Motorized Recreation on
National Park Service Lands
Laura B. Comay
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney
February 8, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42955
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

Summary
In managing its lands, the National Park Service (NPS) seeks to balance a dual statutory mission
of preserving natural resources while providing for their enjoyment by the public. Motorized
recreation on NPS lands sometimes brings the two parts of this mission into conflict. Off-
highway vehicles (OHVs) have been particularly controversial, with calls for greater recreational
access intersecting with concerns about environmental impacts and disturbance of quieter
pursuits. NPS’s laws, regulations, and policies generally emphasize the conservation of park
resources in conservation/use conflicts, and NPS has fewer lands open to OHV use than do other
federal land management agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest
Service. The 113th Congress may address motorized recreation in the National Park System, either
through broad measures (such as those concerning recreational access to federal lands) or through
specific measures affecting motorized recreation at particular NPS units.
ATVs and Oversand Vehicles. Only 12 of the 398 park units are open to public recreational use
of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), four-wheel drive vehicles, and/or dune, sand, and swamp buggies.
The extent of unauthorized use of such vehicles is in dispute. Several units are developing pilot
education and deterrence programs to address unauthorized use. Legislative measures in the 112th
Congress sought to regulate OHV use at one NPS site, Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
Snowmobiles. Regulatory and judicial actions to allow or restrict snowmobile use have focused
primarily on three Yellowstone-area park units. Winter use plans developed by NPS to establish
numerical limits on snowmobile and snowcoach entries have been the subject of repeated, and
often conflicting, court challenges. Most recently, NPS has issued a draft plan and supplemental
environmental impact statement intended to govern snowmobile use at Yellowstone for the 2014-
2015 winter season and beyond. The plan would allow up to 110 “transportation events” per day
(defined as the use of either a multipassenger snowcoach or a group of snowmobiles).
Aircraft Overflights. Grand Canyon National Park is at the center of a conflict over whether or
how to limit air tours over national park units to reduce noise. NPS and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) continue to work to implement a 1987 law (P.L. 100-91) that sought to
reduce noise at Grand Canyon, and a 2000 law (P.L. 106-181) that regulates overflights at other
park units. P.L. 112-141, enacted in 2012, contains provisions on air tour management at Grand
Canyon, including some less-stringent standards for natural quiet than NPS had recommended in
planning efforts. P.L. 112-95 contains provisions to expedite and streamline agency planning
actions for commercial air tours over parks generally.
Personal Watercraft (PWC). Since 2003, NPS has completed regulations to open designated
PWC areas at 13 units. In July 2010, a federal judge ordered NPS to re-examine environmental
assessments justifying PWC use at two of those units but did not overturn existing regulations.
Mountain Bicycles. This mechanized though nonmotorized activity also raises issues of the
sufficiency of access to park lands as well as potential resource damage and disturbance of quieter
recreational pursuits. Currently, more than 40 NPS units allow mountain biking on dirt trails
and/or dirt roads. Mountain biking advocates have worked with NPS to explore opportunities to
increase this activity in park units. In July 2012, NPS finalized a rule that eases the process for
park superintendents to open trails to bicycles.
Congressional Research Service

---

Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Authorities Governing Motorized Recreation on NPS Lands ......................................................... 2
Executive Orders ....................................................................................................................... 2
Other NPS Authorities ............................................................................................................... 3
ATVs and Oversand Vehicles........................................................................................................... 4
Unauthorized ATV Use in the National Park System ................................................................ 5
Site-Specific Conflicts ............................................................................................................... 5
Big Cypress National Preserve ............................................................................................ 6
Cape Hatteras National Seashore ........................................................................................ 7
Legislative Activity ................................................................................................................... 8
Snowmobiles .................................................................................................................................... 8
Site-Specific Conflict: Yellowstone National Park .................................................................... 8
Legislative Activity ................................................................................................................. 11
Aircraft Overflights ....................................................................................................................... 11
Site-Specific Conflict: Grand Canyon National Park .............................................................. 11
Legislative Activity ........................................................................................................... 13
Air Tour Management Plans .................................................................................................... 13
Legislative Activity ........................................................................................................... 14
Personal Watercraft (PWC) ............................................................................................................ 15
Administrative Actions ............................................................................................................ 15
Legislative Activity ................................................................................................................. 16
Mountain Bicycles ......................................................................................................................... 16
General NPS Rule .................................................................................................................... 16
Site-Specific Actions ............................................................................................................... 17
Legislative Activity ................................................................................................................. 17
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 17

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 18
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 18

Congressional Research Service

---

Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

Introduction
The National Park Service (NPS) administers the National Park System for both recreational use
and preservation of park resources, a mission that can be contradictory.1 Increased recreation on
NPS lands has fueled disagreements over this dual mission and over the optimum extent of
motorized versus nonmotorized recreational activities.
The National Park System, with 398 units covering 84.4 million acres of land, received more than
286 million recreational visits in 2012, an increase of 2.55% over 2011.2 Use of off-highway
vehicles (OHVs) in the parks—including all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), snowmobiles, personal
watercraft, and others—along with recreational activities such as mountain biking, snow biking,
heli-skiing, and aircraft tours, have evolved and gained in popularity. These newer forms intersect
with more traditional, nonmotorized forms of recreation, including land-based activities such as
hiking, camping, hunting, birdwatching, horseback riding, and rock climbing, and water-based
pursuits such as fishing, canoeing, kayaking, and rafting.
OHV use in the parks has been particularly contentious, although NPS has fewer lands open to
OHVs than do other federal land management agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and the Forest Service (FS).3 OHV supporters contend that the vehicles allow visitors
access to hard-to-reach natural areas; bring economic benefits to communities serving riders;4
provide outdoor recreation opportunities for the disabled, senior citizens, and others with mobility
limitations; and, with snowmobiles, allow increased access to sites during winter. They assert that
technological advances will continue to limit noise and pollution.
By contrast, opponents of OHVs in the National Park System assert that these vehicles damage
the environment and cultural artifacts, pose safety concerns, and conflict with other forms of
recreation. NPS staffing levels, they contend, are inadequate to effectively monitor motorized use
and its impact on park resources. Opponents also cite the availability of other federal lands, such
as BLM and FS lands, where OHV use may be permitted. Among environmental concerns raised
by OHV critics are potential damage to wildlife habitat and land and water ecosystems; the
impact of dust on winter snow melts and water supply; noise, air, and water pollution; and a

