for an ATMP or voluntary agreement, although the NPS Director could
disallow an exemption. Other provisions would establish reporting requirements for
commercial air tour operators, and provide for more interim operating authority
because interim conditions have prevailed for longer than had been anticipated. H.R.
2881 passed the House and currently is on the Senate Calendar. S. 1300 also
contains provisions on voluntary agreements, exemptions from air tour requirements,
reporting requirements, and operating authority but the provisions differ from those
in the other bills. Further, S. 1300 contains additional sections, such as those on fees
and safety guidance. It was reported by committee on August 3, 2007, and is on the
38 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].
39 72 Fed. Reg. 6884 (Feb. 13, 2007). The rule was effective on March 15, 2007, except that
certain provisions became effective on September 11, 2007.

---

CRS-14
Senate calendar. (For additional information, see “The Air Tour Management
Program” section in CRS Report RL33920).
A May 2006 GAO report addressed NPS collection of air tour fees.40 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, it cannot
effectively enforce compliance, and the two key laws have different geographic
applicability. The report stated that Congress should consider reconciling the
geographic applicability of the relevant laws. It further recommended 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.
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, wet jet,
Wavejammer, Wetbike, and WaveRunner®. While PWC represent a small segment
of the recreational boat market — the National Marine Manufacturers Association
(NMMA) estimates 1.22 million PWC in use in 200641 — 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 contend 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 391 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.42
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
40 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].
41 See [http://www.nmma.org/facts/boatingstats/2006/files/populationstats3.asp], Table 1.3,
“Recreational Boats in Use by Type,” from the NNMA 2006 Recreational Boating
Statistical Abstract.
42 65 Fed. Reg. 15077 (March 21, 2000); effective April 20, 2000.

---

CRS-15
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 also favored PWC bans: the Cape
Cod and Cumberland Island National Seashores, Delaware Water Gap and
Whiskeytown NRAs, and Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. For 13 other units,
NPS authorized PWC 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
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 (February 24, 2006). Padre Island National Seashore and Big Thicket National
Preserve have been closed to PWC pending completion of environmental
assessments and rulemaking.43 NPS believes it unlikely that either unit will pursue
rulemaking to open to PWC.44 Meanwhile, a coalition of environmental groups is
seeking reinstatement of PWC bans at three units: Gulf Islands and Cape Lookout
National Seashores and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore.45

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. No general legislation on PWC use has been introduced
in the 110th Congress. In the 109th Congress, the House Appropriations Committee
included report language accompanying the FY2007 Interior appropriations bill (H.R.
5386) urging NPS to complete PWC rulemakings “in an efficient and timely
43 Padre Island’s 2006 PWC environmental assessment evaluates three alternative courses
of action and identifies the no-action alternative continuing the PWC ban as preferred. See
[http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=86&projectId=12571&documentID
=13889].
44 Phone conversation with Jerry Case, Regulations Program Manager, NPS, Jan. 30, 2008.
45 A copy of the Notice of Intent to Sue (Dec. 5, 2007) is available online at
[http://wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/Notice-of-Intent-to-Sue-regarding-Jetsk
i-use-at-Gulf-Islands-and-Cape-Lookout-National-Seashores-and-Pictured-Rocks-Nation
al-Seashore.pdf].

---

CRS-16
manner.”46 This language, however, was not included in the FY2007 Revised
Continuing Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 110-5). 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.47
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
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.
Recreational access 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. Controversy exists
in various areas throughout the West, such as the San Rafael Swell in Southern Utah,
the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area in Southern California, and the Arizona
Strip in Northern Arizona. 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
46 See [http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr465)], H.Rept.
109-465, p. 45.
47 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Regulatory
Affairs, Taking on Water: The National Park Service’s Stalled Rulemaking Effort on
Personal Watercraft. Available via GPO 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].

