Order Code RL33484
National Park Management
Updated February 21, 2008
Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinator, and Ross W. Gorte
Specialists in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Sandra L. Johnson
Information Research Specialist
Knowledge Services Group

---

National Park Management
Summary
The 110th Congress is considering legislation and conducting oversight on
National Park Service (NPS) related topics. The Administration is addressing park
issues through budgetary, regulatory, and other actions. Earlier Congresses and
Administrations also have dealt with similar issues. While this report focuses on
several key topics, others may be added if circumstances warrant.
Centennial Initiative. President Bush’s National Park Centennial Initiative
seeks to add up to $3 billion for national park units over 10 years through: (1) an
additional $100.0 million annually in discretionary funds; (2) public donations of
least $100.0 million annually; and (3) a federal match of the public donations with
up to $100.0 million annually. Legislation to establish a mandatory matching
program along the lines of the President’s initiative has been introduced (H.R. 2959
and S. 1253), while H.R. 3094 would take a somewhat different approach.
Maintenance Backlog. Attention has focused on the NPS’s maintenance
backlog. Estimates of the backlog have increased from an average of $4.25 billion
in FY1999 to $9.11 billion in FY2006; it is unclear what portion may be attributable
to better estimates or the addition of maintenance work not done on time. The NPS
has been defining and quantifying its maintenance needs through comprehensive
condition assessments of facilities. The results are being used in part to determine
the allocation of maintenance funding and to identify assets for disposal. H.R. 1731
seeks to eliminate the NPS annual operating deficit and maintenance backlog.

Science in the Parks. Various science-related activities pertain to park
management. One involves monitoring and protecting air quality — the regional
haze issue. Another is possible commercialization (bio-prospecting) of unique
organisms found in some park units. The NPS is developing a proposal on benefits
sharing — agreements for using the results of research on organisms in parks. A
third science-related issue is research in the parks. The NPS receives funds for
natural and cultural research programs.

Security. The NPS has sought to enhance security of park units, with efforts
focused on national icons and park units along international borders. Evaluations of
park police and security operations have been mixed. Several bills pertaining to
immigration reform and border security contain provisions to enhance security at
park units along U.S. borders. The President is seeking additional funding for
FY2009 for park police and law enforcement.

Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Wild and Scenic Rivers System preserves free-
flowing rivers, which are designated by Congress or through state nomination with
approval by the Secretary of the Interior. The NPS manages 36 river units, totaling
3,018.4 miles. The NPS, and other federal agencies with management responsibility,
prepare management plans to protect river values. Management of lands within river
corridors is sometimes controversial, in part because of the possible effects of
designation on private lands and of corridor activities on the rivers. Legislation has
been introduced to designate, study, or extend components of the system.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Centennial Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Maintenance Backlog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Science in the Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Wild and Scenic Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

---

National Park Management
Introduction
The National Park System is perhaps the federal land best known to the public.
The National Park Service (NPS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI) manages
391 units, including units formally entitled national parks and a host of other
designations.1 The system has more than 84 million acres.2 The NPS had an
appropriation of about $2.39 billion for FY2008. For FY2009, the Administration
requested $2.40 billion. The agency estimates its level of employment at 20,739
FTEs for FY2008, and seeks funding for 21,649 FTEs for FY2009.3
The NPS statutory mission is multifaceted: to conserve, preserve, protect, and
interpret the natural, cultural, and historic resources of the nation for the public, and
to provide for their use and enjoyment by the public. The use and preservation of
resources has appeared to some as contradictory and has resulted in management
challenges. Attention centers on how to balance the recreational use of parklands
with the preservation of park resources, and determine appropriate levels and sources
of funding to maintain NPS facilities and to manage NPS programs. In general,
activities that harvest or remove resources from units of the system are not allowed.
The NPS also supports the preservation of natural and historic places and promotes
recreation outside the system through grant and technical assistance programs.
The establishment of several national parks preceded the 1916 creation of the
National Park Service (NPS) as the park system management agency. Congress
established the nation’s first national park — Yellowstone National Park — in 1872.
The park was created in the then-territories of Montana and Wyoming “for the
benefit and enjoyment of the people,” and placed “under the exclusive control of the
Secretary of the Interior” (16 U.S.C. §§ 21-22). In the 1890s and early 1900s,
Congress created several other national parks mostly from western public domain
lands, including Sequoia, Yosemite, Mount Rainier, Crater Lake, and Glacier. In
addition to the desire to preserve nature, there was interest in promoting tourism.
1 Descriptions of the different designations are on the NPS website at [http://www.
nps.gov/legacy/]. Brief information on each unit is contained in U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
National Park Service, The National Parks: Index 2005-2007 (Washington, DC: 2005).
2 This figure includes an estimated 79 million acres of federal land, 1 million acres of other
public land, and 4 million acres of private land within unit boundaries. NPS policy is to
acquire these nonfederal inholdings from willing sellers, as funds are available, or to create
special agreements to encourage landowners to sell.
3 A full-time equivalent (FTE) is the staffing of federal civilian employee positions
expressed in annual productive work hours, according to the Office of Management and
Budget. These statistics on FTEs are taken from Fiscal Year 2009, The Interior Budget in
Brief, p. BH-71, available at [http://www.doi.gov/budget/].