1 The NPS “Organic Act” of 1916 directs the Park Service to manage its lands so as “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).
2 NPS visitor use statistics are available on the NPS website at https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/. For 2012 statistics through
December, see “YTD Report.” Also see “NPS Visitation Increases Slightly; Lots of Variations,” Federal Parks &
Recreation, vol. 30, no. 20, October 19, 2012. For comparison, a decade ago, in 2003, the National Park System
received approximately 266 million recreational visits.
3 A 2009 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report estimated that OHV use impacts less than 10% of park
system lands, significantly less than for BLM and FS. GAO, Enhanced Planning Could Assist Agencies in Managing
Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles, GAO-09-509, June 2009, p. 12, at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09509.pdf;
hereinafter referred to as GAO 2009. For information on motorized recreation on BLM and FS lands, see CRS Report
R42920, Motorized Recreation on Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service Lands, by Carol Hardy Vincent and
Katie Hoover.
4 For example, the Outdoor Industry Association reports that U.S. consumers spend over $66 billion annually on off-
roading activities (on federal and nonfederal lands combined), and that businesses serving off-road recreationists
support over 680,000 jobs. Outdoor Industry Association, The Outdoor Recreation Economy, 2012, p. 17, available at
http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/Outdoor-Recreation-Economy-OIA2012.pdf. Also see Western Governors Association et al.,
A Snapshot of the Economic Impact of Outdoor Recreation, June 2012, at http://www.westgov.org/component/
joomdoc/doc_details/1599-a-snapshot-of-the-impact-of-outdoor-recreation.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

diminished experience for recreationists seeking quiet and solitude and/or hunting and fishing
opportunities. Critics also point to the beneficial economic impact of nonmotorized recreation on
local communities.5
The 113th Congress may address motorized recreation in the National Park System, either through
broad measures, such as those concerning recreational access to federal lands, or through specific
measures affecting certain types of motorized recreation or particular NPS units. In the 112th
Congress, H.R. 6086 would have required federal land management agencies to report on the
availability of motorized and nonmotorized access to federal lands for hunting, fishing, and other
recreation. With respect to the National Park System in particular, P.L. 112-141 and P.L. 112-95
contained provisions affecting air tours over national park units. H.R. 4094 and S. 2372 would
have changed regulations for OHVs at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. See the activity-specific
sections below for further discussion.
Authorities Governing Motorized Recreation on
NPS Lands
Executive Orders
Two executive orders define and generally guide OHV use on federal lands. The first (E.O.
11644, February 8, 1972) defines an off-road vehicle, now commonly referred to as an off-
highway vehicle, as “any motorized vehicle designed for or capable of cross country travel on or
immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain,” with
exceptions for any registered motorboat or authorized or emergency vehicles. It was issued to
“establish policies and provide for procedures that will ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on
public lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the resources of those lands, to
promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses of
those lands.” The order directed each agency to develop and issue regulations to carry out this
purpose and to provide for the designation of areas and trails on which OHVs may be permitted,
and areas in which such vehicles would not be permitted. Agencies were to monitor the effects of
OHV use and amend or rescind area designations or other actions taken pursuant to the order as
needed to further the policy of the executive order.
A subsequent executive order (E.O. 11989, May 24, 1977) amended the 1972 order to exclude
military, emergency, and law enforcement vehicles from the 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 to the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife

5 The Outdoor Industry Association report cited in footnote 4 also provides data on the economic benefits of
nonmotorized recreation (on both federal and nonfederal lands), including camping (consumer spending of over $143
billion annually, supporting over 1.3 million jobs), wildlife viewing (consumer spending of over $33 billion annually,
supporting over 289,000 jobs), and fishing (consumer spending of over $35 billion annually, supporting over 307,000
jobs), among others. Another study found an overall contribution to the economy of over $730 billion annually from
“human-powered” types of recreation such as hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, hiking, camping, skiing, paddle sports,
and bicycling (Southwick Associates, The Economics Associated with Outdoor Recreation, Natural Resources
Conservation and Historic Preservation in the United States, October 10, 2011, at http://www.nfwf.org/Content/
ContentFolders/NationalFishandWildlifeFoundation/HomePage/ConservationSpotlights/
TheEconomicValueofOutdoorRecreation.pdf).
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

habitat, or cultural or historic resources of particular areas or trails. Areas could remain closed
until the manager determined that “the adverse effects have been eliminated and that measures
have been implemented to prevent future recurrence.” Also, each agency was authorized to adopt
the policy that areas could be closed to OHV use except for those areas or trails that are
specifically designated as open to such use. This meant that only open areas would have to be
marked, a lesser burden on the agencies.
Other NPS Authorities
While the executive orders apply to federal lands generally, other authorities concerning OHVs
are specific to the National Park System. In particular, NPS regulations generally limit OHV use
in the park system to four types of NPS units—national recreation areas, national seashores,
national lakeshores, and national preserves.6 The regulations also require special rulemaking, with
environmental impact analysis and public comment, to designate routes and areas for OHVs in
these park units. NPS’s management policies provide additional guidance, stating that OHV use
“may be allowed only in locations where there will be no adverse impacts on the area’s natural,
cultural, scenic, and esthetic values, and in consideration of other existing or proposed
recreational uses.”7 In general, the management policies emphasize the conservation of park
resources in conservation/use conflicts.8
Although the executive orders cited earlier include oversnow vehicles in the definition of OHVs,
the NPS regulations that permit OHV use only at certain types of park units do not apply to
snowmobiles.9 Instead, snowmobile use in the National Park System is governed by separate
regulations that limit such vehicles to designated routes and water surfaces that are used by motor
vehicles or motorboats during other seasons.10 The regulations prohibit snowmobiles except
“when their use is consistent with the park’s natural, cultural, scenic and aesthetic values, safety
considerations, [and] park management objectives, and will not disturb wildlife or damage park
resources.” NPS management policies further emphasize that snowmobile use can be authorized
only where it will not result in unacceptable impacts.11
The enabling legislation for individual NPS units 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). Additional unit-level direction for
designated routes (such as temporary route closures) may be included in a park’s general
management plan and/or determined by the park superintendent.12

6 36 C.F.R. §4.10(b). For a discussion of the various unit designations in the National Park System, see CRS Report
R41816, National Park System: What Do the Different Park Titles Signify?, by Laura B. Comay.
7 National Park Service, Management Policies 2006, §8.2.3.1, p. 104, at http://www.nps.gov/policy/mp2006.pdf.
8 Ibid., §1.4.3.
9 Personal communication with Kyle Earnest, NPS Congressional and Legislative Affairs Office, December 6, 2012.
10 36 C.F.R. §2.18.
11 National Park Service, Management Policies 2006, §8.2.3.2, p. 104, at http://www.nps.gov/policy/mp2006.pdf.
12 36 C.F.R. §1.5.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

ATVs and Oversand Vehicles13
Excluding Alaska, 12 NPS units allow off-road use of ATVs, four-wheel drive vehicles, and/or
dune, sand, and swamp buggies by the general public.14 Environmental groups have alleged that
these vehicles damage wildlife habitat and disturb nonmotorized activities, both in the units that
permit their use and in other areas where, they claim, unauthorized use occurs. Users of the
vehicles, by contrast, have sought more routes and areas for off-road recreation and increased
motorized access to hunting and fishing sites. They assert that NPS restrictions harm communities
surrounding parks, which depend on business generated by OHV users.
NPS is in the process of issuing special regulations to designate routes and areas for off-road use
in those units that permit ATVs and oversand vehicles. Nine of the 12 park units have special
regulations in place: Big Cypress National Preserve; Gateway and Lake Meredith National
Recreation Areas (NRAs); and Assateague, Cape Cod, Cape Hatteras, Fire Island, Gulf Islands,
and Padre Island National Seashores.15 Three additional units are open to public use while NPS
conducts environmental studies and develops special regulations: Glen Canyon16 and Curecanti17
NRAs, and Cape Lookout National Seashore.18 Also, Lake Meredith NRA and Big Cypress
National Preserve are developing regulations to change the current boundaries for OHV riders.19
Other areas that once allowed public off-road use of ATVs and oversand vehicles are now closed
to such use, including Little River Canyon National Preserve and Big South Fork National River
and Recreation Area.20