---

CRS-17
regulations (43 C.F.R. § 8340), BLM has been designating public lands as open,
limited, or closed to OHV use. As of October 31, 2006, the following designations
had been made: open, where OHV use is permitted anywhere, 80.9 million acres
(37% of designated area); limited, where OHV use is in some way restricted, 127.0
million acres (58%); and closed, where OHV use is prohibited, 11.6 million acres
(5%). The remaining 41.2 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.
BLM manages transportation on its lands through a process described as
Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management.48 Goals include providing
varied transportation routes for access to BLM lands and providing areas for a variety
of motorized and non-motorized forms of recreation. Travel and transportation
management plans are developed for particular areas. In addition, BLM has issued
two national strategies dealing with transportation on its lands. The National
Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands49 has
multiple purposes, including to guide land managers in resolving OHV issues; to
promote consistency of OHV decision-making; to highlight needed staff and funding
for OHV management; to reduce conflicts among land users; to promote responsible
OHV use and reduce habitat degradation; and to lead to an update of OHV
regulations (which has not occurred to date). The National Mountain Bicycling
Strategic Action Plan50 addresses mountain bicycling and other muscle-powered
mechanical transport.
BLM revised its land use planning handbook in 2005 regarding motorized and
non-motorized recreation.51 The agency makes OHV designations during the
planning process, on an area-by-area basis, and such designations often have been
contentious and complex. The agency is in the midst of a multi-year effort to develop
and update land use plans, because many plans do not currently address OHV use and
other relatively recent issues. For instance, six of the eleven BLM field offices in
Utah are developing land use plans for lands in those areas. OHVs are a major issue
being addressed as part of that process, and the efforts are expected to reduce the
acreage open to cross-country travel, according to BLM. 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.
48 Information on BLM’s travel management program is on the agency’s website at
[http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/Recreation/recreation_national/travel_management.h
tml].
49 The BLM Strategy and related documents are available at [http://www.blm.gov/ohv/].
50 Available at [http://www.blm.gov/mountain_biking/].
51 Available at [http://www.blm.gov/nhp/200/wo210/landuse_hb.pdf].

---

CRS-18
Legislative Activity. The BLM appropriation for recreation management
generally for FY2008 was $67.9 million. A focus of the recreation program in
FY2008 is developing and implementing travel management plans, which identify
and designate roads and trails for motorized use. The FY2008 appropriation was a
$4.2 million (7%) increase over the FY2007 level of $63.7 million and a $2.8 million
(4%) increase over BLM’s request of $65.1 million for FY2008. Both the full House
and the Senate Appropriations Committee had originally approved increases for
recreation management over the President’s request. Specifically, the House-passed
bill included $69.1 million, while the Senate Appropriations Committee reported a
bill containing $70.2 million.
Some pending measures would affect OHV use in particular areas. For instance,
H.R. 222 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 (together with other uses), 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.
Other legislation seeks to establish the Sacramento River National Recreation
Area, consisting of 17,000 acres of BLM land in California. H.R. 1241 seeks to
preserve and enhance recreational opportunities and to promote local economic
development through recreation. S. 811, and provisions of S. 493 and H.R. 860, seek
to conserve, protect, and enhance resources in the area. All four bills call for the
development of a management plan for the area within three years of enactment.
BLM currently has one national recreation area in Alaska.
A March 27, 2007 hearing of the House Natural Resources Committee explored
the conflict between recreation and energy development on federal lands. The
hearing focused on how to balance fishing and hunting with energy development in
the West. Several witnesses expressed concern that the extent of energy development
is having negative impacts on wildlife and habitat and access to federal lands for
hunting and fishing. One witness described energy industry efforts to make
development more compatible with sportsmen’s interests.
Motorized Recreation in the National Forests (by Ross W. Gorte)
Background. The national forests are managed by the USDA Forest Service
(FS) for a variety of uses, including many types of recreation — sightseeing, OHV
use, backpacking, etc. — while preserving the productivity of the lands. Recreation
use continues to grow, with OHV use among the fastest growing uses.52
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
52 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].

