Federal Lands and Related Resources: Overview and Selected Issues for the 118th Congress

Summary

The Property Clause in the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, §3, Clause 2) grants Congress the authority to acquire, dispose of, and manage federal property. The 114^th Congress may consider multiple federal land and natural resources policy and management issues. These issues are complex and often interrelated, and include how much and which land the government should own, and how lands and resources should be used and managed. These issues affect local communities, industries, ecosystems, and the nation.

There are approximately 640 million surface acres of federally owned land in the United States. Four agencies (referred to in this report as the federal land management agencies, or FLMAs) administer approximately 609 million surface acres (95%) of federal lands: the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS), all in the Department of the Interior (DOI). The federal estate also extends to the energy and mineral resources located below ground and offshore. These include about 700 million onshore acres of the federal subsurface mineral estate that are managed by BLM. In addition, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, also in DOI, manages access to approximately 1.7 billion offshore acres located in and below federal waters within and beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. However, not all of these onshore or offshore acres contain extractable mineral and energy resources.

This report introduces some of the broad themes and issues Congress considers when addressing federal land policy and resource management, including questions about the extent and location of the federal estate. For example, legislation may be introduced in the 114^th Congress to continue funding laws that authorize the acquisition of additional lands, and other legislation may propose to convey some land out of federal ownership or management. Other issues for Congress may include whether certain lands or resources should have additional protections, for example, by designating certain lands as wilderness or national monuments, or protecting endangered species and their habitat. Congress also may address questions about wildfire management on both federal and nonfederal lands, such as questions about funding suppression efforts.

Other policy questions involve how federal land should be used. Certain federal lands are considered primary- or dominant-use lands as specified in statute by Congress. For example, the dominant-use mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is "to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans," and the dual-use mission of the National Park System is to conserve unique resources and provide for their use and enjoyment by the public. BLM and FS lands, however, have a statutory mission to balance multiple uses: recreation, grazing, timber, habitat and watershed protection, and energy production. Conflicts arise as users and land managers attempt to balance these uses both spatially and temporally. The 114^th Congress may consider bills that would attempt to clarify and prioritize these uses. In addition to questions about balancing energy production against other uses, other questions include how to balance traditional and alternative energy production on federal lands.

Introduction

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Notes: This figure reflects the approximately 623 million acres of surface federal lands managed by the federal land management agencies (FLMAs) as well as the Department of Defense (DOD) in the 50 states. This map shows a generalized image of federal lands and submerged lands without attempting to demonstrate with any specificity the geographical area of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as defined by state or federal courts, lawmakers, or agency officials. Due to scale considerations, all of the ocean area surrounding Hawaii in the figure is within the U.S. EEZ.

Federal land policy and management issues generally fall into several broad themes: Should federal land be managed to produce national or local benefits? How should current uses be balanced with future supplies and opportunities? Should current uses, management, and protection programs be replaced with alternatives? Who decides how federal land resources should be managed, and how are the decisions made? Some stakeholders seek to maintain or enhance the federal estate, while others seek to divest the federal estate to state or private ownership. Some issues, such as forest management and fire protection, involve both federal and nonfederal (state, local, or privately owned) land. In many cases, positions on federal land issues do not divide along clear party lines. Instead, they may be split along the lines of rural-urban, eastern-western, and coastal-interior interests.

Several authorizing committees in the House and Senate have jurisdiction over federal lands issues. For example, issues involving the management of the national forests cross multiple committee jurisdictions including the Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Interior Appropriations in the House and the Committee on Agriculture, Energy and Natural Resources, and Interior Appropriations in the Senate. In addition, federal land issues are often addressed during consideration of annual appropriations for the FLMAs' programs and activities.

This report introduces selected federal land issues, many of which are complex and interrelated. The discussions are broad and aim to introduce the reader to the range of issues regarding federal land management, while providing references to more detailed and specific CRS products available on the issue. After a background section on the FLMAs, the issues are grouped into 10 broad categories:

• Federal Estate Ownership
• Funding for Federal Land Management
• Climate Management
• Energy and Minerals Resources and Development
• Forest Management
• Range Management
• Recreation on Federal Lands
• Special Land Designations
• Species Management
• Wildfire Management

Federal land ownership began when the original 13 states ceded title of some of their land to the newly formed central government.⁶ The early federal policy was to dispose of federal land to generate revenue and encourage western settlement and development. However, Congress began to withdraw, reserve, and protect federal land through the creation of national parks and forest reserves starting in the late 1800s. This "reservation era" laid the foundation for the current federal agencies, whose primary purpose is to manage natural resources on federal lands.

The Forest Service (FS) is the oldest of the federal land management agencies. Although the first forest reserves—later renamed national forests—were created in 1891, FS was established later, in 1905 in the Department of Agriculture. The FS is charged with managing the National Forest System (NFS), as well as conducting forestry research and providing assistance to state and private forest owners. Today, FS administers 193.1 million acres of land—including 154 national forests and 20 national grasslands—predominately in the West (although FS manages more than half of all the eastern federal lands).⁸

The forest reserves were originally authorized to protect the lands, preserve water flows, and provide timber. These purposes were expanded in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960.⁹ This act added recreation, livestock grazing, and wildlife and fish habitat as purposes of the national forests, with wilderness added as a defined management objective in 1964.¹⁰ The act directed that these multiple uses be managed in a "harmonious and coordinated" manner and "in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people."¹¹ The act also directed FS to manage the renewable resources under the principle of sustained yield, meaning to achieve a high level of resource outputs in perpetuity, without impairing the productivity of the lands. Congress reaffirmed and expanded the multiple-use sustained-yield management directive in subsequent legislation, including the Forest Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA)¹² and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA).¹³ The RPA and NFMA also direct FS to conduct long-range planning efforts to manage the national forests. Balancing the multiple uses across the national forest system has sometimes led to conflicts regarding management decisions and priorities.

The BLM was formed in 1946 by combining two existing agencies.¹⁴ The BLM currently administers more onshore federal lands than any other agency—247 million acres. BLM lands are heavily concentrated (99.9%) in the 12 western states. Nearly half of the total acreage is in two states—Alaska (29%) and Nevada (19%). BLM lands, officially designated the National System of Public Lands, include grasslands, forests, high mountains, arctic tundra, and deserts. BLM lands often are intermingled with other federal or private lands, and the agency has authority to acquire, dispose of, and exchange lands under various statutes.