13 This section was prepared by Laura Comay, CRS Analyst in Natural Resources Policy, and Kristina Alexander, CRS
Legislative Attorney.
14 Personal communication with Kyle Earnest, NPS Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs, December 3,
2012; also special regulations and superintendent’s compendia for individual park units. Some additional units permit
use of ATVs and oversand vehicles by inholders, Native Americans, or others for specific limited purposes under a
variety of authorizations. (An inholder is an owner of land within the boundaries of an NPS unit.)
15 Padre Island National Seashore has about 65 miles of authorized beach driving, but ATVs and dune buggies are not
authorized in these areas. Drivers are instead required to have vehicles equipped with four-wheel drive. Personal
communication with Kyle Earnest, NPS Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs, December 6, 2012.
16 72 Fed. Reg. 50393 (August 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?projectID=19520 for
details. The public alternatives scoping period concluded November 30, 2010.
17 Updated information on Curecanti’s Motorized Vehicle Access Plan and Environmental Assessment is available at
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=19945. The EA public comment period opened November 17,
2010, and closed January 15, 2011. A finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the chosen plan (Alternative C in
park planning documents) was issued on July 10, 2012.
18 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/projectHome.cfm?projectID=15978.
19 For Lake Meredith NRA, see 73 Fed. Reg. 33111 (June 11, 2008), “Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for an Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan (ORV Management Plan) for Lake Meredith
National Recreation Area, Texas.” For additional information, see http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?
projectID=20192. For Big Cypress National Preserve, see http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?parkID=352&
projectID=11164; and see discussion below under “Site-Specific Conflicts.”
20 OHV use at Little River Canyon ceased in 2010. For additional information, see http://www.nps.gov/liri/parkmgmt/
index.htm. Big South Fork is closed to recreational OHV riders and currently has no designated trails for them.
However, designated multiple-use trails are open to ATV use by licensed hunters while actively hunting deer or wild
boar. See http://www.nps.gov/biso/parknews/gmpimplementation.htm.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

Some of NPS’s regulatory actions respond to a 2005 lawsuit by the environmental organizations
Friends of the Earth, the Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads, and the National Parks
Conservation Association.21 The groups alleged that ATVs and other off-highway vehicles
constituted a “serious threat” to NPS resources that the agency failed to address. The parties
settled in 2008.22 NPS is still addressing some requirements of the settlement, such as the
requirement that the agency develop environmental impact statements and special rules governing
OHV use at Glen Canyon NRA and Cape Lookout National Seashore. (Both units have
completed public scoping and are developing draft alternative OHV management plans and
environmental assessments.) Also in response to the settlement agreement, NPS is encouraging
education via the websites of units permitting OHV use.
Unauthorized ATV Use in the National Park System
As use of ATVs and other off-highway vehicles on federal lands has grown in recent decades,
unauthorized use has also been reported in some areas, including NPS units. The extent of
unauthorized OHV use in the National Park System is unclear. A 1999 survey from Bluewater
Network found 40 park units with unauthorized use,23 but a 2004 NPS survey found unauthorized
use in “several parks” and generally “less than significant” resource damage.24
NPS has addressed unauthorized OHV use through public outreach, education, and enforcement
activities such as officer training and increased fines and penalties.25 The agency also encourages
units with illegal OHV use to pursue enforcement actions. However, some believe NPS budgetary
and staff constraints limit enforcement effectiveness.26
Site-Specific Conflicts
NPS’s regulation of ATVs and oversand vehicles has sparked protest, including legal action, by
both OHV supporters and opponents. Recent controversy has centered on actions at Florida’s Big
Cypress National Preserve and North Carolina’s Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

21 Friends of the Earth v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:05-CV-2302 (D.D.C. Nov. 11, 2005) (complaint); see
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2005cv2302-63 and https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/
show_public_doc?2005cv2302-64.
22 Friends of the Earth v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:05-CV-2302 (D.D.C. May 1, 2008) (notice of
settlement).
23 Bluewater Network, Off-the-Track: America’s National Parks under Siege, 1999. Bluewater surveyed 108 park units
for unauthorized use of ATVs, four-wheel drive vehicles (jeeps, SUVs, etc.), and dune, sand, and swamp buggies.
24 Letter from Steve P. Martin, NPS Deputy Director of Operations, to Bluewater Network Executive Director Russell
Long, May 3, 2005. No more recent estimates are available. In a 2009 GAO report (GAO, Enhanced Planning Could
Assist Agencies in Managing Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles, GAO-09-509, June 2009, at http://www.gao.gov/
new.items/d09509.pdf), some park superintendents reported an increase in unauthorized use of ATVs and oversand
vehicles at their units, but the responses were not quantified.
25 Some of these activities also stem from the settlement of the Friends of the Earth v. Department of the Interior
lawsuit cited in footnote 22. The settlement required NPS to implement a pilot public education and deterrence program
at 10 units between 2008 and 2011 to address unauthorized OHV use. For example, NPS produced and distributed a
brochure on off-road driving, available at http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&
PageID=431411.
26 About half of the NPS officials surveyed in GAO’s 2009 report identified staffing and financial resources as a “great
challenge” in managing both authorized and unauthorized OHV use. See GAO, Enhanced Planning Could Assist
Agencies in Managing Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles, GAO-09-509, June 2009, pp. 37-38, at
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09509.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

Big Cypress National Preserve
There is ongoing disagreement over OHV trail designation at Big Cypress National Preserve.
Conservation groups cite potential harm by ATVs and similar off-highway vehicles to the
endangered Florida panther, the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, and the threatened eastern
indigo snake, and to their habitat and prey. Hunters and sportsmen’s groups, concerned about
access to areas for hunting, have opposed limitations on OHV use in the preserve. The preserve’s
enabling act authorizes motorized vehicles and hunting, fishing, and trapping, but also authorizes
NPS to limit those activities to “assure [the area’s] natural and ecological integrity.”27
Recent conflict has centered on the preserve’s “addition lands,” some 147,000 acres added to the
site in 1988.28 The NPS management plan for the addition lands establishes 130 miles of OHV
trails and allows up to 650 off-road permits annually; it also proposes 47,067 acres for wilderness
designation.29 Hunters and sportsmen’s groups oppose the plan’s limitations on OHV use,
including the proposed wilderness acreage and approximately 50,000 additional acres to be zoned
“primitive backcountry.” Both designations would ban OHVs from these lands. In contrast,
conservationists oppose the 130 miles of new OHV trails, asserting that OHV use is “fragmenting
the landscape” and causing air, water, and soil pollution.30 Conservation groups filed lawsuits
against NPS challenging the addition lands management plan in October and November 2011.31
OHV use is also at issue in the original preserve. In July 2012, the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida held that NPS violated the National Environmental Policy Act32 and the
Endangered Species Act when it reopened OHV routes in the preserve’s Bear Island area.33 The
ruling closes approximately 25 miles of off-highway trails that had been opened in the area.34
Separately, in 2011 NPS banned “dispersed” OHV access (outside of designated trails) in Big
Cypress National Preserve. All use of ATVs and other off-highway vehicles within the original
preserve must be only on designated primary and secondary trails.35 Preserve Superintendent