---

CRS-19
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 have been delayed. Much of the attention has been focused on
motorized recreation, because of the potentially significant impacts of motorized
recreation on other values. Another issue involves conflicts between recreation uses
(notably hunting and fishing) and other activities, such as energy extraction.
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, according to the FS. The FS
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.53 The FS has proposed a revision to the FS
Manual on travel management and travel planning to be consistent with these
regulations.
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 conflict between interests may be escalating;
the FS cancelled a public meeting on the Bitterroot National Forest (MT) travel plan
after a threat of violence at one meeting.54
Conflicts have arisen between hunting, fishing, and other types of recreation and
energy development on federal lands. For instance, environmental and wildlife and
fish groups have challenged various efforts to lease federal areas for oil and gas
exploration and development.55 Concerns typically focus on the impacts of oil and
gas development on wildlife-related recreation, and the difficulties for interests other
than the energy industry to provide input regarding the location, timing, and
stipulations for development. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58)
expanded the opportunities for energy development on federal lands, which could
increase potential conflicts. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has
53 70 Fed. Reg. 68264-68291 (Nov. 9, 2005). See also the FS Travel Management & Off-
Highway Vehicle (OHV) Program at [http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/].
54 “Forest Service cancels meeting on Bitterroot,” Missoulian.com (Jan. 11, 2008), available
at [http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/01/11/news/local/znews03.txt].
55 See, for example, Trout Unlimited, Fact Sheet: Gas and Oil Development on Western
Public Lands, at [http://www.tu.org/site/pp.asp?c=7dJEKTNuFmG&b=295729]; and
Natural Resources Defense Council, Broad Coalition Sends Message to BLM: Do Oil & Gas
Right, at [http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/040204.asp].

---

CRS-20
noted that the public has opportunities to comment on and to challenge leasing
decisions, but that the agencies do not maintain data to assess the impact of these
challenges.56
The FY2009 FS budget again proposed cutting recreation funds. Recreation
management would be funded at $237.0 million, a $25.6 million (10%) reduction
from the FY2008 level of $262.6 million. Trails funding would be $50.0 million,
$26.3 million (34%) below the FY2008 level of $76.4 million.
Legislative Activity. The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L.
110-161) largely restored FS recreation and trails funding compared to the
Administration’s FY2008 request. Recreation management was funded at $262.6
million, below the House- and Senate-passed levels (after the 1.56% across-the-board
cut), but above FY2007 and $31.6 million (14%) above the request. For trails in the
National Forest System, the act provided $76.4 million, again below the House- and
Senate-passed levels, but above FY2007 and $10.0 million (15%) above the request.
The conference agreement reduced trail maintenance funding from FY2007 by $4.7
million (9%) and increased trail construction funding by $7.7 million (33%).
No general legislation on recreational activities in national forests has been
introduced. Various bills address recreation in specific areas. For example, H.R. 222
(Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act of 2007) would establish
the Boulder-White Clouds Management Area. H.R. 707 (Chattahoochee National
Forest Act of 2007) would create the Mountaintown National Scenic Area. S. 647
(Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007) would designate the Mount
Hood National Recreation Area, and Title IX addresses recreational use, fees, and
oversight for the region. Most such area-specific provisions are included in bills that
would designate wilderness areas; such bills are identified in a table in the
“Wilderness” section of CRS Report RL33792, Federal Lands Administered by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service: Issues for the 110th
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, 1968.57 The federal portion
of the trails system consists of 25 national trails (8 scenic and 17 historic trails, both
of which must be designated by Congress) covering more than 50,000 miles, over
1,000 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.
56 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Oil and Gas Development: Challenges to Agency
Decisions and Opportunities for BLM to Standardize Data Collection, GAO-05-124
(Washington, DC: Nov. 2004).
57 See [http://www.nps.gov/nts/legislation.html] for establishing legislation (P.L. 90-543,
as amended through P.L. 109-418, Dec. 21, 2006). For additional background information
on the National Trails System, see [http://www.nps.gov/nts/].

---

CRS-21
Administrative Actions. On June 2, 2007, the Secretary of the Interior
announced the designation of 40 new National Recreation Trails (NRTs).58 Since
2001, the Bush Administration has designated 204 National Recreation Trails,
totaling more than 7,800 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.59 The 10-year plan provides guidance to establish a coordinated and
consistent trails-focused administrative infrastructure; develop national policies to
protect and sustain trail resources within BLM’s multiple-use mandate; manage trail
resources to enhance visitor experiences and promote “appropriate public access”;
and maintain and advance BLM’s partnerships with trail organizations and other
agencies.
Legislative Activity. H.R. 74 has been introduced to 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 109th Congresses considered, but did not enact, similar legislation. Two
willing seller bills (S. 169, H.R. 1847) reintroduced in the 110th Congress would
provide federal authority to acquire land from willing sellers to complete nine
national scenic and historic trails. This proposal does not commit the federal
government to purchase any land or spend any money, but seeks to allow managers
to purchase land to protect the national trails as opportunities arise and funds are
appropriated. S. 169 was placed on the Senate Calendar (No. 365) on September 17,
2007. Also, the Trails Act Technical Corrections Act (H.R. 3157) was introduced
on July 24, 2007, to amend the National Trails System Act relating to the statute of
limitations that applies to certain claims.
Measures introduced in the 110th 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
H.R. 1336
Study
Introduced
require the Secretary of the Interior to update
Extension
the feasibility and suitability studies of four
S. 580
Reported (S.Rept.
national historic trails, and for other purposes
110-95)
58 Additional information on National Recreation Trails, including access to the NRT
database, is available at [http://www.americantrails.org/nationalrecreationtrails/].
59 See [http://www.blm.gov/nlcs/nsht/NSHTSWfinalSig.pdf].