As defined in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA),¹⁵ BLM management responsibilities are similar to those of FS—sustained yields of the multiple uses, including recreation, grazing, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish habitat, and conservation. For instance, about 155 million acres are available for livestock grazing, and about 30 million acres are in BLM's National Landscape Conservation System. Some lands are withdrawn (restricted) from one or more uses, or managed for a predominant use. The agency inventories its lands and resources and develops land use plans for its land units. In addition, BLM administers onshore federal energy and mineral resources, covering nearly 700 million acres of federal subsurface mineral estate—including the subsurface of many national forests—although not all of these acres contain extractable mineral and energy resources. BLM also supervises the mineral operations on about 56 million acres of Indian trust lands. Conflicts sometimes arise among and between users and land managers as a result of the diversity of the lands and multiple use opportunities provided on BLM public lands.

BOEM manages energy resources in areas covering approximately 1.7 billion acres located beyond state waters and comprising areas defined in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, as amended in 1978 (OCSLA).²⁴ Most OCS acreage is concentrated in the Alaska region (more than 1 billion acres), but some OCS acreage exists off all coastal states.²⁵ OCS revenues are allocated mainly to the General Treasury and to two federal programs—the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Historic Preservation Fund.²⁶ Because of the cross-cutting nature of its management responsibilities, BOEM shares some responsibilities with two other DOI agencies: the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR).²⁷

BOEM schedules and conducts oil and gas lease sales,²⁸ administers existing oil and gas leases, issues easements and leases for deploying renewable energy technologies,²⁹ and manages ownership records for offshore tracts leased for energy development, among other responsibilities. Furthermore, BOEM administers offshore sand and gravel resources to assist state beach-replenishment efforts.

CRS Products

Debates about federal land ownership—including efforts to divest federal lands—often hinge upon constitutional principles such as the Property Clause and the Supremacy Clause.³⁰ The Property Clause³¹ grants Congress authority over the lands, territories, or other property of the United States: "the Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." Thus, the Congress has broad and exclusive authority to govern the lands of the federal government. The Supremacy Clause³² establishes federal preemption over state law, meaning where a state law conflicts with federal law, the federal law will prevail. Through these constitutional principles, the U.S. Supreme Court has described Congress's power over federal lands as "without limitations."³³

Echoing efforts of the "Sagebrush Rebellion" during the 1980s, several states have recently initiated efforts to assume title to the federal lands within their borders. These efforts generally are in response to concerns about the amount of federal land within their state, as well as concerns about how the land is managed, fiscally and otherwise. However, efforts by a state to claim federal lands absent parallel federal legislation seem unlikely to succeed because of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. That clause gives federal laws—such as the laws establishing the states in which the states forever waived their rights to federal lands³⁴—supremacy over state laws.³⁵ Further, each state constitution recognizes the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land, reaffirming federal supremacy. Accordingly, state or local laws attempting to impose requirements on federal lands would be preempted by federal law.

CRS Products

CRS Report R42346, Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RL34267, Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority and the History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention, by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report R41770, Leasing and Selling Federal Lands and Resources: Receipts and Their Disposition, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

Congress has granted the FLMAs varying and limited authorities to acquire and dispose of land. The extent of this authority differs considerably among the FLMAs. The BLM has relatively broad authority for both acquisitions and disposals under FLPMA. By contrast, NPS has almost no general authority to acquire land to create new park units or to dispose of park lands without congressional action. The FS authority to acquire lands is limited mostly to lands within or contiguous to the boundaries of a national forest, including the authority to acquire access corridors to national forests across nonfederal lands.³⁶ The agency has various authorities to dispose of land, but they are relatively constrained and infrequently used. FWS has various authorities to acquire lands, but no general authority to dispose of its lands. For example, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 grants FWS authority to acquire land for the National Wildlife Refuge System—in part using funds from the sale of hunting and conservation stamps—after state consultation and agreement.³⁷

The current acquisition and disposal authorities form the backdrop for consideration of measures to establish, modify, or eliminate authorities, or to provide for the acquisition or disposal of particular lands. Congress also addresses acquisition and disposal policy in the context of debates on the role and goals of the federal government in owning and managing land generally.

CRS Product

CRS Products

CRS Report R43617, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations, by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report R43822, Federal Land Management Agencies: Appropriations and Revenues, coordinated by [author name scrubbed].

The federal government also shares the revenue from mineral and energy development, both onshore and offshore. Revenue collected (rents, bonus, and royalties) from onshore mineral and energy development is shared 50% with the states, under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920⁴⁰ (less administrative costs). Alaska, however, receives 90% of all revenues collected on federal onshore leases (less administrative costs).

Revenue collected from offshore mineral and energy development in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is shared with the coastal states, albeit at a lower rate. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (OCSLA),⁴¹ as amended, allocates 27% of the total revenue generated from federal offshore leases to the coastal states (and the remaining to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, discussed below, the National Historic Preservation Fund, and the U.S. Treasury). However, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA)⁴² increased the rate to 37.5% for four coastal states⁴³ starting in 2006 for specific OCS leases, and expanding to more OCS leases in 2017. States have argued for a greater share of the OCS revenues based on the impacts oil and gas projects have on infrastructure and the environment, while others have argued that more of the revenue should go to the general fund of the Treasury.

CRS Products

CRS Report R40645, U.S. Offshore Oil and Gas Resources: Prospects and Processes, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Product

GAO Reports on Climate Change and Federal Land Management

A related debate is the role of federal agencies—particularly BLM and BOEM—in energy production on federal lands. Specifically in question is the extent to which the agencies should provide access to and promote the different sources of energy production. Both traditional sources of energy (non-renewable fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and coal) and alternative sources of energy (renewable fuels such as solar, wind, and geothermal) are available on federal lands. However, since fossil fuel emissions contribute to climate change, some argue that the agencies should prioritize renewable energy production on federal lands over traditional energy sources.

Congress is addressing agency climate change efforts through appropriations, oversight, and legislation. Issues for Congress include whether additional statutes, regulations, or guidance for climate change is needed. More specific legislative issues for Congress may be the extent to which federal resources support a strategy to achieve long-term climate change policy goals, the demands of climate change programming for the FLMAs and the resources they manage, proposals to restructure or improve collaboration among the FLMAs regarding climate change activities, and possible reporting requirements to support congressional decision-making and oversight.

CRS Products

CRS Report R43915, Climate Change Adaptation by Federal Agencies: An Analysis of Plans and Issues for Congress, coordinated by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report R42613, Climate Change and Existing Law: A Survey of Legal Issues Past, Present, and Future, by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report R43230, Climate Change Legislation in the 113^th Congress, by [author name scrubbed].