---

CRS-2
Western railroads, often recipients of vast public land grants, were advocates of many
of the early parks and built grand hotels in them to support their business.
There also were efforts to protect the sites and structures of early Native
American cultures and other special sites. The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorized
the President to proclaim national monuments on federal lands that contain “historic
landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or
scientific interest” (16 U.S.C. § 431). Most national monuments are managed by the
NPS. (For more information, see CRS Report RS20902, National Monument Issues,
by Carol Hardy Vincent.)
There was no system of national parks and monuments until 1916, when
President Wilson signed a law creating the NPS to manage and protect the national
parks and many of the monuments. That Organic Act provided that the NPS “shall
promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks,
monuments, and reservations ... to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic
objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such
manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations” (16 U.S.C. § 1). President Franklin D. Roosevelt greatly expanded the
system of parks in 1933 by transferring 63 national monuments and historic military
sites from the USDA Forest Service and the War Department to the NPS.
The 110th Congress is considering legislation or conducting oversight on many
NPS-related topics. Several major topics are covered in this report: proposals to
enhance NPS funding before the agency’s 2016 centennial; the NPS maintenance
backlog; science-related activities at national park units; security of NPS units and
lands; and management of wild and scenic rivers, which are administered by the NPS
or another land management agency.
While in some cases the topics covered are relevant to other federal lands and
agencies, this report does not comprehensively cover topics primarily affecting other
lands/agencies. For background on federal land management generally, see CRS
Report RL32393, Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and
Resources Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent. Overview information
on numerous natural resource issues, focused on resource use and protection, is
provided in CRS Report RL33806, Natural Resources Policy: Management,
Institutions, and Issues, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent, Nicole T. Carter, and
Julie Jennings. Information on appropriations for the NPS is included in CRS Report
RL34011, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations,
coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent. Information on BLM and Forest Service lands
is contained in CRS Report RL33792, Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (FS): Issues for the 110th
Congress, by Ross W. Gorte, Carol Hardy Vincent, Marc Humphries, and Kristina
Alexander.
Several other NPS-related topics are covered in other CRS reports. For
example, how national park units are created and what qualities make an area eligible
to be an NPS unit are of continuing interest. (For more information, see CRS Report
RS20158, National Park System: Establishing New Units, by Carol Hardy Vincent.)
Legislation has been considered in recent Congresses to study, designate, and fund

---

CRS-3
particular National Heritage Areas (NHAs) as well as to establish a process and
criteria for designating and managing NHAs. (For more information, see CRS
Report RL33462, Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues, by
Carol Hardy Vincent and David L. Whiteman.) Recent decades have witnessed
increased demand for a variety of recreational opportunities on federal lands and
waters. New forms of motorized recreation have gained in popularity, and the use
of motorized off-highway vehicles (OHVs) has been particularly contentious. (For
more information, see CRS Report RL33525, Recreation on Federal Lands,
coordinated by Kori Calvert and Carol Hardy Vincent.)
Current Issues