---

CRS-22
Title
Bill
Type
Status
Number
Arizona Trail Feasibility National Scenic
H.R. 2297
Desig.
Introduced
Trail Act
S. 1304
Ordered reported
Butterfield Overland Trail Study Act
H.R. 1266
Study
Hearing held
Chisholm and Great Western Cattle Trails Act
H.R. 2849
Study
Introduced
S. 2255
Introduced
Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail
H.R. 450
Desig.
Introduced
Designation Act
S. 268
Reported (S.Rept.
110-15)
Lewis and Clark Mt. Hood Wilderness Act of
S. 647
Desig.
Reported (S.Rept.
2007
110-172)
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail
H.R. 3460
Extension
Introduced
Amendments Act of 2007
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail
H.R. 3616
Study
Hearing held
Extension Study Act of 2007
S. 1991
Ordered reported
Mississippi River Special Resource Study Act
H.R. 2482
Study
Introduced
National Forests, Parks, Public Land, and
S. 2483
Study
Introduced
Reclamation Projects Authorization Act of
Extension
2007
Natural Resource Projects and Programs
S. 2180
Desig.
Introduced
Authorization Act of 2007
New England National Scenic Trail
H.R. 1528
Desig.
Passed House
Designation Act
S. 923
Introduced
North Country National Scenic Trail Route
H.R. 4291
Extension
Introduced
Adjustment Act of 2007
Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail
H.R. 1388
Desig.
Passed House
Act
S. 797
Reported (S.Rept.
110-98)
Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary
H.R. 1286
Desig.
Hearing held
Route National Historic Trail Designating Act
S. 686
Reported (S.Rept.
110-96)
The 109th Congress established the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National
Historic Trail (P.L. 109-418, H.R. 5466), the nation’s first all-water national historic
trail. Beginning at Jamestown, Virginia, the new trail will trace Captain Smith’s
1607-1609 voyages of exploration in the Chesapeake Bay region. The 109th
Congress also authorized the National Park Service to study additional routes and
associated campgrounds for possible inclusion in the Trail of Tears National Historic
Trail (P.L. 109-378).
Each agency with management authority over national trails has its own budget
or funding system for carrying out activities related to trail administration and
management. Federal land managing agencies have agreed, within the limits of
agency authorities, to coordinate requests for and obligation of funds related to the
National Trails System to eliminate duplication of effort and increase effectiveness.
FY2007 funding for the National Trails System was $23.5 million, and the FY2008

---

CRS-23
request was $17.8 million. The funding approved by the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees, in FY2008 Interior appropriations legislation, is unclear.
Also, funding other than for the National Trails System cannot be aggregated because
of differences among agencies’ budgeting practices.60
Other Issues
The 110th Congress may evaluate 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
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, 2000.61 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
60 Other trail projects may be eligible for federal highway funding under SAFETEA-LU
(P.L. 109-59). For example, the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides funds to states
to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for motorized and
nonmotorized recreational trail uses. P.L. 109-59 authorized $370 million for the RTP over
five years.
61 65 Fed. Reg. 62457 (Oct. 18, 2000).

