Recreation on Federal Lands

Order Code IB10141

CRS Issue Brief for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Recreation on Federal Lands

Updated June 8, 2006

Kori Calvert, Coordinator,

and Sandra L. Johnson

Knowledge Services Group

Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinator,

Ross W. Gorte, Nicole T. Carter, Nic Lane,

David L. Whiteman, and M. Lynne Corn

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS

SUMMARY

MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

Introduction

Motorized Recreation

Overview of Issues

Current Issues

Motorized Recreation on BLM Land

Background

Administrative Actions

Legislative Activity

Motorized Recreation in the National Forests

Background

Administrative Actions

Legislative Activity

Personal Watercraft (PWC)

Background

Administrative Actions

Legislative Activity

Snowmobiles

Background

Administrative Actions

Legislative Activity

Aircraft Overflights

Background

Administrative Actions

Legislative Activity

The National Trails System

Background

Administrative Actions

Legislative Activity

Other Issues

Recreation in the National Wildlife Refuge System

Recreation at Federal Water Sites

Recreation Fees

Grand Canyon Colorado River Management

IB10141

06-08-06

Recreation on Federal Lands

SUMMARY

tween recreation on, and protection of, park

lands and waters. Regulatory actions restricting use of these vehicles have been especially

controversial. The NPS currently is evaluating PWC and snowmobile use in several

areas. Service-wide management policies

encompassing motorized and nonmotorized

recreation are being reviewed.

The growing and diverse nature of recreation on federal lands has increased the challenge of balancing recreation with other land

uses, and balancing different types of recreation. Motorized recreation has been particularly controversial, with issues centering on

access and environmental impacts. The 109th

Congress is considering legislation and conducting oversight on issues involving recreation on federal lands, including traditional

recreational pursuits and newer forms of

motorized recreation. The Administration is

addressing these issues through budgetary,

regulatory, and other actions. Several prominent issues are covered in this report.

Aircraft Overflights. Grand Canyon

National Park is at the center of a conflict over

whether to limit air tours over national parks

to reduce noise. The NPS and the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) continue to

work to implement a 1987 law that sought to

reduce noise at Grand Canyon, and a 2000 law

that regulates overflights at other park units.

Recent regulations require air tour operators

to seek authority to fly over park units; the

agencies then must develop Air Tour Management Plans at those park units. Further, the

FAA is developing final safety regulations for

commercial air tours nationally.

Motorized Recreation in the National

Forests and on BLM Land. The use of offhighway vehicles (OHVs) on Forest Service

(FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

lands has been particularly controversial.

Both agencies decide the extent of allowed

OHV use through their planning processes.

The FS finalized new regulations (Nov. 9,

2005) governing OHV use that require designating roads, trails, and areas open for OHV

use and prohibit OHV use outside the designated system. The BLM is addressing transportation issues through national strategies

and other guidance. A July 13, 2005, House

Resources joint subcommittee hearing examined motorized recreation use on federal

lands. The FY2007 Administration budget

request would cut FS recreation management

by 3% and trails funding by 19%, and BLM

recreation management by 2%. The Housepassed Interior appropriations bill restored or

increased funding for these accounts.

The National Trails System. While

designation of trails is often popular, issues

remain regarding funding, expansion, and

quality of trails. The 109th Congress is considering a variety of trail measures, including

adding routes to the National Trail System,

authorizing studies of routes for possible

additions to the system, and authorizing land

acquisitions from willing sellers. Legislation

has been introduced to create a new category

of trails, called National Discovery Trails.

Other Issues. Other federal land recreation issues of interest to the 109th Congress

include recreational uses within the National

Wildlife Refuge System, recreation at federal

water sites (Army Corps of Engineers and

Bureau of Reclamation), recreation fees, and

Grand Canyon Colorado River management.

Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles. Personal watercraft (PWC) and snowmobile use in National Park Service (NPS)

units has fueled debate over the balance be-

Congressional Research Service

˜

The Library of Congress

IB10141

06-08-06

MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

!

!

!

!

!

!

In H.R. 5386, the House approved $67.0 million for BLM recreation

management in FY2007, a 3% increase over the FY2006 appropriation.

The House approved $264.0 million for FS recreation management, 1%

above FY2006 and 4% above the request, and $73.4 million for trails, 1%

below FY2006 and 22% above the request.

On May 10, 2006, the House Appropriations Committee adopted an

amendment to the FY2007 Interior appropriations bill (H.R. 5386, H.Rept.

109-465) urging NPS to complete PWC rulemakings “in an efficient and

timely manner.”

On May 4, 2006, NPS issued final rules to allow PWC use within designated

areas of Gulf Islands National Seashore.

The House passed H.R. 5386 on May 18, 2006, with a provision (Sec. 124)

to ensure that the rule allowing snowmobiles in three Yellowstone area

parks will remain in effect throughout the 2006-2007 winter use season.

On June 1, 2006, the Secretary of the Interior announced the designation of

36 new National Recreation Trails (NRTs), totaling more than 800 miles.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

Introduction

Four federal agencies administer about 94% of the approximately 672 million acres of

federally owned land in the United States: the National Park Service (NPS), the Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Department of

the Interior (DOI), and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture. The lands

these agencies administer are managed for a variety of purposes relating to the preservation,

development, and use of the lands and natural resources. The NPS administers the Park

System for recreational use of parklands and preservation of park resources, a mission that

can be contradictory. The FWS manages wildlife refuges primarily for protecting and

improving fish and wildlife habitats. The BLM manages public lands and the FS manages

national forests for similar multiple uses — grazing, recreation, timber, water, and fish and

wildlife. Most forests and public lands also are available for mineral exploration and

development. The National Trails System, administered by the FS, NPS, and BLM, often in

cooperation with state and local authorities, permits most recreation uses, but motorized

vehicles generally are prohibited. This preservation/use dichotomy, while varying among

agencies, is a focal point for debate over recreation on federal lands. Increased recreational

use, and charges of overuse in some areas, contribute to disagreement on issues of access,

regulation, integrity of natural and cultural resources, and motorized versus nonmotorized

recreational activities. Recreation debates also arise in areas managed by other federal

agencies, such as reservoirs and rivers managed by the Army Corps of Engineers (in the

Department of Defense) and the DOI’s Bureau of Reclamation, where decisions on water

releases may affect recreation.