Centennial Initiative (by Carol Hardy Vincent)
To be ready for the NPS’s 100th anniversary in 2016, the Administration and
Congress have proposed multi-year initiatives to strengthen visitor services and other
park programs. The National Park Centennial Initiative, first announced by President
Bush in August 2006, seeks to add up to $3 billion in new funds for the parks over
10 years through a joint public/private effort. The initiative has three components:
(1) a commitment to add $100.0 million annually in discretionary funds; (2) a
challenge for the public to donate at least $100.0 million annually; and (3) a
commitment to match the public donations with federal funds of up to $100.0 million
annually.
In furtherance of the first component of the initiative, for FY2009 the
Administration requested additional funds within the line item “Operation of the
National Park System.” Specifically, the Administration is seeking a total of $2.13
billion in park operations for FY2009, an increase of $160.9 million over the FY2008
level of $1.97 billion. The Administration also had sought, and received, an increase
in park operations for FY2008, the first year of the centennial initiative.
For the third component of the initiative, the President proposed establishing a
mandatory program with $100.0 million annually for 10 years to match private
donations. Companion legislation (H.R. 2959 and S. 1253) has been introduced to
create a mandatory program along the lines of the President’s initiative. The bills
would establish the National Park Centennial Challenge Fund in the Treasury
consisting of cash donations and matching appropriations from the general fund of
the Treasury. The match may not exceed $100.0 million for each of 10 years
beginning with FY2008. The funds are available, without further appropriation, to
finance “signature projects and programs.” These projects and programs will be
identified by the NPS Director as helping prepare the national parks for another
century of conservation, preservation, and enjoyment.
Another House bill (H.R. 3094) also would establish a National Park Centennial
Fund in the Treasury, consisting of $100.0 million annually over 10 years, but would
take a different approach. The funds would be derived from fees for commercial
activities on DOI lands. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to
promulgate regulations to establish new fees or increase existing fees for commercial

---

CRS-4
activities, including leases. The funds would be available beginning with FY2009,
without further appropriation, for projects approved in Interior appropriations laws.
The Administration is to include a list of proposals for funding in its annual budget
submissions to Congress. The proposals must be consistent with certain criteria and
initiatives set out in the bill. The bill specifies the appropriation of funds among six
park initiatives, with 10% of the funds to diversity, 10% to support for park
professionals, 10% to environmental leadership, 10% to natural resource protection,
30% to education in parks, and 30% to construction projects. No matching funds
would be required, but the Secretary of the Interior may accept donations for
projects.4
House and Senate subcommittees held hearings on these legislative proposals
in August 2007. One issue of discussion was the role of philanthropic, corporate,
foundation, and other private donors in raising money for the parks. Some observers
believe that non-federal funding has been successful in expanding and enhancing a
variety of important park programs and is necessary to supplement a shortfall in
federal appropriations. Other observers are concerned that non-federal funding will
lead to commercialization of national parks and excessive private influence over park
operations. Related issues of debate at the hearings included whether to first seek
private contributions and then provide a federal match, whether to provide federal
funding without a private matching requirement, and whether to allow non-cash
contributions. Other issues of discussion were how to finance the Centennial Fund;
the role of the NPS and Congress in determining projects eligible for funding; and
which, if any, categories of funding (e.g., natural resource protection) to specify in
legislation.
In furtherance of the third component of the Administration’s initiative, the
FY2008 appropriations law (P.L. 110-161) included $24.6 million to match private
donations. In August 2007, the NPS released a list of 201 proposals that would be
eligible to receive this funding. The agency is identifying which projects to fund with
the FY2008 appropriation. The Appropriations Committees and the Administration
have expressed that the FY2008 appropriation is interim funding to initiate the
program, and an expectation that legislation will be enacted to create a ten year
program. The Administration has not requested an annual appropriation for this
matching program, but rather seeks $100.0 million per year in mandatory funding.