Much of the onshore federal estate is open to energy and mineral exploration and development, including most BLM and many FS lands. Offshore federal resources, within and beyond the U.S. EEZ, also are open for exploration and development. However, many NPS lands and areas within the National Wilderness Preservation System, as well as certain other federal lands, have been specifically withdrawn from exploration and development.⁵¹

Energy production on federal lands accounts for a significant amount of total U.S. energy production. For example, in FY2014, approximately 22% of crude oil, 16% of natural gas, and 41% of coal production came from federal lands.⁵² This includes approximately 23,657 federal onshore oil and gas leases in production on 12.5 million acres of surface federal lands and 1,025 federal OCS leases in production on about 5 million acres offshore.⁵³ There are 309 federal coal leases on about 474,000 acres and about 400,000 active mining claims on federal public domain lands.⁵⁴ Federal lands also are available for renewable energy projects. BLM manages the solar and wind energy programs on about 20 million acres for each program and about 800 geothermal leases on federal lands.⁵⁵ Geothermal capacity on federal lands represents 40% of U.S. total geothermal electric generating capacity. Solar and wind energy potential on federal lands is growing and, based on BLM-approved projects, there is potential for 5,000 megawatts (MW) of wind and nearly 8,800 MW of solar energy on federal lands.⁵⁶

The 114^th Congress may continue to debate issues related to access to and availability of onshore and offshore federal lands for energy and mineral development, as well as to how to balance energy and mineral development, environmental protection, and other uses for those federal lands. Some would like to open more federal lands for energy development, whereas others have sought to retain or increase restrictions and withdrawals for certain areas they consider too sensitive or inappropriate for energy development (including some areas for renewable energy projects). Congress also may continue to focus on the energy and mineral permitting processes, the timeline for energy and mineral development, and debates over royalty collections. These issues are described in more detail in the following sections.

CRS Products

CRS Report R42756, Energy Policy: 114^th Congress Issues, by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report R41770, Leasing and Selling Federal Lands and Resources: Receipts and Their Disposition, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report R43891, Mineral Royalties on Federal Lands: Issues for Congress, by [author name scrubbed].

Oil and Natural Gas

Onshore oil and natural gas produced on federal lands account for 5% and 11% of total U.S. oil and gas production, respectively.⁵⁷ Development of oil, gas, and coal on federal lands is governed primarily by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA).⁵⁸ The MLA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior—through BLM—to lease the subsurface rights to virtually all BLM and FS lands that contain fossil fuel deposits, with the federal government retaining title to the lands.⁵⁹ The MLA authorizes both competitive bidding and noncompetitive application processes for oil, gas, and coal exploration and production leases. Leases include an annual rental fee and a royalty payment generally determined by a percentage of the value or amount of the resource removed or sold from the federal land. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05),⁶⁰ which amended the MLA, also includes provisions governing access, leasing, and management of energy development on BLM and FS lands.⁶¹

Access to federal lands and permitting projects for energy and mineral development have been controversial issues. (See also "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Energy Development or Wilderness?".) According to a 2008 report, out of 279 million acres of federal land or federal mineral estate with oil and gas potential, 113 million acres are open and accessible for oil and gas development and about 166 million acres were off limits or inaccessible.⁶² The oil and gas industry contends that entry into the currently unavailable areas is necessary to ensure future domestic oil and gas supplies. Opponents maintain that the restricted lands are unique or environmentally sensitive and that the United States could realize equivalent energy gains through conservation and increased exploration on current leases or elsewhere. A related access issue is the extent to which BLM or FS may regulate the approximately 3,400 oil and gas wells on federal lands that are hydraulically fractured annually. BLM has proposed two different draft rules—one in 2012 and then a revision in 2013.⁶³ Final regulations for hydraulic fracturing on federal lands were released on March 20, 2015.⁶⁴ The regulations also would extend to national forests, although FS is debating this issue during the forest planning process at the individual unit level.

Another controversial issue is the permitting process and timeline, which EPAct05 revised for oil and gas permits. Although the time it takes BLM to process applications has decreased since FY2006, the time it takes applicants to respond and resolve issues with the applications has increased over that time period.⁶⁵ EPAct05 also authorized a pilot project to improve efficiency of processing oil and gas permits through FY2015.⁶⁶ After three years of implementation, a 2008 BLM report described improved interagency communication and a reduction in the time needed for BLM to review and process permit applications in the pilot locations. EPAct05 requires that the Secretary of the Interior "makes a recommendation to the President regarding whether the pilot project should be implemented throughout the United States." A recommendation by the Secretary of the Interior has not yet been made, although the Administration has proposed to extend the pilot. Congress may consider ending, extending, or making the pilot program permanent, with or without modifications.

Congress is debating increasing royalty rates on onshore federal oil and gas leases. According to the MLA, if a lease produces oil or gas, a royalty is paid to the landowner on the value of extracted production. The onshore royalty rate for federal oil and gas leases has remained at the statutory minimum of 12.5% since the enactment of the MLA in 1920. However, royalty rates for offshore leases currently range from 12.5% to 18.75%.

Coal

Congress debates several issues regarding coal production on federal lands, including how to balance coal production against other resource values. Other concerns include how to assess the value of the coal resource, what is the fair market value (e.g., minimum bids) for the coal, and what should be the government's royalty. In response to these congressional concerns, a 2013 GAO analysis found inconsistencies in how BLM evaluated and documented federal coal leases.⁶⁷ In addition, a 2013 DOI Inspector General report found BLM may have violated provisions in the MLA by accepting below-cost bids for federal coal leases.⁶⁸ The Secretary of the Interior announced the initiation of a new rule for the valuation of coal. A proposed rule was published on January 6, 2015. In the proposal, the Office of Natural Resources Revenue reaffirms that the value for royalty purposes is at or near the lease and that gross proceeds from arm's-length contracts are the best indication of market value.⁶⁹

CRS Products

CRS Report R43011, U.S. and World Coal Production, Federal Taxes, and Incentives, coordinated by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report R40806, Energy Projects on Federal Lands: Leasing and Authorization, by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report R42432, U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production in Federal and Non-Federal Areas, by [author name scrubbed].

Both BLM and FS manage land that is considered suitable for renewable energy generation and as such have authorized projects for geothermal, wind, solar, and biomass energy projects. Interest in renewable energy projects comes in part from concern over the impact of emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants but also is driven by the increasing adoption of statewide renewable portfolio standards that require electricity producers to supply a certain minimum share (which varies by state) of electricity from renewable sources.⁷⁰ Congressional interest in renewable energy resources on onshore federal lands has focused on whether to expand the leasing program for wind and solar projects versus maintaining the current right-of-way authorization process, and how to balance environmental concerns with the development and production of these resources. For example, some of these environmental concerns include the potential wildlife impacts from wind turbines and water supply requirements for solar energy.