The growth and development of western states, proximity of many urban areas to public

lands, and growing popularity of outdoor recreation have translated into high demand for a

CRS-1

IB10141

06-08-06

variety of recreational opportunities on federal lands and waters. Agency figures indicate an

overall increase in recreational visits to federal lands in recent decades. In 2005, DOI

experienced 461 million recreation visits: 58 million visits to 3,496 BLM recreational sites;

273 million recreation visits to NPS units (then 388, now 390 units); 40 million visits to 545

FWS wildlife refuges; and 90 million visits to 308 Bureau of Reclamation recreation sites.

(See [http://www.doi.gov/budget/2007/07Hilites/DH53.pdf].) The Forest Service reports

211 million recreation visits to its national forests and grasslands, and the Corps 400 million

visits for the most recent year available.

Motorized Recreation

Over the last 40 years, new forms of motorized recreation — snowmobiles, personal

watercraft, other off-highway vehicles — and nonmotorized vehicles, such as mountain

bikes, have gained in popularity. For instance, there were roughly 8.6 million visitor days

of motorized recreation on BLM lands during FY2004. This figure includes off-highway

vehicle (OHV) use of all- terrain vehicles, dunebuggies, motorcycles, cars, trucks, and SUVs

as well as recreation involving powerboats, personal watercraft, and snowmobiles. In 2004,

OHV users accounted for between 11 and 12 million recreation visits to national forests and

grasslands. These new forms intersect with the many popular traditional forms of recreation.

These include water-based activities — fishing, canoeing, kayaking, rafting, etc. — and a

variety of land-based pursuits — birdwatching, camping, hiking, hunting, horseback riding,

rock climbing, skiing, etc. The use of motorized OHVs on federal lands and waters has been

particularly contentious, and lawsuits have challenged OHV management. OHV supporters

argue that these vehicles provide outdoor recreation opportunities for the disabled, senior

citizens, and others with mobility limitations; visitor access to hard-to-reach natural areas;

economic benefits to communities serving riders; and, for snowmobiles, increased access to

sites during the winter season. They believe technological advances do and will continue to

limit noise and pollution. Critics of OHVs raise environmental concerns, including the

potential for damage to land and water ecosystems and wildlife habitat; noise, air, and water

pollution; and a diminished experience for recreationists seeking quiet and solitude.

Two executive orders define and generally guide administering OHV use on federal

lands. The first (E.O. 11644, Feb. 8, 1972) defines an off-road vehicle, now commonly

referred to as an off-highway vehicle, as “any motorized vehicle designed for or capable of

cross country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland,

or other natural terrain,” with exceptions for any registered motorboat or authorized or

emergency vehicles. It was issued to “establish policies and provide for procedures that will

ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as

to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and

to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands.” The order directed each

agency head 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. Agency heads were to monitor the effects of OHV use and

amend or rescind designations of areas or other actions taken pursuant to this 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

CRS-2

IB10141

06-08-06

or trails if OHVs were causing or would cause considerable adverse effects on the soil,

vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural or historic resources of particular areas or

trails. Areas could remain closed until the manager determined that “the adverse effects have

been eliminated and that measures have been implemented to prevent future recurrence.”

Also, each agency head 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.

Overview of Issues

Federal land managers face a difficult task in managing lands to achieve multiple

purposes: to provide recreational opportunities for popular, but often conflicting, motorized

and nonmotorized recreational uses; to protect resources for future generations; and to

determine which lands should be open for development (e.g., timber harvesting, livestock

grazing, and energy development). BLM and FS managers formulate guidance on the nature

and extent of land uses, including OHV use, through regulations, national policies, land and

resource management plans, and area-specific decisions. In 2004, the NPS conducted an

internal survey of current OHV use, authorized and unauthorized, and the extent of OHV

damage (if any) at NPS units to respond to concerns raised by Bluewater Network. Currently,

NPS is developing regulatory guidance and planning documents for individual park units,

and considering what elements of OHV management may best fit under a national OHV

management strategy. Meanwhile, on November 29, 2005, Bluewater Network and two

other conservation groups sued DOI and NPS over alleged OHV damage to park resources.

The NPS also released draft Management Policies for public review through February

18, 2006 (70 Fed. Reg. 60852, Oct. 19, 2005; 70 Fed. Reg. 71557, Nov. 29, 2005), part of

ongoing efforts to review and revise policies guiding management throughout the national

park system, including changing recreational uses and evolving technologies. (See

[http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?projectId=13746&documentID=12825] for the

proposed Management Policies and an annotated comparison between the 2001 document

and current draft proposal.) The draft language requires “balance” between “conservation

and enjoyment,” whereas current policy states that “conservation is to be predominant” in

conservation/enjoyment conflicts (sec. 1.4.3). The draft defines key concepts (“conserve,

preserve, protect,” “impairment,” “appropriate use,”and “unacceptable impacts”). The

proposed policies also revise language pertaining to soundscape management (sec. 4.9), use

of motorized equipment (sec. 8.2), and off-road vehicle use (sec. 8.2.3). The extent to which

these and other changes represent a shift in emphasis for management of motorized and other

recreation is uncertain.

The 109th Congress is considering legislation and conducting oversight on issues

pertaining to recreation on federal lands. Several major issues are covered in this report,

particularly motorized recreation on BLM and FS lands; use of personal watercraft and

snowmobiles in certain National Park System units; overflights of national park units; and

expansion of the National Trails System. Other issues addressed cover recreation within the

National Wildlife Refuge System; recreation at federal (Corps and Bureau) water sites;

recreation fees; and Colorado River management within Grand Canyon National Park.

While this report focuses on recreation issues on federal lands, it does not cover

additional issues affecting these lands comprehensively. For background on federal land

CRS-3

IB10141

06-08-06

management generally, see CRS Report RL32393, Federal Land Management Agencies:

Background on Land and Resources Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.