Maintenance Backlog (by Carol Hardy Vincent)
The NPS has maintenance responsibility for buildings, trails, recreation sites,
and other infrastructure. There is debate over the levels of funds to maintain this
infrastructure, whether to use funds from other programs, and how to balance the
maintenance of the existing infrastructure with the acquisition of new assets.
Congress continues to focus on the agency’s deferred maintenance, often called the
maintenance backlog — essentially maintenance that was not done when scheduled
or planned. DOI estimates deferred maintenance for the NPS for FY2006, based on
4 Another House bill (H.R. 1731) to establish a National Park Centennial Fund is described
in the Maintenance Backlog section. A primary intent of the fund would be to eliminate the
NPS maintenance backlog.

---

CRS-5
varying assumptions, at between $5.80 billion and $12.42 billion with a mid-range
figure of $9.11 billion.5 Sixty percent of the total deferred maintenance was for
roads, bridges, and trails, 20% was for buildings, and 20% was for other structures.
While the other federal land management agencies — the Forest Service (FS),
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) — also
have maintenance backlogs, congressional and administrative attention has centered
on the NPS backlog. For FY2006, the FS estimated its backlog at $5.59 billion,
while DOI estimated the FWS backlog at between $1.42 billion and $1.92 billion and
the BLM backlog at between $0.39 billion and $0.47 billion. The four agencies
together had a combined backlog estimated at between $13.20 billion and $20.41
billion, with a mid-range figure of $16.80 billion, according to the agencies.6 The
NPS and other agency backlogs have been attributed to decades of funding shortfalls.
The agencies assert that continuing to defer maintenance of facilities accelerates their
rate of deterioration, increases their repair costs, and decreases their value.
For FY2009, the Administration proposed $471.5 million for total maintenance,
including cyclic (regular) and deferred maintenance. This would be an increase of
10% from the $430.3 million appropriated for FY2008. The Administration’s budget
focused on funds for cyclic maintenance, with a request for an additional $22.8
million for this purpose. The Administration is seeking these funds as a way to
prevent deterioration of facilities, which increases the maintenance backlog.
However, the budget did not specify the total portions of the maintenance request for
deferred maintenance and for cyclic maintenance. Other funding for deferred
maintenance is provided through the NPS construction appropriation, fee receipts,
and the Highway Trust Fund. It is not possible to determine the total requested for
deferred maintenance for FY2009 from public documents.
DOI estimates of the NPS backlog have increased from an average of $4.25
billion in FY1999 to an average of $9.11 billion in FY2006. It is unclear what
portion of the change is due to the addition of maintenance work that was not done
on time or the availability of more precise estimates of the backlog. Further, it is
unclear how much total funding has been provided for backlogged maintenance over
this period. Annual presidential budget requests and appropriations laws typically
do not specify funds for backlogged maintenance, but instead combine funding for
all NPS construction, facility operation, and regular and deferred maintenance.
According to the DOI Budget Office, the appropriation for NPS deferred
maintenance increased from $223.0 million in FY1999 to $311.1 million in FY2006,
with a peak in FY2002 at $364.2 million.7 More recent information has not been
available from the DOI Budget Office.
5 Another DOI source, from March 2007, reports an NPS deferred maintenance backlog of
$7.94 billion.
6 Estimates are from DOI and the FS, and reflect only direct project costs in accordance with
requirements of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
7 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Budget, Internal Memorandum (Washington, DC),
received April 7, 2006.