CRS Product

Geothermal Energy

Woody Biomass

CRS Product

Locatable Minerals

CRS Product

CRS Report RL33908, Mining on Federal Lands: Hardrock Minerals, by [author name scrubbed].

Offshore Oil and Gas Leases

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) administers more than 6,000 active oil and gas leases on nearly 33 million acres in the OCS.⁹⁵ Under the OCSLA, BOEM prepares forward-looking five-year leasing programs to govern oil and gas lease sales. BOEM has conducted seven oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico as part of the current five-year program and has three lease sales scheduled for Alaska in 2016 and 2017, along with additional sales in the Gulf of Mexico between 2015 and 2017. The process for establishing the next five-year leasing program (2017-2022) has begun.⁹⁶

Under the OCSLA,⁹⁷ the President may withdraw unleased lands on the OCS from leasing disposition. For example, in late 2014 and early 2015, the President indefinitely withdrew from leasing disposition certain areas offshore of Alaska, including the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area, the Hanna Shoal region of the Chukchi Sea, and certain other parts of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.⁹⁸ Congress also has established leasing moratoria; for example, the GOMESA established a moratorium on preleasing, leasing, and related activity in the eastern Gulf of Mexico through June 2022.

Congress considers multiple issues related to offshore oil and gas exploration, including questions about allowing or deferring access to ocean areas and how increasing or restricting access may impact domestic energy markets and affect the risk of oil spills. Other issues concern the use of OCS revenues and the extent to which they should be shared with coastal states (see "Federal Payment Programs" section).

Offshore Renewable Energy Sources

BOEM also is responsible for managing renewable ocean energy resources. BOEM has been in the process of estimating renewable ocean energy resources to facilitate leases for electricity generation from offshore wind, thermal power, and kinetic forces from ocean tides and waves.⁹⁹ As of February 2015, BOEM had issued seven offshore wind energy leases in areas off the coasts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.¹⁰⁰ No leases are yet producing within the Offshore Renewable Energy Program, and the earliest major project, Cape Wind off of Massachusetts, has experienced litigation and financing challenges. Issues for Congress include whether to take steps to facilitate the development of offshore wind and other renewables, such as through grants for research and development project loan guarantees, extension of federal tax credits for renewable energy production, or oversight of regulatory issues for these emerging industries.

CRS Products

CRS Report R40175, Wind Energy: Offshore Permitting, by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RL33404, Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Legal Framework, by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report R40645, U.S. Offshore Oil and Gas Resources: Prospects and Processes, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

Management of federal forests presents several policy questions for Congress. For instance, there is debate about the appropriate level of timber harvesting on federal forest lands, particularly FS and BLM lands. A related debate is how to balance timber harvesting against the other uses and values for these federal lands. Further, Congress may debate how the agencies use timber harvesting or other active forest management techniques to achieve other resource-management objectives, such as improving wildlife habitat or improving a forest's resistance and resilience to disturbance events (e.g., wildfire, ice storm).

FS manages the most federal forest land: approximately 188 million acres of the 193 million acre National Forest System (NFS) are national forests (98%).¹⁰¹ The national forests are managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, meaning the production of timber is one of several statutorily defined uses for the national forests and the amount of timber removed from NFS should not exceed the amount of annual growth. In FY2014, FS harvested approximately 2.4 billion board feet of timber and other forest products, at a value of $149.0 million.¹⁰² BLM manages approximately 60 million acres of forest and woodlands. The vast majority—58 million acres—is public domain forests, managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield as established by FLPMA for generating forest products and forest restoration activities. The 2.6 million acres of O&C forests in western Oregon, however, are managed under a statutory direction for permanent forest production.¹⁰³ In FY2014, BLM harvested approximately 256.4 million board feet of timber and other forest products, at a value of $57.1 million.¹⁰⁴ The NPS and FWS have limited authorities to cut, sell, or dispose of timber from their lands and established policies to do so generally only in certain cases, such as controlling for insect and disease outbreaks.

In the past few years, the ecological condition of the federal forests has been one focus of discussion and legislative proposals, including the forests' susceptibility to insect and disease outbreaks and the risk of catastrophic wildfires. Many believe federal forests are ecologically degraded; decades of wildfire suppression and other forest-management decisions have created forests overgrown and overstocked with biomass (fuels) that can serve to increase the spread or intensity of wildfires. These observers advocate rapid action to improve forest conditions, including prescribed burning, thinning, and salvaging dead and dying trees. Critics counter that authorities to reduce fuel levels are adequate, treatments that remove commercial timber degrade other ecosystem conditions and waste taxpayer dollars, and expedited processes for treatments are a device to reduce public oversight of commercial timber harvesting.

CRS Products

CRS Report R43872, National Forest System Management: Overview, Appropriations, and Issues for Congress, by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report R42951, The Oregon and California Railroad Lands (O&C Lands): Issues for Congress, by [author name scrubbed].

Management of federal rangelands, particularly by BLM and FS, presents an array of policy matters for Congress. Several issues pertain to livestock grazing. For instance, there is debate about the appropriate fee that should be charged for grazing private livestock on BLM and FS lands, including what criteria should prevail in setting the fee. Today, fees are charged under a formula established by law in 1978, then continued indefinitely through an executive order issued by President Reagan in 1986.¹⁰⁵ The BLM and FS are charging a grazing fee of $1.69 per animal unit month (AUM)¹⁰⁶ on about 139 million and 77 million acres of land respectively. Conservation groups, among others, generally seek increased fees to recover program costs or approximate market value, whereas livestock producers who use federal lands want to keep fees low to sustain ranching and rural economies.

The BLM and FS issue permits and/or leases to ranchers that specify the terms and conditions for grazing on agency lands. Permits and leases generally cover a 10-year period and may be renewed. Congress has considered whether to extend the permit/lease length (e.g., to 20 years) to strengthen the predictability and continuity of operations. Longer permit terms have been opposed as potentially reducing the opportunities to analyze the impact of grazing on lands and resources.

The effect of livestock grazing on rangelands has been part of a debate on the health and productivity of rangelands. Due to environmental concerns, some recent measures would restrict or eliminate grazing, for instance, through voluntary retirement of permits and leases and subsequent closure of the allotments to grazing. These efforts are opposed by those who support ranching on the affected lands for not only environmental but lifestyle and economic reasons. Another focus of the discussion on range health and productivity is the spread of invasive and noxious weeds. (See "Invasive Species" section below.)