Overview information on numerous natural resource use and protection issues is provided

in CRS Report RL32699, Natural Resources: Selected Issues for the 109th Congress,

coordinated by Nicole Carter and Carol Hardy Vincent. For information on NPS issues, see

CRS Issue Brief IB10145, National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.

Information on BLM and Forest Service lands is contained in CRS Issue Brief IB10076,

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National Forests, coordinated by Ross W.

Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent. For information on appropriations for federal land

management agencies, see CRS Report RL33399, Interior, Environment, and Related

Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent and Susan Boren.

Current Issues

Motorized Recreation on BLM Land (by Carol Hardy Vincent)

Background. The growing and diverse nature of recreation on BLM lands has

increased the challenge of managing recreation and other land uses, and managing different

types of recreation. Access to BLM lands for a variety of recreational purposes is viewed as

important for fostering public health, public support for land management, and a stable

economic base for communities that depend on recreation and tourism. It also has enhanced

interest in protecting the ecological integrity of federal lands from environmental harm as a

result of recreational use.

Motorized OHV use, including use of dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles, is a major

recreational use of BLM lands that has been controversial. While motorized user groups

often have opposed restrictions on OHV use, many environmentalists have been concerned

about harm to natural and cultural resources. In some areas, OHV use may conflict with

other types of recreation, such as hiking, that seek quiet and solitude on agency lands. There

are also differing views on how effectively OHV authorities are being enforced. While BLM

employs a variety of means of enforcement, including monitoring, law enforcement, signing

and mapping, and emergency closures of routes, enforcement may be impeded in some

locations due to their remoteness, insufficient signage, lack of sufficient staff and resources,

and other factors.

Administrative Actions. Guidance on OHV use on BLM lands is provided in law,

executive orders, and agency regulations and policies. Under agency regulations (43 C.F.R.

8340), BLM has been designating public lands as open, limited, or closed to OHV use. As

of October 31, 2005, the following designations had been made: open, where OHV use is

permitted anywhere, 81.1 million acres; limited, where OHV use is in some way restricted,

126.7 million acres; and closed, where OHV use is prohibited, 11.6 million acres. The

remaining 42.1 million acres of BLM land (mostly in Alaska) are not currently designated.

Other regulations govern OHV use in particular areas. For instance, on August 18, 2005,

BLM issued final supplementary rules for its lands in Oregon and Washington, which include

guidance on OHV use.

CRS-4

IB10141

06-08-06

The FY2007 BLM budget justification describes BLM’s “most pressing challenge” as

“comprehensively managing travel, off highway vehicles (OHVs), and public access in the

West (p. III -128). In FY2007, BLM plans to develop approximately 67 travel management

plans, which will identify and designate roads and trails for motorized travel, and to begin

implementation when the plans are completed. The agency requested $63.8 million for

recreation management generally for FY2007, a 2% reduction from the FY2006 level of

$65.1 million. In passing H.R. 5386, the House approved $67.0 million for recreation

management in FY2007, a 3% increase over FY2006 and a 5% increase over the

Administration’s request.

BLM has issued two national strategies dealing with transportation on its lands. The

National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands

([http://www.blm.gov/ohv/]) has multiple purposes, including to guide land managers in

resolving OHV issues; to promote consistency of OHV decision making; to highlight needed

staff and funding for OHV management; to reduce conflicts among land users; to promote

responsible OHV use and reduce habitat degradation; and to lead to an update of OHV

regulations (which has not occurred to date). The National Mountain Bicycling Strategic

Action Plan ([http://www.blm.gov/mountain_biking/] addresses mountain bicycling and

other muscle-powered mechanical transport. Further, to guide BLM managers in taking

actions affecting recreation during FY2003-FY2007, in May 2003 BLM issued The BLM’s

Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services.

BLM revised its land use planning handbook in 2005 regarding motorized and nonmotorized recreation. The agency makes OHV designations during the planning process, on

an area-by-area basis, and such designations often have been contentious and complex.

Although the agency is in the midst of a multi-year effort to develop and update land use

plans, many plans do not currently address OHV use and other relatively recent issues. In

some cases, the BLM and FS jointly address OHV use on their lands. For instance, an

interagency plan governs OHV use on lands in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

Joint management approaches, where federal lands are intermingled, can promote

consistency and public understanding of OHV guidance. However, BLM and FS lands are

different, and they are governed by separate authorities, making complete consistency on

vehicular travel management difficult to achieve.

Legislative Activity. A July 13, 2005, House Resources joint subcommittee hearing

examined motorized recreational use on federal lands. (See [http://resourcescommittee.

house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/071305.htm].) Agency representatives discussed the increased

popularity of OHV use on federal lands, development and implementation of travel

management plans, and challenges of managing OHVs. Other witnesses testified on

availability of federal lands for OHV use, and the effects of OHV use on human health, the

economy, the environment, and other forms of recreation.

Some pending measures affect OHV use in particular areas. For instance, H.R. 3603

contains provisions related to OHV use in Central Idaho. They include conveyance of BLM

land to the State of Idaho to establish a motorized recreation park, establishment of a special

management area on certain BLM and FS lands to provide opportunities for motorized and

other recreation, and authorization of up to $1.0 million for the Secretary of Agriculture to

grant to the State of Idaho for the off-road motor vehicle program.

CRS-5

IB10141

06-08-06

Motorized Recreation in the National Forests (by Ross Gorte)

Background. The national forests are managed by the USDA Forest Service (FS) for

a variety of uses, including many types of recreation — sightseeing, OHV use, backpacking,

etc. — while preserving the productivity of the lands. Recreation use continues to grow, with

OHV use among the fastest growing uses. (See Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the

United States, Regions and States (USDA-FS Southern Research Station, June 2005).)

The various uses and values of the national forests sometimes conflict with one another.

For example, timber harvesting and OHV use may affect birdwatching and sightseeing, and

can degrade water quality in certain settings. Decisions about what uses are allowed, and

when and where, are made in comprehensive land and resource management plans prepared

for each unit of the National Forest System, and at the project level. Because of multiple

efforts to modify the planning regulations, many plan revisions were delayed. New planning

regulations (70 Fed. Reg. 1023, Jan. 5, 2005) have recently been finalized, and plan revisions

are now expected to proceed. (See [http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index2.html].)