---

CRS-6
In FY2002, the Bush Administration had proposed to eliminate the NPS backlog
(estimated at $4.9 billion in 2002) over five years. The NPS budget justification for
FY2008 stated that there had been an “almost $5 billion federal investment in
addressing the facility maintenance backlog.”8 The figure reflected total
appropriations for line items of which deferred maintenance is only a part.
Specifically, according to the NPS, it consisted of appropriations for all NPS facility
maintenance, NPS construction, and the NPS park roads and parkway program
funded through the Federal Highway Administration. It also included fee receipts
used for maintenance.
The NPS has been defining and quantifying its maintenance needs. These
efforts, like those of other land management agencies, include developing
computerized systems for tracking and prioritizing maintenance projects and
collecting comprehensive data on the condition of facilities. The first cycle of
comprehensive condition assessments of NPS facilities was completed by the end of
FY2006. The NPS uses two industry standard measurements of its facilities. The
“Asset Priority Index” (API) is a rating of each asset’s importance to the NPS
mission. The “Facility Condition Index” (FCI) quantifies the condition of a facility
by dividing the deferred maintenance backlog by the current replacement value of the
facility. These ratings are used in part to determine the allocation of maintenance
funding among NPS facilities. They also are used to determine whether to retain
assets given their condition and uses. The NPS, like the other land management
agencies, is identifying for disposal assets that are not critical to the agency’s mission
and that are in relatively poor condition, as one way to reduce the maintenance
backlog.
Legislation relating to the maintenance backlog of the NPS has been
reintroduced in the 110th Congress. H.R. 1731 seeks to eliminate the annual
operating deficit and maintenance backlog in the National Park System by the 2016
centennial anniversary of the NPS. The bill proposes the creation of the National
Park Centennial Fund in the Treasury, to be comprised of monies designated by
taxpayers on their tax returns. If monies from tax returns are insufficient to meet
funding levels established in the bill, they are to be supplemented by contributions
to the Centennial Fund from the General Fund of the Treasury. For FY2008, there
would be deposited in the Centennial Fund $200.0 million, with an increase of 15%
each year though FY2016. The fund is to be available to the Secretary of the Interior,
without further appropriation, as follows: 60% to eliminate the NPS maintenance
backlog, 20% to protect NPS natural resources, and 20% to protect NPS cultural
resources. After October 1, 2016, money in the Centennial Fund is to be used to
supplement annual appropriations for park operations. The bill also would require
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to submit to Congress biennial reports
on the progress of Congress in eliminating the NPS deficit in operating funds and on
the funding needs of national parks compared with park appropriations, among other
issues.9
8 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Budget Justifications and Performance
Information, Fiscal Year 2008 (Washington, DC: 2007), p. Overview-2.
9 Other legislation to create a National Park Centennial Fund is discussed above in the
(continued...)

---

CRS-7
Science in the Parks (by Ross W. Gorte)
Various science-related issues pertain to park management. One involves
monitoring and protecting air quality — the regional haze issue. In the 1977
amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress established a national goal of protecting
Class I areas — most then-existing national parks and wilderness areas — from
future visibility impairment and remedying any existing impairment resulting from
manmade air pollution. (Newly designated parks and wilderness areas can be
classified as Class I only by state actions; they do not automatically become Class I
areas.) One program to control this “regional haze” is the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration program. It provides that permits may not be issued to major new
facilities within 100 kilometers of a Class I area if federal land managers, such as
those at the NPS, assert that the emissions “may cause or contribute to a change in
the air quality” in a Class I area (42 U.S.C. § 7457).
The NPS monitors one or more air quality indicators at 60 park units and uses
data from numerous state and local air quality monitoring stations located close to
park units. From these combined sources, the NPS rated 141 park units in its 2006
performance report, covering the period 1996-2005, and concluded that 86% of the
units showed stable or improving air quality trends generally, 82% met national
ambient air quality standards, and 97% met visibility goals.10 In August 2006, the
National Parks Conservation Association released a new report asserting that “air
pollution is among the most serious and wide-ranging problems facing the parks
today.... We’ve made some important advances ... but much more remains to be
done.”11 The report includes 10 recommendations to improve air quality in the
National Park System.
Another science-related issue is possible commercialization (bio-prospecting)
of unique organisms found in some NPS units (notably Yellowstone National Park).
The NPS completed a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on benefits-
sharing (agreements for using the results of research on organisms in the parks) in
September 2006. The public comment period closed on January 29, 2007.12 The
preferred alternative would require researchers to enter into a benefits-sharing
agreement before using research results for commercial purposes. To date, a final
EIS and record of decision have not been issued.
9 (...continued)
section entitled “Centennial Initiative.”
10 See the Final October 2007 report, 2006 Annual Performance and Progress Report: Air
Quality in National Parks, available via the NPS website at [http://www2.nature.nps.
gov/air/Pubs/pdf/gpra/GPRA_AQ_ConditionsTrendReport2006.pdf]. For information on
NPS air quality resources, see [http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/index.cfm].
11 National Parks Conservation Association, Turning Point, p. 4, available on the web at
[http://www.npca.org/turningpoint/Full-Report.pdf].
12 71 Fed. Reg. 56168 (Sept. 26, 2006). The EIS is available on the NPS website, at [http://
parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkId=442&projectId=12515&documentId=16763].