27 P.L. 93-440, §4.
28 P.L. 100-301. Hunting, fishing, and trapping are also expressly authorized in the addition (§3(b)).
29 See NPS’s 2011 record of decision on the general management plan for the addition lands at http://parkplanning.
nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=352&projectID=11164&documentID=38924. See also the management plan at
http://www.nps.gov/bicy/parkmgmt/addition-lands-gmp.htm; and the announcement of the final environmental impact
statement (EIS) for the plan at 75 Fed. Reg. 71730 (November 24, 2010).
30 See, for example, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, “Big Cypress ORV Plan Triggers Lawsuit
Threat,” press release, March 9, 2011, at http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/2011/03/09/big-cypress-orv-plan-
triggers-lawsuit-threat-/. Also see letters on the NPS project site at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/documentsList.cfm?
parkID=352&projectID=11164.
31 National Parks Conservation Association v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 2:11-cv-00578 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 10,
2011) (complaint). Safari Club International joined as an intervening defendant. The actions were consolidated before
the District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
32 42 U.S.C. §4332.
33 Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, No. 2:08–cv–237, 2012 WL 2812309 (M.D. Fla. July 10, 2012).
34 See David Fleshler, “Judge Shuts Some Big Cypress Trails to Swamp Buggies,” South Florida Sun-Sentinel, July 11,
2012, at http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-07-11/news/fl-vehicles-lawsuit-20120710_1_swamp-buggies-hunters-
and-environmentalists-big-cypress-sportsmen-s-alliance; and Wildlands CPR, “Big Cypress National Preserve
Protected from Off Road Vehicle Abuse,” press release, July 11, 2012, at http://www.wildlandscpr.org/blog/big-
cypress-national-preserve-protected-road-vehicle-abuse. The full opinion is available at http://www.wildlandscpr.org/
files/131%20-%20Opinion%20granting%20P%27s%20MFSJ.pdf.
35 See “Designated Trail Implementation” at http://www.nps.gov/bicy/planyourvisit/designated-trail-
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

Pedro Ramos called the designated trail network “a big and positive step” in achieving resource
protection while providing traditional access for sportsmen. However, the Big Cypress
Sportsmen’s Alliance as well as environmental groups have criticized the designated trail network
for providing too little or too much OHV access to preserve lands.36
Cape Hatteras National Seashore
At Cape Hatteras National Seashore, concern has arisen over harm by beach buggies and other
oversand vehicles37 to endangered species such as the piping plover and three species of sea
turtles. OHV users, fishermen, and local business have opposed vehicle restrictions as harmful to
the local economy. The balance of preservation and use at the seashore is further weighted by its
enabling act, which provides that the area shall be a “recreational area for the benefit and
enjoyment of the people,” but also states that the “area shall be permanently reserved as a
primitive wilderness,” except for those portions “especially adaptable for recreational uses.”38
In January 2012, after public scoping and environmental review, NPS published special
regulations for the use of motorized vehicles at the seashore.39 The regulations designate 28 of the
67 seashore miles as year-round OHV routes, with 13 additional miles to be OHV-accessible
seasonally, but the remaining 26 miles are designated as vehicle-free areas. To further protect
wildlife, the regulations provide for night-driving restrictions during sea turtle nesting season.
They also establish vehicle standards and require a fee-based weekly or seasonal OHV permit.
The 2012 regulations contrast with NPS’s 2007 interim OHV management plan for the seashore,
which had allowed greater access for motorized vehicles.40 The interim plan was the subject of a
lawsuit by environmental groups against NPS, alleging that the plan failed to provide adequate
protection for seashore resources, including rare turtle, avian, and plant species.41 The parties
entered a consent decree agreeing that NPS would draft a management plan by December 31,
2010, resolving some of the resource protection issues. The final plan was challenged by an OHV
group as representing a “foreordained” restriction on OHV use.42

(...continued)
implementation.htm; and “Preserve Goes to Designated Trail Use Only for ORVs,” July 13, 2011, at
http://www.nps.gov/bicy/parknews/preserve-goes-to-designated-trail-use-only-for-orvs.htm.
36 See “National Park Service: Off-Road Vehicles Must Stay on Trails in Big Cypress,” Naples Daily News, July 13,
2011, at http://m.naplesnews.com/news/2011/jul/13/national-park-service—road-vehicles-must-stay-tra/.
37 The seashore allows oversand vehicles but does not permit the use of ATVs or utility vehicles (UTVs). See National
Park Service, “Cape Hatteras, Frequently Asked Questions: Off-Road Vehicle Use,” February 10, 2012, at
http://www.nps.gov/caha/planyourvisit/upload/02-10-12-FAQ-Site-Bulletin-for-CAHA-ORV-regulation.pdf.
38 50 Stat. 670 (1937).
39 77 Fed. Reg. 3123.
40 See National Park Service, “Cape Hatteras National Seashore: Interim Protected Species Management Strategy,” at
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?parkID=358&projectID=13331.
41 Defenders of Wildlife v. National Park Service, No. 2:07-CV-45 (E.D.N.C. 2008).
42 Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v. Salazar, No. 1:12-cv-00219 (D.D.C. February 9, 2012) (complaint).
Additionally, OHV groups and North Carolina counties sued the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), arguing that critical
habitat designation for the piping plover would limit OHV use on the seashore. The court held that FWS had complied
with the law. Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 731 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 2010).
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

Legislative Activity
In spring 2012, Members of Congress from the North Carolina delegation introduced H.R. 4094
and S. 2372, to overturn the 2012 regulations at Cape Hatteras and reinstate the 2007 interim
management plan. In hearings on the bills, OHV advocates contended that the 2012 regulations
reduce visitor access to local stores, hotels, and restaurants and are unnecessary for wildlife
protection. Opponents of the bills asserted that OHV restrictions have already helped the
seashore’s endangered species and have not reduced visitation to the site.43 H.R. 4094 was
reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on June 15, 2012, but was not enacted.
No broad legislation was introduced in the 112th Congress on the use of ATVs, beach buggies, and
similar off-highway land vehicles in the National Park System. No bills on the use of these
vehicles have been introduced in the 113th Congress as of January 2013.
Snowmobiles44
Proposals to regulate recreational snowmobile use in NPS units have been controversial, with
debate often mirroring the preservation/use conflict within the NPS mission. User groups contend
that snowmobile use is necessary to access park sites in winter and helps support local
communities and industry. Opponents are concerned about emissions, noise pollution, and
wildlife damage from snowmobiles on parklands.
In 2000, NPS announced the enforcement of long-standing regulations that would have banned
snowmobile use throughout almost all of the National Park System; later it modified its
enforcement stance to allow snowmobile use to continue in the 43 park units that had permitted it
prior to the announcement. To date, NPS has taken no further action on a general policy for
snowmobiles.45 However, NPS’s management policies state that, outside Alaska, special
regulations are required to designate snowmobile and oversnow vehicle routes after park planning
determines such use to be appropriate.46 Designated routes are limited to those used by
motorboats and motorized vehicles in other seasons.
Site-Specific Conflict: Yellowstone National Park
Since 2000, regulatory and judicial actions to restrict or allow snowmobile use have been park-
specific, centering on Yellowstone National Park and units near it, including the John D.
Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway and Grand Teton National Park. The Clinton Administration
issued final rules in 2001 to incrementally eliminate snowmobile use in these parks (with limited