Administrative Actions. Federal guidance on OHV use in E.O. 11644 and E.O.

11989 was incorporated into FS regulations, at 36 C.F.R. Part 295. Despite this guidance,

not all forest plans have identified areas as open or closed to OHVs, and local practices as

to OHV use vary. In 2004, the FS Chief identified unmanaged recreation — “increasing use

of the national forests for outdoor activities ... , including the use of off-highway vehicles”

— as a threat to the nation’s forests and grasslands. In particular, OHV use has created

many unauthorized roads and trails, which can be unsafe and harmful to other resources. In

response, the FS has finalized new regulations (70 Fed. Reg. 68264-68291, Nov. 9, 2005)

to require forest plans to identify a system of roads, trails, and areas for motorized vehicle

use and prohibit the use of OHVs and other motorized vehicles outside the designated

system. Implementing directives are expected to be published for public comment during

2006, and decisions governing motorized uses are then to be made in forest planning (with

public involvement) over the next four years.

Opinions are divided over the importance and impact of the regulations. Some assert

that the regulations do not go far enough, preferring that all OHV uses be prohibited in the

national forests, because OHVs can (and sometimes do) damage national forest lands and

resources. Others counter that the regulations penalize the majority of OHV users that obey

the current rules and restrict off-highway uses at a time when other landowners and other

federal and state agencies are reducing recreational access to their lands.

The FY2007 FS budget proposes cutting recreation funds. Recreation management

would be funded at $250 million, a $7.9 million (3%) reduction from the FY2006 level of

$258.8 million. Trails funding would be $60.3 million, a $13.9 million (19%) reduction

from the FY2006 level of $74.2 million, with a greater reduction (in dollars and percentage)

in trails construction than in maintenance.

Legislative Activity. The House-passed FY2007 Interior appropriations bill, H.R.

5386, restored or increased FS recreation and trails funding, compared to the request.

Recreation management was approved at $262.0 million, $3.2 million (1%) above FY2006

and $11.1 million (4%) above the request. Trails funding was approved at $73.4 million,

CRS-6

IB10141

06-08-06

$0.8 million (1%) below FY2006 (all in construction) and $13.1 million (22%) above the

request (increasing both construction and maintenance).

On July 13, 2005, two subcommittees of House Resources held a joint hearing to

examine motorized recreation use on federal lands. (See “Legislative Activity” under BLM,

above.) To date, no comprehensive legislation addressing OHV use in national forests

generally has been introduced in the 109th Congress.

Personal Watercraft (PWC) (by Kori Calvert)

Background. PWCs are high-speed, very shallow draft, and highly maneuverable

watercraft “operated by a person or persons sitting, standing, or kneeling on the vessel rather

than within the confines of the hull” (36 C.F.R. §1.4). Often used to perform stunt-like

maneuvers, PWCs include watercraft known by their brand and generic names as jet ski, sea

doo, surf jet, water sled, wavejammer, wetjet, waverunner, and wet bike. While PWCs

represent a small segment of the recreational boat market, the number of PWC accidents has

raised concerns. Critics of PWC use cite environmental issues, including noise, air, and

water pollution; damage to land, plants, and wildlife; and public safety. Supporters of access

for PWCs argue that technological advances enable manufacturers to produce cleaner, more

efficient machines, and point to the economic benefits to communities serving users. PWC

users assert that in park units that allow motorized boating generally, PWCs also should be

allowed. Recent controversies have focused on regulatory actions that would restrict

recreational use or “access” of these vehicles, often in specific park units.

Administrative Actions. The NPS currently is evaluating PWC use in several of its

390 units. That effort began in 2000 when the agency issued a rule prohibiting PWC use in

66 of the 87 units where motorized boats were allowed (65 Fed. Reg. 15077, effective April

20, 2000). The rule allowed PWC use to continue until April 22, 2002, at the remaining 21

areas while the NPS evaluated whether to permanently authorize PWC use and develop

special regulations. The rule recognized that certain National Recreation Areas (NRAs),

such as Lake Mead and Glen Canyon, might choose to continue PWC use because their

establishing legislation emphasized motorized water-based recreation as a primary purpose.

An April 2001 negotiated settlement of a lawsuit by Bluewater Network and Earth Island

Institute over the PWC rule prohibited PWCs from the 21 areas unless the Park Service

initiated park-specific rules and environmental assessments. PWCs could continue to operate

during the rulemaking process, but only until specified “grace period” deadlines.

The NPS has been working on such park-specific rules and analyses for the 21 areas.

The NPS has lifted PWC bans and authorized their use in 11 designated areas: in 2003, Lake

Mead and Glen Canyon (Lake Powell) NRAs, and Assateague National Seashore; in 2004,

Lake Meredith, Lake Roosevelt, Amistad, and Chickasaw NRAs; in 2005, Bighorn Canyon

NRA, Fire Island National Seashore, and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore; and in 2006,

Gulf Islands National Seashore. Five areas are working on environmental reviews and

special regulations on PWC use, and the NPS has proposed rules to allow PWCs in three:

Cape Lookout National Seashore (Dec. 29, 2005), Gateway NRA (Feb. 24, 2006), and

Curecanti NRA (March 17, 2006). The agency prohibited PWC use in another 5 of the 21

areas (effective April 22, 2002) that had completed an environmental review process and

favored PWC bans: the Cape Cod and Cumberland Island National Seashores, Delaware

Water Gap and Whiskeytown NRAs, and Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.

CRS-7

IB10141

06-08-06

Draft NPS Management Policies include revisions concerning PWCs (sec. 8.2.3.3). The

draft replaces existing language stating that “(PWC) use is prohibited unless it has been

identified as appropriate for a specific park” and is consistent with visitor use criteria (sec.

8.2), with revised wording stating that “(PWC) use may be permitted through special

regulations and when this use has been identified as appropriate for a specific park.”

Whether these changes would have a substantive impact on PWC management is unclear.