---

CRS-8
A third science-related issue is research in the parks. NPS support for natural
resources includes research on air quality, cooperative ecosystem studies units, and
research learning centers. Additional research is conducted in many parks, although
“parks do not have specific funds allocated for research, but may choose to fund
individual projects in any given year.”13 Funding for natural resources research
support has risen modestly in recent years, from $9.3 million in FY2002 to $9.7
million for FY2008. The Park Service also conducts cultural resources applied
research, including archaeological resource inventories; reports on cultural
landscapes and on historic and prehistoric structures; museum collections; and
ethnographic and historical research. Funding has risen in recent years, from $18.0
million in FY2002 to $19.8 million for FY2008. The completeness and adequacy of
these programs and funds to address Park Service research needs and performance
is unclear. Congress funds both these natural and cultural research programs as part
of NPS Resource Stewardship (under Operation of the National Park System). For
FY2008, Congress matched the Administration’s request for this account — $397.4
million — before the across-the-board reduction of 1.56% (applied to all
discretionary accounts), for an enacted total of $391.2 million.

Security (by Carol Hardy Vincent)
Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, the NPS
has sought to enhance its ability to prepare for and respond to threats from terrorists
and others. Activities have focused on security enhancements at national icons and
along the U.S. borders, where several parks are located. According to the NPS, the
United States Park Police (USPP) has sought to expand physical security assessments
of monuments, memorials, and other facilities, and increase patrols and security
precautions in Washington monument areas, at the Statue of Liberty, and at other
potentially vulnerable icons. Other activities have included implementing additional
training in terrorism response for agency personnel, and reducing the backlog of
needed specialized equipment and vehicles. NPS law enforcement rangers and
special agents have expanded patrols, use of electronic monitoring equipment,
intelligence monitoring, and training in preemptive and response measures, according
to the agency. The NPS has taken measures to increase security and protection along
international borders and to curb illegal immigration and drug traffic through park
borders.
A February 2008 assessment of the USPP by the DOI Inspector General
identified weaknesses in the management and operations of park police that adversely
affect security at national icons.14 The report stated that USPP “officials continue to
state that icon security is a top priority; however, their actions indicate otherwise.”15
It stated that there is not a comprehensive icon security program, and recommended
the hiring of a senior-level security professional to oversee security of all icons as
13 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Budget Justifications and Performance
Information, Fiscal Year 2008 (Washington, DC: 2007), p. ONPS-11-12.
14 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Assessment of the United States
Park Police (Washington, DC: February 2008). See [http://www.doioig.gov/].
15 Ibid., p. 6.