43 See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public
Lands, Access Denied: Turning Away Visitors to National Parks, hearing on H.R. 4094, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., April
27, 2012; and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks,
hearing on S. 2372, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., June 27, 2012.
44 This section was prepared by Laura Comay, CRS Analyst in Natural Resources Policy, and Kristina Alexander, CRS
Legislative Attorney.
45 For background information on snowmobile use in NPS units and its effects on the environment, see CRS Report
RL31149, Snowmobiles: Environmental Standards and Access to National Parks, by James E. McCarthy.
46 National Park Service, Management Policies 2006, §8.2.3.2, at http://www.nps.gov/policy/mp2006.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

exceptions) and substitute the use of multi-passenger “snowcoaches.”47 The George W. Bush
Administration took a different approach, replacing the Clinton rules with regulations in
December 2003 that eliminated the snowmobile ban in favor of daily entry limits, use of trained
guides, snowmobile emission standards, and monitoring by park managers for impacts from air
and noise pollution.48 The Clinton plan would not have allowed any snowmobiles at Yellowstone;
the Bush plan would have allowed 950 per day. Both plans, as well as most subsequent revisions,
were vacated by different federal courts.49 Conflicting rulings in subsequent legal challenges
created confusion for park visitors, local communities, and businesses, with many unsure what
winter use rules were in effect at Yellowstone.50
Recent regulations by the Obama Administration have allowed snowmobile use to continue,
although at lower levels than in previous years. For the 2012-2013 winter season, Yellowstone is
operating under winter use rules promulgated in November 2009,51 allowing daily entry to 318
commercially guided, best available technology (BAT)52 snowmobiles and 78 commercially

47 66 Fed. Reg. 7260 (January 22, 2001). The rules were part of the settlement of a May 1997 lawsuit, in which the
Fund for Animals sued NPS for its policy regarding snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks. See
Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, No. 1:97-cv-01126 (D.D.C. May 20, 1997) (complaint); and Fund for Animals v. Babbitt,
No. 1:97-cv-01126 (D.D.C. September 23, 1997) (settlement agreement). NPS regulations at 36 C.F.R. §7.13 define a
snowcoach as “a self-propelled mass transit vehicle intended for travel on snow, having a curb weight of over 1,000
pounds (450 kilograms), driven by a track or tracks and steered by skis or tracks, and having a capacity of at least 8
passengers. A snowcoach has a maximum size of 102 inches wide, plus tracks (not to exceed 110 inches overall); a
maximum length of 35 feet; and a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) not exceeding 25,000 pounds.”
48 68 Fed. Reg. 69267 (December 11, 2003). The 2003 rules, which allowed 1,140 snowmobiles in all three parks
combined, followed a lawsuit settlement between the Administration, the International Snowmobile Manufacturers
Association, and the State of Wyoming, requiring NPS to revisit the snowmobile ban and consider any additional
information on “cleaner, quieter” snowmobile technology.
49 The 2003 plan was vacated by the District Court for the District of Columbia. Fund for Animals v. Norton, 294 F.
Supp. 2d 92 (D.D.C. 2003). The D.C. court put the 2001 plan (as modified by a November 2002 plan) in place.
However, the District Court for the District of Wyoming ruled the 2001 plan, which would ban all snowmobiles,
violated the National Environmental Policy Act, describing it as “the product of a prejudged, political decision to ban
snowmobiles from all the National Parks.” International Snowmobile Mfrs. Ass'n v. Norton, 340 F. Supp. 2d 1249,
1264 (D. Wyo. 2004).
50 A 2004 final rule (69 Fed. Reg. 65348, November 10, 2004, available at http://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/winteruse/
fedregfinalrule11-10.pdf) implemented a temporary winter use plan through 2006-2007, while NPS conducted planning
and environmental analysis. A subsequent 2007 record of decision (November 20, 2007, at http://www.nps.gov/yell/
planyourvisit/upload/rod_final.pdf) and final rule (72 Fed. Reg. 70781, December 13, 2007, at http://www.nps.gov/yell/
parkmgmt/upload/finalrule13Dec2007.pdf) allowed a maximum of 540 snowmobiles and 83 snowcoaches per day.
However, on September 15, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia vacated the 2007 final rule,
finding that “[i]n contravention of the Organic Act, the Plan clearly elevates use over conservation of park resources
and values.” Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Kempthorne, No. 1:07-cv-02111, 577 F.Supp.2d 183, 210 (D.D.C.
2008). In November 2008, the Wyoming court ordered that the 2004 temporary plan be reinstated, allowing 720
snowmobiles daily into Yellowstone. State of Wyoming v. Kempthorne, No. 07-CV-319 (D.Wyo. November 7, 2008)
(order implementing temporary remedy). The parties to the case before the District Court for the District of Columbia
instead agreed that the proposed interim rule issued by NPS on November 5, 2008, would prevail for the 2008 season,
authorizing a daily maximum of 318 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches (73 Fed. Reg. 65784). Greater Yellowstone
Coalition v. Kempthorne, No. 1:07-cv-02111 (D.D.C. November 12, 2008) (“The Greater Yellowstone Coalition
plaintiffs expect that the Park Service’s transitional plan will be finalized prior to the opening of Yellowstone’s winter
season on December 15, 2008”). Instead, NPS issued a final rule complying with the Wyoming court on December 9,
2008, allowing up to 720 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches daily (73 Fed. Reg. 74606). That rule applied for only the
2008 season. On November 20, 2009, final regulations were issued allowing daily entry to 318 snowmobiles and 78
snowcoaches (74 Fed. Reg. 60159).
51 The 2009 rules were published at 74 Fed. Reg. 60159 (November 20, 2009). They were extended through subsequent
winter seasons, most recently the 2012-2013 season (77 Fed. Reg. 74027, December 12, 2012).
52 For more on “best available technology” for snowmobiles, see CRS Report RL31149, Snowmobiles: Environmental
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

guided snowcoaches. This contrasts with earlier years when up to 720 snowmobiles and 78
snowcoaches had been allowed.53 (Although the 2003 plan would have allowed 950 snowmobiles
per day in Yellowstone, it never went into effect.) At the same time, NPS has issued a draft plan
and supplemental environmental impact statement intended to govern snowmobile use in the park
for the 2014-2015 winter season onward.54
The draft plan’s preferred alternative would allow up to 110 “transportation events” per day,
defined as the use of one snowcoach or one group of an average of seven snowmobiles. Most of
the vehicles would be commercially guided,55 and tour operators could decide how to allocate the
“events” among snowmobiles and snowcoaches. BAT requirements for the vehicles would remain
in place, and would be replaced by new standards in the 2017-2018 winter season.
Snowmobile user groups have supported the NPS preferred alternative in the draft plan, noting
that it would likely allow more snow vehicles per day than current regulations.56 The governor of
Wyoming also praised the plan’s flexibility and its deference to “market-driven” decisions.57
Environmentalists have generally disapproved of the plan’s preferred alternative, contending that
the permitted snow vehicle use would damage the park’s wildlife, air quality, and soundscape.58
Conservation groups have also challenged claims by snowmobile advocates that vehicle
technology is evolving to produce a “cleaner, quieter” experience for park visitors. They point to
a recent NPS report finding some new snowmobile models to have higher emissions than the
same companies’ earlier models.59
Actual snowmobile use in Yellowstone diminished over the past decade while the winter use rules
evolved. During the years when 720 snowmobiles were permitted per day, the average daily use
was 266 snowmobiles, with the average use on the year’s peak day being 493 snowmobiles. Since
the allowed limit changed to 318 snowmobiles, the average daily use has dropped to 191
snowmobiles, with the average peak day dropping to 279. Factors other than the NPS regulations
also contribute to fluctuations in snowmobile usage, including yearly snowfall, gas prices, and the
state of the economy.60