---

CRS-24
to specific 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 visited refuges. The Northeast Region (roughly Virginia to Maine, with 71
refuges) took 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”). This region also attempted 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, and greater reliance on volunteers (if available). Other regions have
begun their own plans to address reduced operating budgets.
Legislative Activity. For refuge operations and maintenance in FY2008, the
President proposed $394.8 million, a slight decrease from $395.3 million in FY2007.
The final figure was $434.1 million (+10%). In the Joint Statement of Managers,
FWS was directed to use the additional FY2008 funding to reestablish basic
operations nationwide. FWS was further directed to report back to the
Appropriations Committees on allocation of the increased funding within 60 days.
However, on Jan. 29, 2008, President Bush signed E.O. 13457, directing federal
agencies to ignore earmarks that are not in the language of the law itself.62 While the
executive order will not affect the increase itself, statements concerning
reestablishment of operations as well as a report to the two committees would be
affected. For additional information on the NWRS budget for FY2008, see CRS
Report RL34011, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008
Appropriations.
Recreation at Federal Water Sites. (by Nicole T. 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
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) The Bureau of Reclamation mission
is not primarily related to recreation, and thus it has limited authority, funding, and
staff to provide for recreation facilities. There are 289 Reclamation project areas
with designated recreation facilities, but only 32 are managed solely by the agency.
Because the reservoirs behind Reclamation dams create desirable recreation
62 73 Fed. Reg. 6417 (Feb. 1, 2008).

---

CRS-25
opportunities, the agency works with 67 non-federal partners to manage and oversee
recreation facilities at Reclamation projects. Reclamation sites, including those
managed by non-federal partners, receive 90 million visits annually; this figure is
increasing by 1.2 million annually. Recreation at these sites generates $6 billion in
visitor revenue and creates 27,000 non-federal jobs.63 The agency endeavors to aid
concessionaires through outreach programs aimed at helping them succeed in their
management of sites, and Reclamation seeks to avoid the failure of a concessionaire
or management partner which results in the site and facilities reverting to
Reclamation’s stewardship. Within the agency this is called turn back. Turn back
has occurred 29 times since 1976 according to an August 2005
Reclamation-commissioned study, and places additional pressure on agency funding
and staff resources.64 Policies or decisions related to Reclamation’s contracting with
concessionaires may yet be an issue raised in the 110th Congress.
Corps of Engineers. (by Nicole T. Carter) The Corps is estimated to
annually spend roughly $270 million on recreation-related activities.65 In the
omnibus Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 (P.L. 110-114), the
110th Congress authorized the Corps to undertake construction activities for a number
of water resource projects with recreational components; the legislation also added
recreation as a project purpose for a number of existing Corps facilities. Recreation
oversight may still arise during the 110th Congress in the context of Corps reservoir
operations under the drought conditions facing a number of river basins, such as the
Southeast drought’s drawdown of Lake Lanier (GA) in the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint basin. The consistency of Corps recreation fees
and passes with those of other agencies may also receive attention. A broader policy
issue facing the agency is its treatment of recreation’s economic benefits under
alternate management regimes for multipurpose federal facilities (e.g., reservoir
management in the Missouri River basin).
Recreation Fees. (by Carol Hardy Vincent) DOI and the Department of
Agriculture are in transition to a new recreation fee program, created by P.L. 108-447
(Division J, Title VIII; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act). The law
established the 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. The agencies have issued guidance on implementing the program, and
have adjusted fees at sites to meet the criteria and prohibitions in the new law. In
some areas fees have been eliminated, while in others they have increased. Congress
is overseeing agency efforts to establish, collect, and spend recreation fees under the
law.
63 E-mail correspondence on Jan. 10, 2008, with Mr. Bruce Brown, Partnerships
Coordinator, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, DC.
64 Haas, Glenn E., and Robert Aukerman, An Assessment of the Bureau of Reclamation’s
Non-Federal Recreation Management Partners, August 2005. Available via Reclamation’s
website at [http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/planning/recpubs/NonFedRecre.pdf]. See also
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail.10002226.2005.html].
65 See [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail.10002002.2005.html].