There is continued congressional interest in management of wild horses and burros, which are protected on BLM and FS lands under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971.¹⁰⁷ Under the act, the agencies inventory horse and burro populations on their lands to determine appropriate management levels (AMLs). While the agencies are authorized to remove animals exceeding the range's carrying capacity, currently both BLM and FS have populations exceeding their national AMLs. Most of the animals are on BLM lands. BLM estimates AML at 26,684 wild horses and burros, and it estimates population at 49,209. Off the range, BLM provides funds to care for approximately 48,335 additional wild horses and burros in short-term corrals and long-term (pasture) holding facilities.

The agencies use a variety of methods to meet AML, including programs to adopt and sell animals; care for animals in holding; administer fertility control; and, most recently, establish ecosanctuaries. Questions for Congress include the sufficiency of these authorities for managing wild horses and burros. Another controversial question is whether the agencies should humanely destroy excess animals, as required under law, or whether Congress should continue to prohibit funds from being used to slaughter healthy animals. Additional issues center on the costs of management, particularly the relatively high cost of caring for animals in holding. Also, some recent proposals have focused on options for keeping animals on the range, such as by expanding areas for herds and changing the method for determining AML.

CRS Products

CRS Products

CRS Report IF10151, Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act: Overview and Issues, by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Products

CRS Products

In the ongoing energy debate in Congress, one issue has been whether to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northeastern Alaska—and if so, under what conditions—or whether to continue prohibiting development to protect the area's biological, recreational, and subsistence values.¹⁰⁹ ANWR is rich in fauna, flora, and oil and natural gas potential, but energy development is currently prohibited by law.¹¹⁰ Its development has been debated for more than 50 years, and sharp periodic increases in energy prices have intensified the debate at times. Low energy prices, such as those currently being experienced, negate the short-term incentives for developing ANWR because Alaskan production is relatively costly. According to the American Petroleum Institute, in 2009 Alaskan drilling costs were nearly 18 times higher than drilling costs in the lower 48 states. This debate has been given new impetus in 2015 by a presidential proposal to designate the area as wilderness. If approved by Congress, this designation would reinforce the existing prohibition on energy development, and it would be an additional law requiring repeal if energy development were to be allowed.

CRS Product

CRS Report RL33872, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): A Primer for the 114^th Congress, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Products

CRS Report R43868, The National Trails System: A Brief Overview, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Product

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) authorizes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to designate specific areas for protection of their ecological, aesthetic, historical, cultural, scientific, or educational qualities.¹¹⁸ The NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries serves as the trustee for 13 sanctuaries designated under the NMSA and the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument.¹¹⁹ Sanctuaries and monuments are located in U.S. coastal and offshore waters including the Great Lakes and sometimes include state or territorial as well as federal waters.¹²⁰ Each site was designated for specific reasons such as protecting cultural artifacts, specific species such as humpback whales, or entire ecosystems. The NMSA requires the development and implementation of management plans for each sanctuary. The management plan provides the basis for managing or limiting incompatible activities.

At most of these sites, questions related to developing or amending management plans have focused on which activities are incompatible with the purposes of the designation and how incompatible activities will be limited. Some observers question whether the overriding purpose of the NMSA is to preserve and protect marine areas or to create multiple use management areas.¹²¹ Although this remains an open question, most agree that the designation and management of sanctuaries will continue to inspire debate over the role of marine protected areas.

In 2006, Papahānaumokuākea National Monument (362,075 square kilometers [sq. km]) became the first of four large marine national monuments to be designated in the Pacific under the Antiques Act (see "National Monuments and the Antiquities Act" section, above). In 2009, President Bush designated three more national marine national monuments, including Rose Atoll (34,800 sq. km), Marianas Trench (250,487 sq. km), and the Pacific Remote Islands (1,057,761 sq. km). In 2014, the Remote Pacific Islands National Monument was expanded to include waters out to 200 nautical miles from the shore of Jarvis and Wake Islands and Johnston Atoll.¹²² All four marine national monuments are managed cooperatively by the Department of Commerce (NOAA) and the Department of the Interior (FWS). Other management partners include the State of Hawaii for Papahānaumokuākea; Department of Defense (DOD), Department of State, and the government of American Samoa for Rose Island Atoll; the government of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and DOD for the Marianas Trench; and DOD for the Remote Pacific Islands.

CRS Product

CRS Report RL32154, Marine Protected Areas: An Overview, by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Products

CRS Product

Congressional activity regarding wildfire management typically peaks during the fire season, and during the early part of the budget process.¹³⁸ Legislative issues for Congress include oversight of the agencies' fire management activities and other wildland management practices that have altered fuel loads over time; consideration of programs and processes for reducing fuel loads; rising wildfire suppression costs; and federal roles and responsibilities for wildfire protection and damages, including supplemental appropriations to deal with these issues. Another issue is the impact of the expanding wildland-urban interface (WUI) which has increased the wildfire threat to people and houses. Approximately 10% of all land within the lower 48 states is classified as WUI.

There is also congressional interest in FS air tanker readiness and efficacy,¹³⁹ specifically the planning for aviation resources given wildfire projections, the number and age of available air tanker units, and the contract process to place the units in service. FS aviation assessments conclude that additional resources are needed, but differ on the type, quantity, and cost of these resources.¹⁴⁰ In 2013, FS awarded contracts with five companies to supply the agency with new air tankers over the next five years.¹⁴¹ In 2014, Congress authorized FS to receive aircraft transferred from DOD and the Department of Homeland Security for wildfire suppression,¹⁴² and the 2014 farm bill authorized FS to establish an airtanker and aerial asset leasing program.¹⁴³ Further, the FY2015 funding bill provided FS with an additional $65 million to acquire aircraft to "enhance firefighting mobility, effectiveness, efficiency, and safety."¹⁴⁴

CRS Products

CRS Report R43077, Wildfire Management: Federal Funding and Related Statistics, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RS21880, Wildfire Protection in the Wildland-Urban Interface, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report R40811, Wildfire Fuels and Fuel Reduction, by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report R41858, Federal Assistance for Wildfire Response and Recovery, by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RL30755, Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection, by [author name scrubbed].

Author Contact Information

Footnotes

For a comprehensive listing of CRS products on federal land issues, see CRS Issues Before Congress, Energy, Environment, and Resources: Federal Lands at http://www.crs.gov/pages/subissue.aspx?cliid=314&parentid=2522&preview=False.

Total federal land in the United States is not definitively known. In 2013, the four major federal land management agencies managed a total of 608.9 million acres in the United States (611.0 million acres including territorial acreage). For historical information on acres managed by the four agencies and the Department of Defense, by state, see CRS Report R42346, Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data.