(...continued)
Standards and Access to National Parks, by James E. McCarthy.
53 See, for example, 69 Fed. Reg. 65348, November 10, 2004.
54 77 Fed. Reg. 38824-38825, June 29, 2012. Subsequent regulations at 77 Fed. Reg. 53908 extended the period for
public comment on the plan through October 4, 2012.
55 Under current rules, all snowmobiles and snowcoaches must be commercially guided. The draft plan, in contrast,
allows up to four “transportation events” of up to five snowmobiles each to be noncommercially guided.
56 See, for example, remarks of the BlueRibbon Coalition in “Yellowstone Releases Draft Snowmobile Plan,”
Greenwire, June 29, 2012, at http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2012/06/29/13.
57 “Wyo. Backs Yellowstone Snowmobile Plan,” Greenwire, August 23, 2012, at http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/
2012/08/23/10.
58 See, for example, National Parks Conservation Association, “Latest Plan for Yellowstone a Step Backwards,” at
http://www.npca.org/protecting-our-parks/air-land-water/motorized-access/yellowstone_winter.html.
59 National Park Service, Yellowstone Over-snow Vehicle Emission Tests 2012: Preliminary Report, June 7, 2012, at
http://www.nps.gov/yell/parkmgmt/upload/pem_of_snowcoaches-snowmobiles_3-2012.pdf.
60 Figures from National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park: Draft Winter Use Plan/Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement, Summer 2012, Chapter 3, p. 137, at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=111&
projectID=40806&documentID=48306. The 720-snowmobile limit was in effect for winter 2004-2005 through winter
2008-2009. The 318-snowmobile limit has been in effect since winter 2009-2010. Through all these years, the daily
snowcoach limit has been 78 (except in winter 2011-2012, when it dropped to 76). Actual daily average snowcoach use
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

Legislative Activity
No legislation pertaining to snowmobiles in NPS units was introduced in the 112th Congress, and
none has been introduced in the 113th Congress as of January 2013. Some earlier Congresses
included language on snowmobiles in Yellowstone in appropriations bills, generally to ensure that
judicial rulings could not deny snowmobiles entry during a specified winter use season.
Aircraft Overflights61
NPS is to provide for the public enjoyment of parklands while protecting resources, including
natural quiet, 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 may depend on providing overflights,
with ripple effects on local businesses. The National Parks Overflights Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-91)
prohibited flights below the canyon’s rim and directed NPS to recommend a flight control plan
for Grand Canyon that would provide a “substantial restoration of the natural quiet.” It required
an NPS study of the effects of all aircraft overflights, which was submitted to Congress in 1994.62
Aircraft overflights are also a concern for other park units. The National Parks Air Tour
Management Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-181, Title VIII, hereinafter “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 Air Tour Act also requires
FAA to establish “reasonably achievable” requirements for quiet aircraft technology for Grand
Canyon within one year of enactment 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.
Site-Specific Conflict: Grand Canyon National Park
Several actions have been taken to achieve the substantial restoration of natural quiet at Grand
Canyon in furtherance of P.L. 100-91, enacted some 25 years ago. First, an FAA limitations rule
capped the annual number of commercial air tour overflights at Grand Canyon.63 Second, the
airspace rule expanded flight-free zones and restrictive routing over the canyon.64 Third, the FAA
issued a final rule establishing a standard for quiet technology for certain aircraft in commercial

(...continued)
rose from 26 in winter 2004-2005 to 35 in winter 2011-2012, while the peak-day use hovered between 55 and 63.
61 This section was prepared by Carol Hardy-Vincent, CRS Specialist in Natural Resources Policy.
62 U.S. Department 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 “Documents” at http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/
airoverflights_documents.htm.
63 65 Fed. Reg. 17708 (April 4, 2000), effective May 4, 2000.
64 71 Fed. Reg. 9439 (February 24, 2006).
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

air tour operations over Grand Canyon.65 The rule identifies which aircraft meet the standard.
Fourth, data on natural ambient sound levels were collected by NPS and are being 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, and the noise impact of various alternatives.
On February 4, 2011, NPS published a notice of availability of a draft environmental impact
statement (DEIS) on options that could be taken to restore natural quiet at Grand Canyon.66 The
agency had anticipated issuing a final environmental impact statement in the summer of 2012, but
postponed that action in light of the enactment on July 6, 2012, of P.L. 112-141, which contains
provisions pertaining to the determination and restoration of natural quiet at the park. Those
provisions generally have been viewed as potentially resulting in curtailment of NPS planning
actions to impose stricter noise standards. NPS is continuing to assess the provisions to determine
how they will affect its planning effort. (For additional information on P.L. 112-141, see
“Legislative Activity,” below.)
In the DEIS, the “substantial restoration of natural quiet” was defined as being achieved when
reduction of noise from aircraft at or below 17,999 feet resulted in at least 50% of the park having
natural quiet for 75% to 100% of the day. NPS regards 50% as the minimum restoration goal. The
DEIS presented four alternatives, including the status quo, with a goal of restoring natural quiet
while allowing for a viable air tour industry. According to NPS, among other provisions, the
preferred alternative would
• restore natural quiet in 67% of the park during the peak season 10 years after
implementation (up from 53% under 2011 management),
• allow for 65,000 annual air tour operations (an increase over actual use of
approximately 57,000, but a decrease from the current annual allocation of
93,971),
• limit daily air tours to 364 (up 50 from the peak day of 316 in 2005, but currently
with no daily cap),
• move most non-air tour operations outside the park,
• establish higher flight altitudes near the North Rim,
• provide incentives for quiet technology aircraft and require full conversion to
quiet technology over 10 years,
• provide an hour of quiet before sunset and after sunrise, and
• raise flight-free zone ceilings to 17,999 feet (up from 14,499 generally; 7,999 at
Sanup zone).67

65 70 Fed. Reg. 16084 (March 29, 2005).
66 76 Fed. Reg. 6496 (February 4, 2011). The DEIS is on the NPS website at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/
documentsList.cfm?parkID=65&projectID=28052.
67 This summary is derived from the text of the DEIS, as well as other NPS documents such as a press release of
February 2, 2011, at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=65&projectID=28052&documentID=40021.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

Legislative Activity
The 112th Congress enacted broad transportation legislation, P.L. 112-141, which contains
provisions on air tour management at Grand Canyon National Park. Some provisions set out
standards to be used by NPS in restoring natural quiet at the park. Another states that the
“substantial restoration of natural quiet” would be considered achieved if 50% of the park is free
of sound from commercial air tours for at least 75% of each day. This standard is viewed as
essentially maintaining the status quo, while the NPS preferred alternative had sought to expand
substantial restoration of natural quiet to 67% of the park. Advocates of the legislation sought to
set standards for air tours as an alternative to the planning efforts underway by NPS, which they
viewed as too restrictive and likely to have adverse effects on the air tour industry.68 Opponents of
the legislation expressed concern that it would limit NPS’s ability to protect Grand Canyon
resources and visitors from noise.
Like the NPS preferred alternative, the law requires conversion to quiet aircraft technology and
incentives for conversion to quiet aircraft. However, the provisions and approaches of NPS and
the law are not identical. For instance, the law requires all commercial air tour aircraft operating
in the park to convert to quiet aircraft technology within 15 years of enactment, while the NPS
preferred alternative provided for conversion to quiet technology over 10 years.
Air Tour Management Plans
Other regulatory actions have affected commercial air tours at park units generally, particularly in
furtherance of the Air Tour Act. The Air Tour Act final rule69 requires air tour operators to apply
for authority to fly over national parks and abutting tribal lands. FAA received applications for
commercial air tours over more than 100 of the 398 park units, and has granted interim operating
authority to all applicants. Application triggers development of an Air Tour Management Plan
(ATMP) by FAA and NPS for each unit where none exists.70 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 review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §§4321-4370f). The FAA and NPS are
developing ATMPs at more than a dozen areas,71 but none have been completed to date.
Development of ATMPs has been proceeding much more slowly than had been expected.72