Legislative Activity. On May 10, 2006, the House Appropriations Committee

adopted by voice vote an amendment to the FY2007 Interior appropriations bill urging NPS

to complete PWC rulemakings “in an efficient and timely manner.” (See “Administrative

Actions,” above; and H.Rept. 109-465.) A March 15, 2006, House Government Reform

subcommittee hearing examined NPS rulemaking efforts governing PWC use, status of

park-specific rules, and reasons for and impacts of rulemaking delays.

(See

[http://reform.house.gov/RA/Hearings/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=40886].) On May 4,

2005, a House Resources subcommittee oversight hearing considered PWC use in the

National Park System. (See [http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/

050405.htm].)

Snowmobiles (by Kori Calvert)

Background. Proposals to regulate recreational snowmobile use in NPS units have

been controversial, with debate often mirroring the preservation/use conflict within the NPS

mission. On April 27, 2000, the NPS announced the strict enforcement of long-standing

regulations on snowmobile use, which would have prohibited recreational snowmobiling

throughout the Park System. Limited exceptions to this new enforcement policy included

Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, park units in Alaska, Voyageurs National Park

(MN), and access to private land within or adjacent to a park. By July 2000, the Interior

Department had backed away from its strict enforcement stance with a clarification:

snowmobiles would not be banned in the 43 park units permitting such use prior to the April

2000 announcement, pending formal rulemaking and public comment period. To date, NPS

has taken no further action on a general policy for snowmobiles.

Administrative Actions. Since the summer of 2000, regulatory and judicial actions

to restrict or allow snowmobile use have centered on Yellowstone and Grand Teton National

Parks and the connecting John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway. The Clinton

Administration issued final rules (66 Fed. Reg. 7260, Jan. 22, 2001) to incrementally

eliminate snowmobile use in these three park units, with limited exceptions, in favor of

multi-passenger “snowcoaches” by the 2003-2004 winter season. However, a June 2001

Bush Administration lawsuit settlement with the International Snowmobile Manufacturers

Association (ISMA) and the state of Wyoming required NPS to revisit the snowmobile ban

and consider any additional information on “cleaner, quieter” snowmobile technology. The

new NPS final rule (68 Fed. Reg. 69267, Dec. 11, 2003) reversed the snowmobile ban in

favor of daily entry limits, use of trained guides, snowmobile emission standards, and an

“adaptive management strategy” allowing park managers to take remedial action if

monitoring indicates unacceptable impacts from air and noise pollution.

Subsequent legal challenges effectively split the 2003-2004 winter season into two subseasons, each managed under different rules with significantly different limits on daily

snowmobile entries. These conflicting rulings created confusion for park visitors, local

CRS-8

IB10141

06-08-06

communities, and businesses, with many unsure whether they could visit the park in winter

and what winter use rules were in effect. Subsequently, NPS issued a final rule (69 Fed.Reg.

65348, Nov. 10, 2004) to implement a temporary winter use management plan effective for

three winter seasons, through 2006-2007. (See [http://www.nps.gov/yell/press/04114.htm].)

The interim rule allows up to 720 commercially guided Yellowstone snowmobile entries

daily. Commercial guides are not required for the 140 daily snowmobile entries to Grand

Teton and the Rockefeller Parkway. The plan includes, with limited exceptions, Best

Available Technology (BAT) requirements to reduce snowmobile emissions and noise, but

no “adaptive management strategy” component.

The interim rule’s intent is to provide certainty to gateway communities, businesses, and

park visitors while NPS completes long-term environmental impact analyses of motorized

oversnow vehicles on the three area parks, and develops a new long-term plan to manage

winter recreational use. The agency anticipates releasing a draft Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) by fall 2006. The EIS will evaluate several alternative winter use scenarios,

each with varying mass-transit snowcoach and snowmobile entry levels, commercial guiding

requirements, and Best Available Technology standards for snowcoaches and snowmobiles.

(See [http://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/winteruse/index.htm].) Meanwhile, the 2005-2006

winter use statistics show 19.9% and 15.3% increases in snowmobile and snowcoach

visitors, respectively, over the previous winter season.

Judicial proceedings also continue. On October 14, 2005, Judge Clarence Brimmer,

Federal District Court for Wyoming, ruled against the Wyoming Lodging and Restaurant

Association’s challenge of the NPS interim rule, calling it “...the best compromise currently

available.” (See [http://www.nps.gov/yell/technical/planning/winteruse/plan/wlraorder.pdf].)

(For background information on snowmobiles in park units generally, see CRS Report

RL31149, Snowmobiles: Environmental Standards and Access to National Parks, by James

E. McCarthy.)

The recently released NPS draft Management Policies add new language to cover both

snowmobiles and oversnow vehicles (sec. 8.2.3.2). It states that “Routes and areas may be

designated for snowmobile and oversnow vehicle use by special regulation on routes and

water surfaces that are used by motor vehicles or motorboats during other seasons. Such

routes or areas shall be designated only when determined to be an appropriate use.”

Legislative Activity. The FY2007 Interior Appropriations bill (H.R. 5386, Sec. 124)

contains language to ensure that the three Yellowstone area parks remain open to

snowmobiles throughout the 2006-2007 winter use season. The FY2005 and FY2006

Interior appropriations laws (P.L. 108-447 and P.L. 109-54) included similar language to

ensure that judicial rulings could not deny snowmobiles entry during the 2004-2005 and

2005-2006 winter use seasons, respectively. On April 12, 2005, a House Resources

subcommittee held an oversight hearing on snowmobile use and restrictions in the National

Park System and their economic impact on local communities.

(See [http://

resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/041205.htm].)

Aircraft Overflights (by Carol Hardy Vincent and Kori Calvert)

Background. The NPS is to provide for the public enjoyment of parklands while

protecting resources, while the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) controls airspace and

CRS-9

IB10141

06-08-06

aircraft overflights. This has created a conflict between resource management and aviation

access authorities and their constituencies. Grand Canyon National Park has been the focal

point of a conflict between groups seeking to limit overflights of national parks due to

concerns about noise and safety, and air tour operators whose economic stability, with ripple

effects on local businesses, may depend on providing overflights. The National Parks

Overflights Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-91) directed NPS to recommend a flight control plan for

Grand Canyon that would provide a “substantial restoration of the natural quiet” and

prohibited flights below the canyon’s rim. It required an NPS study of the effects of all

aircraft overflights, which was submitted to Congress in 1994.