In this report, the term federal land is used to refer to any land owned (fee simple title) and managed by the federal government, regardless of its mode of acquisition or managing agency; it excludes lands administered by a federal agency under easements, leases, contracts, or other arrangements. Acreage totals also exclude federal lands for which the federal land management agency (FLMA) has secondary jurisdiction (another federal agency has primary jurisdiction and the lands are counted with that agency).

This report focuses on federal land managed by the four major FMLAs and the Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management. Issues related to land management by other agencies, such as the Department of Defense, are covered in other CRS products.

It is not uncommon to see statutory references to "federal waters," "U.S. EEZ" and "U.S. OCS." These terms might be used interchangeably in some policy contexts; however, most experts caution that each term can refer to a distinct geographical area.

For more information, see CRS Report RL34267, Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority and the History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention.

The remaining surface federal lands are managed by various agencies, including the Department of Defense, the U.S. Postal Service, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Department of Energy. Throughout the report, the term land management may include submerged land management where appropriate.

Table 1, Forest Service, Land Areas Report, as of September 30, 2014, http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar/LAR2014/lar2014index.html.

P.L. 86-517; 16 U.S.C. §§528-531.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-577; 16. U.S.C. §§1131-1136) established wilderness as a management responsibility for all of the federal land management agencies.

16 U.S.C. §531(a).

P.L. 93-378; 16 U.S.C. §1600, et seq.

P.L. 94-588, 16 U.S.C. §1600, et seq.

These two agencies were the Grazing Service, established in 1934 to administer grazing on public rangelands, and the General Land Office, established in 1812 to oversee the disposal of the federal lands. For more information, see Paul W. Gates, History of Public Land Law Development, written for the Public Land Law Review Commission (Washington, DC: GPO, Nov. 1968), pp. 610-622.

P.L. 94-579; 43 U.S.C. §1701, et seq.

Exec. Order No. 1014 (March 13, 1903).

This total includes the Hanford Reach National Monument (WA; 32,965 acres), which is administered by FWS but is not part of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

FWS manages these areas in coordination with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. See "National Marine " section in this report for more information on marine national monuments.

Act of August 25, 1916; 16 U.S.C. §§1-4.

For a discussion of the different park titles, see CRS Report R41816, National Park System: What Do the Different Park Titles Signify?, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. Ten units were added to the system during the 113^th Congress, including three units proclaimed by the President as national monuments and another seven units established by Congress in P.L. 113-291 of December 2014. (P.L. 113-291 also redesignated two of the presidentially proclaimed monuments as national historical parks and made other changes to the National Park System.)

52.4 million acres, 66% of NPS total.

Order No. 3299, issued by Former Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar issued on May 19, 2010.

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) was established in 1982 after congressional committees held a number of hearings in 1981 documenting persistent problems with management of offshore energy programs. United States Commission on Fiscal Accountability of the Nation's Energy Resources, Fiscal Accountability of the Nation's Energy Resources (Washington, GPO, 1982). In June 2010, former Interior secretary Ken Salazar changed the name of the agency to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE). See DOI Secretarial Order 3302, June 18, 2010, at http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=35872.

43 U.S.C. §1331 et. seq. Generally, the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) begins 3-9 nautical miles from shore (depending on the state) and extends 200 nautical miles outward, or farther if the continental shelf extends beyond 200 miles; see 43 U.S.C. §1331(a). Federal jurisdiction can be subject to principles of international law. After 1978, the OCSLA statutory framework incorporated certain requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §4321). Separately, the United States declared its EEZ, extending no more than 200 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline, in Presidential Proclamation No. 5030, 48 Federal Register 10605 (March 14, 1983). For more information, see NOAA, "What Is the EEZ?", at http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/eez.html.

Not all of these acres contain energy resources.

P.L. 90-401 and P.L. 94-422, respectively. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is authorized to receive $900 million per year from OCS revenues, and the Historic Preservation Fund is authorized to receive $150 million per year. Other OCS revenues are deposited in various accounts designated for states, other programs, and the General Treasury.

Each agency emphasizes a different mission. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement is responsible for safety permitting and environmental enforcement, and the Office of Natural Resources and Revenue is responsible for collecting, auditing, and disbursing public revenues from offshore projects.

43 U.S.C. §1344. The current Five Year Program went into effect August 27, 2012, and is expected to remain in effect until 2017. 77 Federal Register 40080 (July 6, 2012).

P.L. 109-58, §388(a).    

Others have argued that the equal footing doctrine relates to federal land ownership, although no court has ever supported that theory. The term equal footing comes from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and state enabling acts included the phrase that the state was admitted "into the Union on an equal Footing with the original States (See, e.g., Nevada Enabling Act, 13 Stat. 30). The U.S. Supreme Court has further clarified that equal footing does not mean, however, that physical or economic situations among states must be the same.

U.S. Const. Article IV, Section 3, cl. 2.

U.S. Const. Article VI, cl. 2.

See United States v. San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16, 29 (1940) and Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 542-43.

For example, Utah's enabling act (Act of July 16, 1984, §3, 28 Stat. 107) and Arizona's enabling act (Act of June 20, 1910, §20, 36 Stat. 568) respectively, provided that "the people inhabiting proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof ."

For more information, see CRS Legal Sidebar "State Claims to Federal Lands Within Their Boundaries," at http://www.crs.gov/LegalSidebar/details.aspx?ID=291.

43 U.S.C. §1715(a).

16 U.S.C. §715 et seq. The Migratory Bird Conservation Act permanently authorized and appropriated a fund supported through the sale of hunting and conservation stamps, import duties on arms and ammunition, and a portion of certain refuge entrance fees.

For an overview of appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, see CRS Report R43617, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations, by [author name scrubbed]. For products pertaining to funding for individual agencies and programs in the Interior bill, see CRS Issues Before Congress, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies' Appropriations at http://www.crs.gov/pages/subissue.aspx?cliid=2346&parentid=73&preview=False.

A program, commonly referred to as Impact Aid, supports local schools based on the presence of children of federal employees, including military dependents. It provides some support to local governments however, and to some extent it compensates for lost property tax revenue when military families live on federally owned land. For more information, see CRS Report RL33960, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act: A Primer, by [author name scrubbed].

30 U.S.C. §181.

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. §§1331 et. seq.).

P.L. 109-432.

The four states are Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of September 3, 1964; P.L. 88-578, 78 Stat. 897. 16 U.S.C. §§460l-4, et seq.

However, monies provided to the state grant program under §105, Division C, P.L. 109-432 are permanently appropriated.