---

CRS-9
well as other certified security professionals for each icon park. Other
recommendations included development of formal asset security plans, establishment
of a training program for personnel responsible for protecting icons, and an upgrade
of closed circuit television surveillance camera systems as well as an increase in
personnel monitoring them. Over the past several years, other entities have evaluated
park police and security operations. For instance, a June 2005 GAO report examined
the challenges for DOI in protecting national icons and monuments from terrorism,
and actions and improvements the department has taken in response.16 GAO
concluded that since 2001, DOI has improved security at key sites, created a central
security office to coordinate security efforts, developed physical security plans, and
established a uniform risk management and ranking methodology. GAO
recommended that DOI link its rankings to security funding priorities at national
icons and monuments and establish guiding principles to balance its core mission
with security needs.
Legislation pertaining to immigration reform and border security contains
provisions affecting national park units along U.S. borders. For example, S. 1269
provides for the construction of a fence and other barriers along the southern border.
The Secretary of Homeland Security is to create and control a border zone consisting
of U.S. land within 100 yards of the border. The heads of the NPS and of other
agencies that manage lands along the border are to transfer land to the Secretary of
Homeland Security without reimbursement. S. 330 and S. 1348 call for a study of
the construction of physical barriers along the southern border of the United States,
including their effect on park units along the borders. S. 1348, S. 1639, and H.R.
1645 would increase customs and border protection personnel to secure park units
(and other federal land) along U.S. borders; provide surveillance camera systems,
sensors, and other equipment for lands on the border, with priority for NPS units
(under S. 1348 and H.R. 1645); and require a recommendation to Congress for the
NPS and other agencies to recover costs related to illegal border activity. These three
bills, as well as S. 2366, S. 2368, and H.R. 4088, also would require the development
of a border protection strategy that protects NPS units (and other federal land areas).
S. 2366, S. 2368, and H.R. 4088 also authorize the employment of additional law
enforcement officers and special agents by DOI. In June 2007, the Senate considered
S. 1348 and S. 1639 but did not vote on final passage because cloture was not
invoked.
Other issues of recent interest have included the damage of illegal border
activities to federal lands; how to reduce harm from illegal border activities; efforts
of various agencies to secure federal lands along the borders; implementation of a
memorandum of understanding among the Departments of Homeland Security,
Interior, and Agriculture on initiatives to improve handling of illegal border activities
and their impacts on federal lands; and the demands on law enforcement personnel
of the federal land management agencies. Illegal activities at issue have included
drug trafficking, alien smuggling, money laundering, organized crime, and terrorism.
Such activities are reported to have damaged federal lands, including by creating
16 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: Actions Needed to Better
Protect National Icons and Federal Office Buildings from Terrorism, GAO-05-790
(Washington, DC: June 2005). See [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05790.pdf].

---

CRS-10
illegal roads, depositing large amounts of trash and human waste, increasing risk of
fire from poorly tended camp fires, destroying vegetation and cultural resources, and
polluting waterways. The effects on federal lands of border enforcement activities
in response to illegal immigration also have been examined.

Congress appropriates funds to the NPS for security efforts, and the adequacy
and use of funds to protect NPS visitors and units are of continuing interest. Funds
for security are appropriated through multiple line items, including those for the
USPP and Law Enforcement and Protection. For FY2009, the President requested
$94.4 million for the USPP, a 9% increase over FY2008 ($86.7 million). The
increase would be used primarily to hire new officers. The President also requested
$169.8 million for law enforcement in FY2009, a 10% increase over the $154.7
million appropriated for FY2008. A portion of the increase is to enhance law
enforcement at park units along the southwest border that are addressing resource
damage and safety issues resulting from illegal immigration. The increase also is
intended to enhance protection of 11 historic structures and approximately 100
archaeological sites.
Wild and Scenic Rivers (by Sandra L. Johnson)
The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was authorized on October 2,
1968, by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1271-1287).17 The act
established a policy of preserving designated free-flowing rivers for the benefit and
enjoyment of present and future generations, to complement the then-current national
policy of constructing dams and other structures along many rivers. The act requires
that river units be classified and administered as wild, scenic, or recreational rivers,
based on the condition of the river, the amount of development in the river or on the
shorelines, and the degree of accessibility by road or trail at the time of designation.
Typically rivers are added to the system by an act of Congress, but they also may
be added by state nomination with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.
Congress initially designated 789 miles of eight rivers as part of the system. Today
there are 165 river units with 11,408.9 miles in 38 states and Puerto Rico,
administered by the NPS, other federal agencies, and several state agencies. The
NPS manages 36 of these river units, totaling 3,018.4 miles.18 Congress also
commonly enacts legislation to authorize the study of particular rivers for potential
inclusion in the system. The NPS maintains a national registry of rivers that may be
eligible for inclusion in the system — the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI).19
Congress may consider, among other sources, these NRI rivers, which are believed
to possess “outstandingly remarkable” values. The Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture are to report to the President as to the suitability of study areas for wild
17 The text of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is available on the NPS website at
[http://www.rivers.gov/wsract.html].
18 These figures reflect both exclusive and shared NPS management of river units.
19 For further Information on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, see the NPS website at
[http://www.nps.gov/rtca/nri/].