The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (Title VIII, P.L. 106-181,

hereafter “Air Tour Act”) regulates commercial air tours at other park units. It requires the

FAA and NPS to create management plans for air tours at individual park units and within

a half-mile of their boundaries. Each plan could prohibit or limit air tours, such as by route

and altitude restrictions. The act also requires the FAA to establish “reasonably achievable”

requirements for quiet aircraft technology for the Grand Canyon within one year and to

designate, by rule, Grand Canyon routes or corridors for aircraft and helicopters using quiet

technology. Quiet aircraft would not be subject to existing caps on canyon overflights.

Administrative Actions. Several actions have been taken to achieve the substantial

restoration of natural quiet at Grand Canyon. First, a limitations rule capped the annual

number of commercial air tour overflights at Grand Canyon (65 Fed. Reg. 17708, effective

May 4, 2000). Second, the airspace rule expanded flight-free zones and restrictive routing

over the canyon. East end Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) airspace changes were delayed

until February 20, 2011 (71 Fed. Reg. 9439). Third, the FAA issued a final rule establishing

a standard for quiet technology for certain aircraft in commercial air tour operations over

Grand Canyon (70 Fed. Reg. 16084, March 29, 2005). The rule identifies which aircraft

meet the standard. In future rulemaking, the FAA will address the establishment of routes

or corridors for commercial air tour operations that use the quiet technology. Fourth, data

on the natural ambient sound level is being collected and used, together with air tour reported

flight operations data and radar tracking data, to model air tour traffic and aircraft noise at

the park. The model is being used to measure success in restoring natural quiet. Most

recently, the FAA and NPS published a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact

statement on options that could be taken to restore natural quiet at Grand Canyon (71 Fed.

Reg. 4192, Jan. 25, 2006). There is a public comment period through April 27, 2006.

Other regulatory actions affect commercial air tours at park units. The Air Tour Act

final rule (67 Fed. Reg. 65661, Oct. 25, 2002) requires air tour operators to apply for

authority to fly over national park and abutting tribal lands. The FAA received applications

for commercial air tours over 107 of the 388 park units, and has granted interim operating

authority to applicants. Application triggers development of an Air Tour Management Plan

(ATMP) by the FAA and NPS for each unit where none exists.

(See

[http://www.atmp.faa.gov/default.htm].) The purpose of a plan is to mitigate or prevent any

harm by commercial air tours to natural and cultural resources, visitor experiences, and tribal

lands. Development of an ATMP requires an environmental analysis under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, U.S.C. § 4321-4370f). The FAA and NPS

currently are developing their first ATMPs for six areas. On September 30, 2005, the FAA

and NPS released an implementation plan for the development of the ATMPs that sets out

the roles and responsibilities of the two agencies in developing ATMPs.

CRS-10

IB10141

06-08-06

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report (GAO-06-263, Jan. 27, 2006)

addressed the impact of the delay in implementation of the Air Tour Act. The report

concludes that the delay has had little effect on park units, but has limited the ability of tour

operators to make major business decisions. The agency identified four issues for Congress

and the agencies to address to improve implementation, relating to the lack of flexibility for

determining which parks need plans, an absence of NPS funding for plan development,

limited ability to verify and enforce the number of air tours, and inadequate FAA guidance

on the act’s safety requirements. A more recent GAO report (GAO-06-468, May 11, 2006)

addresses NPS collection of air tour fees.

The FAA is developing a final rule to provide safety standards for commercial air tours

nationally, including over Grand Canyon and other park units (68 Fed. Reg. 60572). The

proposed rule seeks to increase air tour safety by requiring certification of tour operators and

by establishing safety standards, including regarding low-level flights, over-water flights, and

visibility limits. Opponents assert that the cost of compliance would make it infeasible for

many to continue operating, existing regulations are sufficient to keep tours safe, and the

proposed merger of helicopter and airplane traffic increases the chance of collisions. The

agency expects to issue a final rule by fall of 2006.

As part of an overall review of its management policies, the NPS has proposed changes

on overflights and aviation uses (sec. 8.4) and on soundscape management (sec. 4.9). One

proposal would delete existing language stating that the NPS “will preserve, to the greatest

extent possible, the natural scoundscapes of parks.” Another change would replace “adverse

effects” of overflights with “unacceptable impacts” in a number of places. Such changes

could be regarded as having a substantive effect on management of overflights.

Legislative Activity. To date, general legislation on aircraft overflights has not been

introduced in the 109th Congress. P.L. 108-176 directed the Secretary of Transportation to

issue a final rule establishing standards for quiet technology that are reasonably achievable

at Grand Canyon. The FAA issued the final rule on March 29, 2005. The law also

established a mediation process for rulemaking disputes. Conferees stated that they were

“greatly disappointed with the lack of progress” in managing the noise in parks from air

tours, and directed the agencies to develop ATMPs expeditiously and collaboratively and to

determine environmental impacts of air tours.

The National Trails System (by Sandra L. Johnson)

Background. The National Trails System Act (P.L. 90-543), authorizing the National

Trails System (NTS), became law on October 2, 1968. (See [http://www.nps.gov/nts/].) The

federal portion of the trails system consists of 24 national trails (8 scenic trails and 16

historic trails, both of which must be designated by Congress) covering almost 50,000 miles,

more than 900 recreation trails, and 2 connecting and side trails. Issues involve the funding,

quality, and quantity of trails.

Administrative Actions. On June 1, 2006, the Secretary of the Interior announced

the designation of 36 new National Recreation Trails (NRTs). Since 2001, the Bush

Administration has designated 164 National Recreation Trails, totaling more than 4,200

miles. These designations do not require an act of Congress and are part of an ongoing effort

CRS-11

IB10141

06-08-06

to promote community partnerships and to foster innovative ways to encourage physical

fitness.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages more miles of National Historic

Trails than any other federal agency. On February 13, 2006, the BLM released its first

National Scenic and Historic Trails Strategy and Work Plan for congressionally-designated

trails under its jurisdiction. The 10-year plan provides guidance to establish a coordinated

and consistent trails-focused administrative infrastructure; develop national policies to

protect and sustain trail resources within BLM’s multiple-use mandate; manage trail

resources to enhance visitor experiences and promote “appropriate public access;” and

maintain and advance BLM’s partnerships with trail organizations and other agencies. (See

[http://www.blm.gov/nlcs/nsht/NSHTSWfinalSig.pdf].)