These figures are estimated through FY2015.

This definition is taken from the Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 6, p. 31, available on the website of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board at http://www.fasab.gov/pdffiles/sffas-6.pdf.

The FY2013 estimate for FS is the most recent readily available at publication of this report.

This report does not address the causes of multi-decadal climate change. For more discussion of climate change science, see National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, Washington DC, 2010. See also CRS Report R43229, Climate Change Science: Key Points, by [author name scrubbed].

Gregory T. Pederson, Stephen T. Gray, and Daniel B. Fagre, Long-Duration Drought Variability and Impacts on Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from Glacier National Park, Montana, U.S. Geologic Survey, Earth Interactions, Volume 10, Paper 4., January 2006, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/pederson2006/pederson2006.html.

The Mining in the Parks Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. §§1901 et seq.) closed all NPS units to the location of new mining claims, although existing claims must still be honored (see 36 C.F.R. Part 9B). P.L. 95-495 §11(a) is an example of a wilderness designation that withdrew the area from mining and mineral exploration.

Onshore data from the BLM Oil and Gas Statistics at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en.html. Offshore data from BOEM's Combined Leasing Status Report, February 2, 2015 at http://www.boem.gov.

In total, federal oil and gas active leases number 46,123 onshore and 6,056 in the OCS.

BLM, "Coal Operations" and "Federal Coal Leasing," at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/coal_and_non-energy.html.

BLM, "New Energy for America," at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/renewable_energy.html.

The general statutory framework for solar and wind energy development on federal lands is contained within Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, under its provisions for rights-of-way (ROW) grants (43 U.S.C. 1761).

Budget Justifications, Bureau of Land Management, FY2016, p. VII-93.

30 U.S.C. §181.

Exceptions include most BLM and FS lands classified as wilderness, lands incorporated in cities and towns, and lands that have otherwise been administratively or statutorily withdrawn from entry.

P.L. 109-58.

For further information, see CRS Report R40806, Energy Projects on Federal Lands: Leasing and Authorization, by [author name scrubbed].

U.S. Departments of the Interior, of Agriculture, and of Energy, Inventory of Onshore Federal Oil and Natural Gas Resources and Restrictions to Their Development (Phase III), May 2008, available on the BLM website at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/EPCA_III.html. The availability of public lands for oil and gas leasing can be divided into three categories: lands open under standard lease terms, open to leasing with restrictions, and closed to leasing.

77 Fed. Reg. 27691, May 11, 2012, and 78 Fed. Reg. 31636, May 24, 2013.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Final Agency Draft, 4310-84P, Oil and Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands. 43 C.F.R. §Part 3160.

Bureau of Land Management, "Average Application for Permit to Drill (APD) Approval Timeframes: FY2005-FY2012," http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/statistics/apd_chart.html.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Year Two Report: Section 365 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005—Pilot Project to Improve Federal Permit Coordination (Feb. 2008).

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Coal Leasing: BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal Exports, and Provide More Public Information, GAO-14-140, December 2013, http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/659801.pdf.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Coal Management Program, CR-EV-BLM-0001-2012, June 11, 2013, http://www.doi.gov/oig/reports/upload/CR-EV-BLM-0001-2012Public.pdf.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Natural Resources Revenue Office, "Consolidated Federal Oil and Gas and Federal and Indian Coal Valuation Reform," 80 Federal Register 2014-30033, posted January 6, 2015.

As of April 1, 2015, 29 states and the District of Columbia have enforceable renewable portfolio standards and 8 states have voluntary goals for renewable generation. See http://www.dsireusa.org/resources/detailed-summary-maps/.

30 U.S.C. §§1001-1028.

BLM and Forest Service, Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States, BLM-WO-GI-09-003-1800, December 2008, http://www.blm.gov/Geothermal_EIS.

BLM geothermal energy website, http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/geothermal.html, accessed March 2015.

Budget Justification, BLM FY2013.

43 U.S.C. §§1761-1771.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Eagle Permits; Changes in the Regulations Governing Eagle Permitting, 50 C.F.R. Parts 13 and 22.

BLM, "Segregation of Lands-Renewable Energy," 78 Fed. Reg. 25204, April 30, 2013.

Bureau of Land Management, "Competitive processes, terms, and conditions for leasing public lands for solar and wind energy development and technical changes and corrections; proposed rule," 79 Federal Register 59022, September 29, 2014.

BLM Fact Sheet, Renewable Energy and the BLM, Wind, Updated May 2014.

These six states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. BLM Fact Sheet, Renewable Energy and the BLM: Solar, Updated September 2013.

BLM Fact Sheet, Renewable Energy: Solar, Updated May 2014.

For more information, see the FS Deerfield Wind Energy Development Special Use Permit EIS webpage: http://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/fs-usda-pop.php?project=7838.

Woody biomass is defined by FS and BLM as the trees and woody plants, including limbs, tops, needles, leaves, and other woody parts, grown in a forest, woodland, or rangeland environment that are the byproducts of forest management.

For more information on the renewable fuel standard, see CRS Report R43325, The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): In Brief , by [author name scrubbed] and CRS Report R40155, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Overview and Issues, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

See for example, Memorandum of Understanding on Policy Principles for Woody Biomass Utilization for Restoration and Fuel Treatments in Forests, Woodlands, and Rangelands, June 2003, http://www.fs.fed.us/woodybiomass/documents/BiomassMOU_060303_final_web.pdf and Forest Service, Woody Biomass Utilization Desk Guide, September 2007, http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/Woody_Biomass/documents/biomass_deskguide.pdf.

See for example, http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/Woody_Biomass/opportunities.shtml.

Management of non-locatable minerals (e.g., sand, gravel, and stone) on federal lands is governed by the Materials Act of 1947.

The fees are to be adjusted every five years based on the Consumer Price Index (30 U.S.C. 28 j (c)).

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, "Required Fees for Mining Claims or Sites," 79 Federal Register 36662, June 30, 2014.

Budget Justifications, BLM, FY2015.

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. §1331 et. seq.) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §4321).

Congress addresses multiple issues related to access, including revenue sharing with states, adequacy of environmental reviews, timetables for drilling permitting, operational safety, receipts and disbursements, and research needs.

For example, President Obama has issued several presidential memoranda that prohibit energy development in certain ocean areas, mostly in Alaska. On March 31, 2010, he issued a presidential memorandum directing the Secretary of the Interior to place the Bristol Bay area within the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area in Alaska off-limits until June 30, 2017. Later, on December 16, 2014, he issued a presidential memorandum declaring the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area (including Bristol Bay) off limits indefinitely. Additionally, in January 2015, President Obama issued a presidential memorandum directing the Secretary of the Interior to indefinitely withdraw certain areas within the Beaufort Sea Planning Area and the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, offshore Alaska.