---

CRS-11
and scenic designation. The President then submits recommendations regarding
designation to Congress.
Wild and scenic rivers designated by Congress generally are managed by one
of the four federal land management agencies — NPS, FWS, BLM, and FS.
Management varies with the class of the designated river and the values for which
it was included in the system. Components of the system managed by the NPS
become a part of the National Park System. The act requires the managing agency
of each component of the system to prepare a comprehensive management plan to
protect river values. The managing agency also establishes boundaries for each
component of the system, within limitations. Management of lands within river
corridors has been controversial in some cases, with debates over the effect of
designation on private lands within the river corridors, the impact of activities within
a corridor on the flow or character of the designated river segment, and the extent of
local input in developing management plans.
State-nominated rivers may be added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System only if the river is designated for protection under state law, is approved by
the Secretary of the Interior, and is permanently administered by a state agency.
Management of state-nominated rivers may be complicated because of the diversity
of land ownership.
The 110th Congress is considering legislation to designate, study, or extend
components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Such measures are shown in
Table 1. The table includes bills that could involve management by the NPS or other
agencies.
The 109th Congress enacted legislation to designate, study, or extend specific
components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Upper White Salmon River
Act (P.L. 109-44) adds a 20-mile portion of the river to the system. The Northern
California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act (CA) (P.L. 109-362) designates 21
miles in three segments of the Black Butte River as wild and scenic river
components. The Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic
River Study Act (P.L. 109-370) directs the NPS to conduct a feasibility study to
evaluate whether the 40-mile stretch of the lower Farmington River and Salmon
Brook (CT) would qualify for possible inclusion in the system. Several other 109th
Congress bills passed the House or Senate but were not enacted into law.

---

CRS-12
Table 1. Wild and Scenic River Bills Introduced in the 110th Congress
Title or River
Type
Bill No.
Status
Alaska Rainforest Conservation Act (designates
Desig.
H.R. 3757
Introduced
river segments in the Tongass National Forest,
AK)
Alpine Lakes Wilderness Additions and Wild
Desig.
H.R. 4113
Introduced
Pratt River Act of 2007
California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act
Desig.
H.R. 3682
Hearing Held
(designates river segments in Riverside, County,
S. 2109
Introduced
CA)
California Wild Heritage Act of 2007
Desig./
H.R. 860
Introduced
(designates CA river segments; study Carson
Study
S. 493
Introduced
River, East Fork, CA)
Copper Salmon Wilderness Act
Desig.
H.R. 3513
Hearing Held
(designates river segments of the North and
S. 2034
Ordered Reported
South Forks of the Elk River, OR)
Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act (CT)
Desig.
H.R. 986
Referred to Sen. Comm.
S. 553
Senate Calendar
S. 2616
Senate Calendar
Fossil Creek Wild and Scenic River Act (AZ)
Desig.
H.R. 199
Introduced
S. 86
Ordered Reported
Lewis and Clark Mt. Hood Wilderness Act of
Desig.
S. 647
Senate Calendar
2007 (designates waterways in the Mt. Hood
National Forest, OR)
Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic
Study
H.R. 3667
Introduced
River Study Act of 2007 (VT)
S. 2093
Introduced
National Forests, Parks, Public Land, and
Desig.
S. 2179
Senate Calendar
Reclamation Projects Authorization Act of 2007
S. 2483
Senate Calendar
(designates segments and tributaries of the
Eightmile River, CT)
Natural Resource Projects and Programs
Desig.
S. 2180
Senate Calendar
Authorization Act of 2007 (designates river
segments in the Mt. Hood National Forest, OR)
New River Wild and Scenic River Act of 2007
Desig.
S. 1057
Hearing Held
(designates NC and VA river segments)
Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act
Desig.
H.R. 1975
Hearing Held
(designates ID, MT, and WY river segments)
Owyhee Initiative Implementation Act of 2007
Desig.
S. 802
Introduced
(ID)
Perquimans River Wild and Scenic River Study
Study
H.R. 3139
Introduced
Act of 2007 (NC)
S. 2357
Introduced

---

CRS-13
Title or River
Type
Bill No.
Status
Snake Headwaters Legacy Act of 2007 (WY)
Desig.
S. 1281
Hearing Held
Taunton River (MA)
Desig.
H.R. 415
Hearing Held
S. 868
Hearing Held

---