Legislative Activity. Many trail projects became eligible to receive federal highway

program funds with the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of

1991 (ISTEA; P.L. 102-240), reauthorized as the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA-21, P.L. 105-178). The Recreational Trails Program (RTP), originally a sixyear program authorized under ISTEA and reauthorized under TEA-21, provides funds to

states to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for motorized and

nonmotorized recreational trail uses. On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed into law

the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

(P.L. 109-59, SAFETEA-LU). SAFETEA-LU authorizes funds for the Recreational Trails

Program at $370 million over five years ($60 million for FY2005, $70 million for FY2006,

$75 million for FY2007, $80 million for FY2008, and $85 million for FY2009). The

measure sets a specified level of $840,000 annually for administrative expenses.

Legislation (H.R. 690) introduced on February 9, 2005, would add National Discovery

Trails as a new category of long-distance trails within the National Trails System, and

designate the American Discovery Trail (ADT) as the nation’s first coast-to-coast National

Discovery Trail. The ADT would connect several national scenic, historic, and recreation

trails, as well as many other local and regional trails. Two “willing seller” bills (H.R. 2332,

S. 974) would provide federal authority to acquire land from willing sellers to complete nine

national scenic and historic trails. These proposals would not commit the federal

government to purchase any land or spend any money, but would allow managers to purchase

land to protect the national trails as opportunities arise and funds are appropriated.

Measures introduced in the 109th Congress to designate, study, or extend specific

components of the National Trails System are shown in the following table. The table

includes bills that could involve management by the NPS or other agencies. Bills related to

the system more generally are not included.

Bill Number

Type

Title

Status

H.R. 690

Desig.

National Discovery Trails Act

Introduced

H.R. 1250

S. 588

Study

Arizona Trail Feasibility Study Act

Introduced

Hearing held

H.R. 1796

Study

Mississippi River Trail Study Act

Introduced

CRS-12

IB10141

06-08-06

Bill Number

Type

Title

Status

H.R. 2053

S. 958

Desig.

Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail

Introduced

Passed Senate

H.R. 2361

H.R. 2588

S. 336

HR5466

S. 2568

Study

Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic

Trail

P.L. 109-54

Introduced

Hearing held

Introduced

Ordered reported

H.R. 2964

Study

Chisholm Trail and Great Western Trail

Introduced

H.R. 3085

S. 1970

Study

Trail of Tears National Historic Trail

Introduced

Reported (S.Rept.

109-239)

H.R. 3615

Study

1855 Treaty Trail

Introduced

H.R. 5053

Extend

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail Extension

Act of 2006

Introduced

S. 54

Study

Extend

Amends the National Trails System Act to require

the Secretary of the Interior to update the

feasibility and suitability studies of four national

historic trails, and for other purposes

Passed Senate

Desig.

Desig.

Also, on July 26, 2005, a House Resources subcommittee conducted an oversight

hearing on the implementation of the National Trails System Act. Issues covered by agency

and other witnesses included trail designations, maintenance, and management; land

acquisitions; private landowner concerns; and public-private initiatives and collaborative

efforts. (See [http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/072605.htm].)

Other Issues

The 109th Congress is evaluating several other recreation issues affecting federal land.

These include recreation within the National Wildlife Refuge System; recreation at federal

water sites (Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers); recreation fees; and

Grand Canyon Colorado River management.

Recreation in the National Wildlife Refuge System. (by M. Lynne Corn) The

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is dedicated primarily to conserving animals and

plants. Other uses — hunting, fishing, recreation, timber harvest, grazing, etc. — are

permitted only to the extent that they are compatible with the purposes for which the

individual refuges were created. Some have characterized the NWRS as intermediate in

protection between the BLM and FS lands on the one hand and NPS lands on the other, but

this is not entirely accurate. The NWRS resembles the FS or BLM lands in allowing some

commercial uses, but in certain cases, uses (e.g., public access) can be substantially more

restricted than for NPS lands. For example, some refuges (especially island refuges for

nesting seabirds) may be closed to the public — more restrictive than for an NPS area, given

the NPS mandate to provide for public enjoyment of park resources.

CRS-13

IB10141

06-08-06

Recreational conflicts within the NWRS were more frequent before the 1997 enactment

of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd). A key

provision of this law designates “compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and

interpretation as priority public uses of the refuge system.” It also requires that priority

public uses must “receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses in planning

and management within the System.” The law continues the statutory policy that activities

that are not wildlife-dependent (e.g., grazing, growing hay, etc.) may be permitted, provided

they are wildlife-compatible. Final regulations for determining compatibility were published

on October 18, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 62457). Some interest groups contended that the

regulations did not allow for sufficient public access for some forms of recreation, such as

use of off-road vehicles or personal watercraft. Others felt that the regulations struck a

proper balance among user groups.

A recent controversy concerns applications for amateur radio operators to have access

to three remote island refuges (Farallon, Navassa, and Desecheo) to transmit from these

locations. To protect the refuges’ seabird colonies and vegetation, FWS does not allow

access or consider radio transmission a priority or compatible use. Two bills would require

the Interior Secretary to open these refuges for at least one period each year under special use

permits. H.R. 298 applies to the three refuges, while H.R. 1183 (reported on Dec. 6, 2005;

H.Rept. 109-320) applies only to Navassa and Desecheo. Supporters include radio operators

but also those who favor wider public access to federal lands in general. Opposition includes

scientists and environmental groups based on risk to the colonies through human

interference, introduction of invasive species, and precedent for wider access to sensitive

islands.