43 U.S.C. §1341.

Presidential Memorandum, "Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United States Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition," December 16, 2014, at  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/12/16/presidential-memorandum-withdrawal-certain-areas-united-states-outer-con; and Presidential Memorandum, "Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United States Outer Continental Shelf Offshore Alaska from Leasing Disposition," January 27, 2015, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/27/presidential-memorandum-withdrawal-certain-areas-united-states-outer-con.

P.L. 109-58. For more information about deployment of renewable energy projects, see http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/Smart-from-the-Start/Index.aspx. Estimates of OCS energy resources are available from a variety of sources, including BOEM, the Energy Information Administration, and industry sources. Due to the maturity of the offshore oil and gas sector, information supporting oil and gas reserve and resource estimates is often more robust than information about renewable resources. For a complete analysis of OCS resources, see CRS Report R40645, U.S. Offshore Oil and Gas Resources: Prospects and Processes, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

The remaining 4.7 million acres contain of national grasslands, land utilization projects, purchase units, and research and experimental areas. Table 1, Forest Service, Land Areas Report, as of September 30, 2014, http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar/LAR2014/lar2014index.html.

Forest Service, Cut and Sold Reports, available at http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/products/sold-harvest/cut-sold.shtml.

The Oregon & California Railroad Lands Act of 1937, also known as the Act of August 28, 1937, ch. 876, 16 U.S.C. §§1181a et seq.

Email from BLM Legislative Affairs staff, January, 2015.

P.L. 95-514, 92 Stat. 1803; 43 U.S.C. §§1901, 1905. Executive Order 12548, 51 Fed. Reg. 5985 (February 19, 1986).

BLM defines an AUM, for fee purposes, as a month's use and occupancy of the range by one animal unit, which includes one yearling, one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats. The FS uses head-month (HD-MO) as its measurement for use and occupancy of FS lands. AUM is used in this report to cover both HD-MO and AUM.

16 U.S.C. §§1331 et seq.

P.L. 108-447, 16 U.S.C. §§6801-6814.

For more information, see CRS Report RL33872, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): A Primer for the 114^th Congress.

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA, P.L. 96-487, §1003; 16 U.S.C. 3143).

P.L. 90-542, 16 U.S.C. §1271 et seq.

P.L. 90-543; 16 U.S.C. §1241 et seq.

See, for example, H.R. 3022 and S. 2346 in the 113^th Congress. Similar bills were introduced in previous Congresses.

16 U.S.C. §431.

Ibid.

16 U.S.C. §431a.

16 U.S.C. §3213.

National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 16 U.S.C. §1431 et seq.

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary is located in the Great Lakes.

There are no national marine sanctuaries or monuments in federal or state waters adjacent to Alaska.

William L. Chandler and Hannah Gillelan, "The History and Evolution of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act," Environmental Law Reporter, vol. 34 (2004), pp. 10506-10565.

For Baker and Howland Islands, Kingman Reef, and Palmyra Atoll the seaward boundary has not been changed from 50 nautical miles.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. §668dd et seq.

Personal communication between Laura Comay of CRS and NPS (Chris Powell, Senior Congressional Affairs Specialist) and BLM (Division of Legislative Affairs), February 2014; Personal communication between [author name scrubbed] of CRS and. FS (Tony Edwards, Legislative Affairs Specialist), February 2014; Personal communication between Lynne Corn of CRS and FWS (Martin Kodis, Deputy Chief, Division of Congressional and Legislative Affairs), February 2014.

The BLM estimate is derived from testimony in the 112^th Congress on H.R. 3440, H.R. 2834, and H.R. 1444 regarding recreational shooting and hunting, and personal communication between BLM and Carol Hardy-Vincent of CRS, February 2014. The FS estimate is from personal communication between [author name scrubbed] of CRS and Tony Edwards, FS Legislative Affairs Specialist, February 2014.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, April 2013, http://www.fws.gov/refuges/about/pdfs/RecreationFactSheetApril2013.pdf.

Personal communication between Laura Comay of CRS and Chris Powell, NPS Senior Congressional Affairs Specialist, February 21, 2014. Units may be completely open to hunting or fishing, or these activities may be permitted only in portions of the unit.

P.L. 93-205, as amended; 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543.

16 U.S.C. §1536(a).

A more detailed discussion of the major provisions of ESA is provided in CRS Report RL31654, The Endangered Species Act: A Primer, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

For example, see Randy G. Westbrooks, Invasive Plants: Changing the Landscape of America, Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Invasive Weeds, Washington, DC, 1998, p. 5.

For an example of prevention efforts, see those at Mammoth Cave National Park, where the fungus has already been found: http://www.nps.gov/maca/whitenose.htm.

For more information on wildfire damages to homes and resources, see CRS Report RL34517, Wildfire Damages to Homes and Resources: Understanding Causes and Reducing Losses, by [author name scrubbed].

Preparedness is any activity that leads to a safe, efficient and cost-effective fire management program, as well as the range of tasks necessary to build, sustain, and improve the capability to protect against, respond to, and recover from domestic incidents. Suppression is all of the work associated with extinguishing or confining a fire. Fuel reduction is manipulation, including combustion, or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition and/or to lessen potential damage and resistance to control. Site rehabilitation is efforts undertaken generally within three years of a wildfire to repair or improve fire damaged lands unlikely to recover to a management approved condition, or to repair or replace minor facilities damaged by fire.

The acreage burned in 2012 was the third largest acreage burned annually based on historical fire statistics, which were first reported in 1960. The first and second largest fire year on record for acres burned was 2006 and 2007, respectively. National Interagency Fire Center, Total Wildland Fires and Acres (2014); http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html and National Interagency Fire Center, Wildland Fire Summary and Statistics Annual Report (2014), http://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2014_Statssumm/intro_summary14.pdf.

Wildfire management is funded under the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill. For more information on federal funding for wildfire management, see CRS Report R43077, Wildfire Management: Federal Funding and Related Statistics, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed], and CRS Report RL33990, Federal Funding for Wildfire Control and Management, by [author name scrubbed].

Ibid.

The fires season generally starts in mid- or late summer and ends in mid- or late fall. Factors such as wind, drought, precipitation events from the previous year, and more contribute to the length and severity of the fire season.

National Defense Authorization Act, FY2014 (P.L. 113-66 §1098).

Agricultural Act of 2014; P.L. 113-79 §8305.

Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, P.L. 113-235 Division F.