68 See “Congressman Gosar Introduces Legislation to Protect the Grand Canyon Tourism Industry,” press release of
March 19, 2012, on the website of Representative Gosar at http://gosar.house.gov/press-release/congressman-gosar-
introduces-legislation-protect-grand-canyon-tourism-economy.
69 67 Fed. Reg. 65661 (October 25, 2002).
70 FAA provides information on the National Parks Air Tour Management Program via its website at
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/arc/programs/air_tour_management_plan/.
71 FAA identified 13 park units for which the agencies are developing ATMPs, but some ATMPs will cover multiple
park units. For instance, the ATMP for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area will include the Fort Point National
Historic Site, Muir Woods National Monument, and San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park. See 76 Fed.
Reg. 62495 (October 7, 2011).
72 A January 2006 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report addressed the impact of the delay in
implementation of the Air Tour Act. 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. See U.S. Government Accountability Office,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

The agencies have been determining the ambient sound levels at park units for which ATMPs are
being developed, as a baseline for measuring noise sources and impacts. In general, acoustic data
are being collected for comparison during the two seasons with the most and least overflights—
summer and winter. In park units with year-round overflights, sound data generally are being
collected in all seasons. Data usually are obtained during at least a 25-day period, at various
locations throughout a park. Both the sound pressure level (i.e., intensity) and the frequency (i.e.,
pitch) are recorded.73
Some park units are also developing soundscape management plans to manage sound, in part
caused by overflights and other aircraft, as well as other human-caused noises such as from cars,
buses, machines, and voices. For instance, Zion National Park (UT) issued a Soundscape
Management Plan to address the increase in sources and intensity of noises in recent decades that
could adversely impact visitor enjoyment and the health of ecosystems. The plan seeks in part to
identify sources of sound, develop soundscape standards and ensure that standards are being met,
eliminate or mitigate sounds incompatible with park purposes, and restore degraded
soundscapes.74
Legislative Activity
Separate from the transportation legislation enacted in P.L. 112-141, the 112th Congress also
enacted broad aviation legislation with provisions affecting commercial air tours over park units
generally. The provisions, contained in P.L. 112-95, seek to expedite and streamline agency
actions, in part because of the slow progress in completing ATMPs. They provide that, in lieu of
an ATMP, the NPS director and FAA administrator may enter into a voluntary agreement with a
commercial air tour operator that would govern commercial air tours over a park unit. Before
implementing a voluntary agreement, the agencies must provide for an opportunity for public
review and consult with Indian tribes on affected tribal lands; agreements may be implemented
“without further administrative or environmental process” beyond that described in the law.75
Voluntary agreements may contain provisions to establish conditions for the conduct of
commercial air tours, ensure compliance, provide for fees for commercial air tours, and provide
incentives for the adoption of quiet aircraft technology by commercial tour operators. Park units
with 50 or fewer annual air tour flights are exempt from the requirement for an ATMP or
voluntary agreement. However, the NPS director can withdraw an exemption in order to protect
park resources and values or visitor use and enjoyment.
The law also allows agencies to modify interim operating authority, which could provide for
additional authority because interim conditions have prevailed for longer than had been
anticipated. It also establishes reporting requirements for commercial air tour operators on the
number of air tours over each national park unit.

(...continued)
National Parks Air Tour Management Act: More Flexibility and Better Enforcement Needed, GAO-06-263,
(Washington, DC: GPO, January 2006). The report, together with information on agency actions on GAO’s
recommendations, is available on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-263.
73 For more information on sound management in NPS units, see the NPS website at http://www.nps.gov/zion/
parkmgmt/upload/ZNP-Soundscape-Plan_Sep_2010.pdf.
74 The plan is available on the website of the NPS at http://www.nps.gov/zion/parkmgmt/upload/ZNP-Soundscape-
Plan_Sep_2010.pdf.
75 P.L. 112-95, Title V, Sec. 501(c).
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

P.L. 112-95 did not include certain provisions that were contained in the Senate-passed version of
the legislation, such as provisions that would have allowed an air tour operator to transfer
operating authority for commercial air tours to another air tour operator, required the Secretary of
the Interior to assess a fee on commercial air tour operators sufficient to pay the costs of
developing ATMPs, and rescinded the operating authority of a commercial air tour operator that
does not pay the fee or file reports required by the law.
Another provision of P.L. 112-95 pertains only to Crater Lake National Park. It allows the NPS
director to deny an application to begin commercial air tours at the park before the establishment
of an air tour management plan. Subsequently, P.L. 112-141 extended the provision to Great
Smoky Mountains National Park, and to applications to expand operations at both park units.
Personal Watercraft (PWC)76
Personal watercraft (PWC) are high-speed, very shallow-draft,77 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 brand and generic names such as Jet Ski®, Sea-Doo®, Surf-
jet®, water sled, wet jet, Wavejammer, Wetbike, and WaveRunner®. PWC represent a small
segment of the recreational boat market—the National Marine Manufacturers Association
(NMMA) estimated that 1.24 million PWC were in use in 2011, about 8% of 16.35 million
recreational boats.78 However, the number of PWC accidents has raised concerns. There were 764
PWC injuries and 44 deaths reported for 2011, constituting 19% of reported accidents among all
recreational boats.79 In addition to safety issues, critics of PWC use cite environmental concerns,
including noise, air, and water pollution, as well as damage to land, plants, and wildlife.
Supporters of access for PWC contend that technological advances enable manufacturers to
produce cleaner, more efficient machines, and they point to economic benefits generated by the
industry. Recent controversies have focused on regulatory actions that would restrict recreational
use of or access for these vehicles, often in specific park units.
Administrative Actions
NPS has evaluated PWC use in units where motorized boats are allowed, and has issued park-
specific regulations, partly in response to a lawsuit settlement that prohibited PWC in park units
until these steps were taken.80 For 13 units, the agency has authorized PWC use in designated