Recreation at Federal Water Sites. (by Nicole Carter and Nic Lane) Much of the

recreation on federally owned or managed waters and adjacent lands occurs at U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (“Corps,” in the Department of Defense) and Bureau of Reclamation

(“Bureau,” in DOI) sites, primarily at federal reservoirs. These agencies’ more than 4,000

recreation areas attract nearly 500 million visits per year (400 million at Corps-managed

areas; 90 million at Bureau sites). While these federal reservoirs often are operated primarily

for irrigation, navigation, hydropower, and/or flood control, they also provide recreation and

other benefits. Reservoir operations can be contentious because decisions on water releases

often represent tradeoffs among the multiple reservoir and river uses and among different

types of recreation, such as birdwatching, boating, fishing, hunting, sightseeing, swimming,

and whitewater activities.

Bureau of Reclamation. An ongoing issue involves the Bureau’s Lake Berryessa

in Sonoma County, California. Formed when the Bureau built Monticello Dam in 1957, the

lake is a popular recreation area where the Bureau has let long-term contracts with seven

concessionaires who provide recreation support services. Six of these contracts, which have

been in place for 40 plus years, will expire in 2008-2009. The seventh, an interim contract,

expired at the end of 2005. The Bureau is considering significant changes to contract

structure upon renewal, including actions that will affect long-term camping (trailer parking)

at the lake. This is contentious for the concessionaires and current occupants of long-term

sites. (See [http://www.usbr.gov/mp/berryessa/faqs.html].) A Record of Decision clarifying

the Bureau’s intent for the management of long-term camp sites at the lake is expected to be

released this summer.

CRS-14

IB10141

06-08-06

Corps of Engineers. The 109th Congress is considering questions related to the

maintenance of recreational facilities (under constraints on recreational spending), relative

priority of multiple reservoir uses, and policies for recreational development and land use at

Corps and Bureau projects. Two authorization bills include changes to Corps recreation. The

House version of a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA, H.R. 2864) would adjust

the existing user fee authorization. The Senate version (S. 728) would make more extensive

changes. One provision of S. 728, which is similar to the Administration proposal from the

FY2006 and FY2007 budget requests, would require the Corps to implement recreation

admission fees. User and admission fees collected would be available directly to the Corps.

This contrasts with the deposit into general Treasury accounts of current collections from

Corps user fees. A second provision in S. 728 would allow the Corps to enter into a contract

with public or private entities to provide visitor services.

Recreation Fees. (by Carol Hardy Vincent) The 108th Congress established a new

recreation fee program for the four major federal land management agencies (NPS, BLM,

FWS, and FS) as well as the Bureau of Reclamation. Provisions of P.L. 108-447 (Division

J, Title VIII) provide guidance on establishing entrance, standard, expanded, and special

recreation permit fees. They outline criteria for establishing fees, and prohibit charging fees

for certain activities or services. The law provides for public input in setting fees, including

establishing Recreation Resource Advisory Committees to make fee recommendations. It

authorizes the creation of an interagency national recreation pass and of regional multi-entity

passes. Each agency can spend the revenue collected without further appropriation. In

general, not less than 80% of the fees are to be spent at the collecting site, but that amount

can be reduced to not less than 60%. The balance of the collections is available to be used

agency-wide. The collections can be used for specified purposes, such as repair,

maintenance, and facility enhancement. The agencies are to report to Congress on the

program every three years, and the program is to terminate 10 years after enactment.

DOI and the Department of Agriculture are implementing the new law. They are

developing long-term fee guidance and the America the Beautiful Pass, which will cover

entrance and standard fees for the five agencies. During the transition to the new program,

the agencies have agreed that existing passes will be honored, no new fee areas will be

created, and existing fees will be evaluated against the criteria and prohibitions set out in the

new law. The agencies (excluding the Bureau of Reclamation) anticipate collecting about

$208 million in fees in FY2006 and $240 million in fees in FY2007, with NPS collections

accounting for about two-thirds of the totals. The 109th Congress is overseeing agency

efforts to establish, collect, and spend recreation fees under the new program. On February

17, 2005, a Senate subcommittee held a hearing on NPS implementation of the program,

with a focus on the development of the America the Beautiful Pass. On October 26, 2005,

a Senate subcommittee held a hearing on the implementation of the new fee program.

Grand Canyon Colorado River Management. (by David Whiteman) The NPS

regulates and manages river-running boat trips on the Colorado River inside Grand Canyon

National Park to protect river resources and ensure a high-quality visitor experience. The

277-mile river canyon is a popular destination for multi-day raft trips, one of the most iconic

of national park experiences. Decades of conflict have ensued over motorized boating,

helicopter flights used to ferry commercial boating passengers in and out of the canyon, and

the proportion of commercial outfitters versus noncommercial private boaters. Historically,

about 70% of river access permits have gone to commercial concessioners, with about 30%

CRS-15

IB10141

06-08-06

to noncommercial self-guided private boaters. These activities have been opposed by groups

favoring the preservation of wilderness-like values in the river corridor. Commercial river

trip outfitters assert that access for motorized boating does not harm resources and is the only

practical way to offer popular short-duration trips.

In late 2005, the NPS proposed a new Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP)

governing recreational river use for at least 10 years and establishing goals and objectives

for a longer time frame. The NPS analyzed nearly 20,000 comments before completing a

Final Environmental Impact Statement and issuing a Record of Decision on March 23, 2006.

The new management plan alters the allocation of river access between commercial and

noncommercial users, with more access for the self-outfitted sector and a shorter season for

commercial trips. The waiting list for noncommercial users is to be phased-out and replaced

by a “hybrid” weighted lottery system. Complaints thus far contend that, even though

noncommercial users have more overall access, they are largely relegated to off-season

periods and are allowed less time on the river. Also, some interests fear that

accommodations for motorized use could jeopardize long-pending prospects for wilderness

designation.

On February 16, 2006, a coalition of conservation groups filed suit in federal court to

force Interior to re-evaluate its approach to river canyon ecosystem recovery. They cite

continuing damage to beaches, vegetation, unique species, and cultural resources from the

operation of the Glen Canyon Dam, and contend that the new CRMP does not adequately

protect park resources from user impacts. Another coalition of conservation and boating

groups filed a separate suit on March 28, 2006, over motorized use and perceived inequities

of the new river use plan.

CRS-16