---

CRS-26
The recreation fee program is supported partly because it generates revenue that
can be used for improvements at the sites where collected. Concerns remain over
issues such as whether the public should be charged for recreating on public lands,
and whether the establishment of higher fees in some areas could be a barrier to
visitation. Debate continues over which agencies should be covered by the recreation
fee program. H.R. 4304 seeks to extend the program to the Corps of Engineers. By
contrast, S. 2438 seeks to repeal the program. However, it authorizes the Secretary
of the Interior to establish and collect entrance and use fees at units of the National
Park System, under specified terms and conditions; provides for distribution of the
receipts; and requires reports to Congress on this fee program at park units. The bill
also seeks to reinstate recreation fee provisions of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund Act of 1965, which in part provided for entrance fees, primarily at national park
units, and daily recreation use fees for federal agencies generally.
P.L. 108-447 provided guidance to the five agencies on establishing entrance,
standard, expanded, and special recreation permit fees. It outlined criteria for
establishing fees, and prohibited charging fees for certain activities or services. Each
agency can spend the revenue collected without further appropriation. In general, not
less than 80% of the fees are to be spent at the collecting site, but that amount can be
reduced to not less than 60%. The balance of the collections is available to be used
agency-wide. The agencies (excluding the Bureau of Reclamation) anticipated
collecting about $240 million in fees in FY2007, with NPS collections accounting
for about two-thirds of the total. 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.
The law also authorized the creation of an interagency national recreation pass
as well as regional multi-entity passes. To cover entrance and standard fees for the
five agencies, in January 2007 a new interagency pass was established — the
America the Beautiful National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass. The cost
of the general pass, at $80 per year, the extent and convenience of its use, and the
distribution of revenues from passes sold are issues of interest. Legislation has been
introduced (H.R. 652 and S. 617) to make the pass available to veterans for a cost of
$10 annually, and hearings have been held on the Senate bill.
While the agencies have made progress in implementing the new law, a
September 2006 GAO report determined that some issues had not been solved.66 For
instance, some agencies lacked accounting procedures and controls for collected fees,
not all federal units were in compliance with the law, and the Bureau of Reclamation
had not determined how the law applies to its operations.

Grand Canyon Colorado River Recreational Use Management. (by
David L. Whiteman) As part of the management of Grand Canyon National Park
66 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].

---

CRS-27
(GCNP), the NPS regulates recreational use of the Colorado River corridor within
park boundaries at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. A particular focus is the
management of watercraft trips on the Colorado River inside GCNP to protect river
corridor resources while fostering sustained high-quality visitor experience. The
277-mile river canyon is a popular destination for multi-day boating trips, long
considered one of the most “iconic” of National Park experiences. Decades of
conflict have ensued over the use of outboard motors on pontoon rafts on the river,
helicopter flights used to ferry commercial boating passengers in and out of the
canyon, and the proportion of river access for commercial outfitters versus
noncommercial private boaters. Historically, about 70% of river access permits had
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 and those seeking
wilderness status for some or all of the park. Commercial river trip outfitters assert
that access for motorized watercraft does not harm resources and is the only practical
way to offer popular short-duration trips.
In 2006, the NPS finalized a revised Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP)
governing recreational river use for at least 10 years and establishing goals and
objectives for a longer time frame.67 This new management plan alters the allocation
of river access between commercial and noncommercial users, with more access for
the self-outfitted sector. The plan also shortens the season for commercial trips but
expands both the number of commercial launches allowed and their group size. A
“hybrid” weighted lottery system held each February for noncommercial users is
being phased in, and the park plans to issue 252 noncommercial launch permits for
calendar year 2009.68 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. In general, commercial users view the new plan
favorably. The CRMP process took nearly 10 years to complete and implement. The
new CRMP includes the development of a Visitor Experience Monitoring Plan
(VEMP) to assess optimum visitor capacity levels and the quality of visitors’ river
running experiences.
On February 16, 2006, a coalition of conservation groups filed suit in federal
court to force Interior to re-evaluate its approach to dam-managed water flow and
river canyon ecosystem recovery. They cited continuing damage to beaches,
vegetation, unique species, and cultural resources from the operation of the upstream
Glen Canyon Dam, and contended that the new CRMP did not adequately protect
park resources from river user impacts. The parties settled their case in 2007 and, as
a result, Interior is now working on a plan for long-term experimentation with release
and flow volumes, temperature controls, and other measures to benefit downstream
river resources. The Grand Canyon Trust, an environmental group, filed a new
67 Background information and related documents are available on the NPS CRMP website
at [http://www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/crmp.htm].
68 Information on Colorado River trips is available via 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] and the link
for associated FAQs at [http://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/river-faq.htm].

---

CRS-28
lawsuit on December 7, 2007, seeking to force the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct
“seasonally adjusted” dam releases in low water years.
As called for in the CRMP, the NPS has implemented a site-specific restoration
program to address user impacts, focusing on popular use areas and campsites.
Another coalition of conservation and some boating groups filed a separate suit on
March 28, 2006, over motorized use and perceived inequities of the new river use
plan. This lawsuit seeks an injunction that would require the NPS to prepare another
CRMP. An October 2006 court ruling allowed intervention in the case by two boater
associations favoring the 2006 CRMP.

---