76 This section was prepared by Laura Comay, CRS Analyst in Natural Resources Policy, and Kristina Alexander, CRS
Legislative Attorney.
77 A shallow-draft vessel is one in which the keel (the bottom of the hull) is not far below the waterline.
78 See http://nmma.net/assets/cabinets/Cabinet445/2011_abstract_preview.pdf, Table 1.3, “Recreational Boats in Use
by Type,” from the NMMA 2011 Recreational Boating Statistical Abstract.
79 See U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Coast Guard, Recreational Boating Statistics 2011, at
http://www.uscgboating.org/assets/1/Publications/2011BoatingStatisticsreport.pdf, Executive Summary (p. 6), and
Table 1 (p. 7), “Vessel Types with the Top Casualty Numbers.”
80 In 2000, NPS issued a rule (65 Fed. Reg. 15077) prohibiting PWC use in 66 of the 87 units that allowed motorized
boats. The rule allowed PWC use to continue at the remaining 21 units while NPS developed regulations, but a 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. Bluewater Network v.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

areas: Lake Mead, Glen Canyon, Lake Meredith, Lake Roosevelt, Amistad, Chickasaw, Bighorn
Canyon, and Curecanti National Recreation Areas; Assateague, Fire Island, Gulf Islands, and
Cape Lookout National Seashores; and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. One unit, Big Thicket
National Preserve, is closed to PWC pending completion of environmental assessments and
rulemaking.81
In May 2008, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia seeking reinstatement of PWC bans at two units: Gulf Islands National
Seashore and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore.82 In July 2010, the court held that NPS violated
the National Environmental Policy Act by not fully considering PWC impacts on wildlife, water
quality, air quality, noise, and visitor experiences at these park units.83 The court ordered NPS to
re-evaluate environmental assessments justifying PWC use, but did not vacate or overturn the
current rules allowing them.
Legislative Activity
No general legislation affecting PWC use was introduced in the 112th Congress, and none has
been introduced in the 113th Congress as of January 2013.
Mountain Bicycles84
Mountain biking advocates, such as the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA),
actively support opening additional trails in the National Park System to mountain bikers. Other
groups have expressed concern that increasing the number of trails for mountain bikes could
cause resource damage, such as erosion, and diminish the enjoyment of visitors on foot or
horseback.
General NPS Rule
On July 6, 2012, NPS finalized a rule broadly addressing mountain bicycles within NPS units.85
The final rule revises previous regulations and park management policies that required special
regulations to designate bicycle trails other than those on park roads, in parking lots, and within
developed areas such as campgrounds.86 The intent is to provide “park superintendents with a

(...continued)
Stanton, No. 1:00-CV-2093 (D.D.C. April 12, 2001) (stipulated settlement agreement). In 2002, NPS prohibited PWC
use in 5 of the 21 areas that completed an environmental review process: Cape Cod and Cumberland Island National
Seashores, Delaware Water Gap and Whiskeytown NRAs, and Indiana Dunes National Seashore. Two units, Padre
Island National Seashore and Gateway NRA, took no action, thereby continuing the PWC ban, and one (Big Thicket
National Preserve) is in the rulemaking process. The agency has authorized some PWC use in the 13 remaining areas.
81 Big Thicket is developing a draft general management plan and EIS. Additional information is available at
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?parkID=32&projectID=23065.
82 Bluewater Network v. Kempthorne, No. 1:08-cv-841 (D.D.C. 2008) (complaint). See
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/files/Jet_Ski_Lawsuit.pdf for a copy of the complaint.
83 Bluewater Network v. Kempthorne, No. 1:08-cv-841, 721 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2010).
84 This section was prepared by Laura Comay, CRS Analyst in Natural Resources Policy.
85 77 Fed. Reg. 39927 (July 6, 2012).
86 The previous regulations are at 36 C.F.R. §4.30. For the management policies, see National Park Service,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

more efficient and effective way to determine whether opening existing trails to bicycles would
be appropriate in the park unit they manage.” It authorizes park superintendents to open existing
hiking and horse trails for biking without promulgating special regulations, although it continues
to require input from the public and environmental assessments in conjunction with park-specific
trail decisions. Special regulations continue to be required for any bicycle trails involving new
construction outside developed areas.
Site-Specific Actions
Currently, more than 40 NPS units allow mountain biking on dirt trails and/or dirt roads.87 The
IMBA and NPS renewed a five-year partnership agreement (through 2015) to explore additional
opportunities for mountain biking in park units. Several park units are contemplating or moving
forward on bicycle-applicable rules and/or multi-use trails.
For example, on September 12, 2012, NPS finalized a rule authorizing bicycle use on four trails
at Mammoth Cave National Park that are outside developed areas of the park and are not park
roads.88 The rule implements elements of the park’s Comprehensive Trail Management Plan.89 On
October 4, 2011, NPS issued a final rule designating specified multi-use pathways—generally
near existing park roads—as routes for bicycle use at Grand Teton National Park. Improving
opportunities for non-motorized recreation activities such as bicycling was a major focus of the
transportation planning process Grand Teton initiated in 2001.90 In December 2010, NPS released
an assessment of constructing a new multi-use trail for hiking and mountain biking in
undeveloped backcountry at Big Bend National Park.91 NPS signed a finding of no significant
impact on the environment for this project in February 2012.
Legislative Activity
No legislation on the use of mountain bicycles in the National Park System was introduced in the
112th Congress, and none has been introduced in the 113th Congress as of January 2013.
Conclusion
Motorized recreation on NPS lands sometimes brings into conflict the two parts of the NPS
mission: to conserve public land while at the same time providing for its enjoyment by the public.
In NPS units that permit ATVs; dune, sand, or swamp buggies; snowmobiles; aircraft overflights;
personal watercraft; and/or mountain bikes, the desire for access to these recreational
opportunities has clashed with concerns about resource damage and disturbance of non-motorized

(...continued)
Management Policies 2006, §9.2.2.5, at http://www.nps.gov/policy/mp2006.pdf.
87 For a list of units that allow mountain biking, see the IMBA website at http://www.imba.com/nps-trails-roads.
88 77 Fed. Reg. 56117 (September 12, 2012).
89 See http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=392&projectID=17179&documentID=21776.
90 76 Fed. Reg. 61266 (October 4, 2011). For information on Grand Teton’s transportation planning, see
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=10940.
91 See NPS documentation at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=14611.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

pursuits. Adding to the conflict are economic considerations, with some asserting that restrictions
on motorized recreation harm local industries that serve vehicle users, while others contend that
growth in motorized recreation damages valuable natural resources that also draw visitors to the
parks and support gateway communities. NPS’s laws, regulations, and policies generally
emphasize the conservation of park resources in conservation/use conflicts, and NPS has fewer
lands open to off-highway vehicles than do other federal land management agencies such as the
Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.
NPS is currently evaluating off-highway vehicle use in a number of park units and issuing park-
specific regulations. Many such regulations have already been completed. They have sometimes
been controversial, engendering lawsuits by both OHV supporters and opponents. Congress has
introduced legislation to address some park regulations, such as H.R. 4094 and S. 2372 in the
112th Congress, which would have overturned OHV regulations issued in 2012 for Cape Hatteras
National Seashore.
The 113th Congress may conduct oversight or consider legislation on motorized recreation in the
National Park System. For example, Congress may consider whether broad legislation is needed
to address motorized access to some or all federal lands, or to address the impacts of motorized
travel on natural resources. Congress could also conduct oversight hearings to evaluate NPS
management of motorized recreation.92 In addition, Congress may introduce specific legislation
that addresses motorized recreation at individual park units.

Author Contact Information

Laura B. Comay
Kristina Alexander
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Legislative Attorney
lcomay@crs.loc.gov, 7-6036
kalexander@crs.loc.gov, 7-8597
Carol Hardy Vincent

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
chvincent@crs.loc.gov, 7-8651

Acknowledgments
Kori Calvert, retired CRS Information Research Specialist, made important contributions to this report.
CRS Information Research Specialist Laura Hanson provided valuable research assistance.


92 In the 112th Congress, a June 22, 2011, hearing by the House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, on “Opportunities for Outdoor Recreation on Public Lands” addressed
motorized recreation on BLM and FS lands rather than those of the National Park Service. For more information, see
http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=246553; and CRS Report R42920, Motorized
Recreation on Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service Lands, by Carol Hardy Vincent and Katie Hoover.
Congressional Research Service
18

---