• Contents

  Introduction
• Historical Background
• Current Federal Land Management
• Agencies
• Bureau of Land Management
• Forest Service
• U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• National Park Service
• Department of Defense
• Federal Land Ownership, 2018
• 2024 Federal Land Ownership Changes, 1990-2018
• 2024 Current Issues
• Extent of Ownership
• Western Land Concentration
• Maintaining Infrastructure and Lands
• Protection and Use
• Border Security

2024 Summary

The federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, about 28% of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. Four major federal land management agencies administer 606.58 million acres of this land (as of September 30, 20182024). They are the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture. A fifth agency, the Department of Defense (excluding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), administers 8.8 million acres in the United States (as of September 30, 2017), consisting of military bases, training ranges, and moreDOD, which is currently "using a secondary Department of War designation" under Executive Order 14347), administers 8.4 million acres in the United States. Together, the five agencies manage about 615.32 million acres, or 2796% of the U.S. land basefederal acreage. Many other agencies administer the remaining 4% of federal acreage.

lands. The lands administered by the four major agencies are managed for many purposes, primarily related to preservation, recreation, and development of natural resources. Yet the agencies have distinct responsibilities. The BLM manages 244.4 million acres and the FS manages 192.9193.1 million acres under similar multiple-use, sustained-yield mandates that support a variety of activities and programs. The FWS manages 89.23 million acres of the U.S. total, primarily to conserve and protect animals and plants. In FY2018, the NPS managed 79.9The NPS manages 80.1 million acres in 417434 diverse units to conserve lands and resources and make them available for public use. The 8.84 million acres of DOD lands are managed primarily for military training and testing.

The amount and percentage of federally owned land in each state vary widely, ranging from 0.3% of land (in Connecticut and Iowa) to 80.179.8% of land (in Nevada). However, federalFederal land ownership is concentrated in Alaska (60.98%) and 11 coterminous western states (45.9%), in contrast with lands in the other states (4.1%). This western concentration has contributed to a higher degree of controversy over federal land ownership and use in that part of the country.

Throughout America's history, federalthe history of the United States, land laws have sought to dispose of some federal lands while keeping others in federal ownership. During the 19^th century, many laws encouraged western settlement through federal land disposal. Mostly in the 20^th century, emphasis shifted to retention of federal lands. Congress has provided the agencies with varying land acquisition and disposal authorities, ranging from restricted (narrow (the NPS) to broad (the BLM). As a result of acquisitions and disposals, from 1990 to 20182024, total federal land ownership by the five agencies declined by 31.57 million acres (4.9%), from 646.9 million acres to 615.32 million acres. Much of the decline is due to BLM land disposals in Alaska and reductions in DOD ownership in favor of other legal arrangements. By contrast, land ownership by the NPS, FWS, and FS increased over the 28-year periodsince 1990. Further, 1516 states had decreases of federal land during this period and the other states had varying increases.

while 34 states and the District of Columbia had increases. Numerous issues affecting federal land management are beforecontinue to face Congress. One set of issues relates to the extent of federal ownership and whether to decrease, maintain, or increase the amount of federal holdings; the concentration of federal lands in the West; the suitability and use of acquisition and disposal authorities; and the amount, type, and location of use of acquisition funding. A second issue is the priority of acquiring new lands versus addressing the condition of current federal infrastructure. The $19.3845.16 billion maintenance backlog of the four major land management agencies in FY2025 is a factor in the debatefor congressional consideration. A third focus is the optimal balance between land protection and use (e.g., for energy development, livestock grazing, recreation, and other purposes), and. Part of this debate involves whether federal lands should be managed primarily to benefit the nation as a whole or to benefit the localities and states in which the federal lands are located. Fourth, border control on federal lands, particularly along the southwestern border, presents particularspecific challenges. This is due to the length of the border, differing agency missions, and divergent views on immigration and constructing border barriers.

Today the

Introduction

Ownership and use of federal lands have stirred controversy for decades.⁴ Conflicting public values concerning federal lands raise many questions and issues, including the extent to which the federal government should own land;

The U.S. Constitution expressly vests Congress with authority over federal lands. Article IV, Section 3, clause 2, empowers Congress to dispose of and regulate all federal property. The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that this means Congress's power over federal lands is virtually unlimited.⁶

Historical Background

11 Judicial challenges and legislative and executive efforts generally have not resulted in broad changes to the level of federal ownership. Historical Background Federal lands and resources have played a significant role in American history, adding to the strength and stature of the federal government, serving as an attraction and opportunity for settlement and economic development, and providing a source of revenue for schools, transportation, national defense, and other national, state, and local needs.

The formation of the U.S. federal government was particularly influenced by the struggle for control over what were then known as the "western" lands—the lands between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River that were claimed by the original colonies. The original states reluctantly ceded the lands to the developing new government. This cession, together with granting constitutional powers to the new federal government, including the authority to regulate federal property and to create new states, played a crucial role in transforming the weak central government under the Articles of Confederation into a stronger, centralized federal government under the U.S. Constitution.¹²

Subsequent federal land laws sought to reserve some federal lands for particular purposes (such as for national forests and national parks) and to sell or otherwise dispose of other lands to raise money or encourage transportation, development, and settlement. From the earliest days, these options took on East/West overtones, with easterners more likely to view thefederal lands as national public property, and westerners more likely to view the lands as necessary for local use and development.¹³ Most agreed, however, on measures that promoted settlement of the lands to pay soldiers, to reduce the national debt, and to strengthen the nation. This settlement trend accelerated with federal acquisition of additional territory through the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the Oregon Compromise with England in 1846, and cession of lands by treaty after the Mexican War in 1848.⁵

14 In the mid-to-late 1800s, Congress enacted many laws to encourage and accelerate the settlement of the West by disposing of federal lands. Examples include the Homestead Act of 1862 and the Desert Lands Entry Act of 1877. Approximately 1.29 billion acres of public domain land was transferred out of federal ownership between 1781 and 20182024. The total included transfers of 816 million acres to private ownership (individuals, railroads, etc.), 328 million acres to states generally, and 143144 million acres in Alaska under state and Native selection laws.⁶15 Most transfers to private ownership (97%) occurred before 1940; homestead entries, for example, peaked in 1910 at 18.3 million acres butand dropped below 200,000 acres annually after 1935, until being fully eliminated in 1986.⁷

16 Although several earlier laws had protected some lands and resources, such as salt deposits and certain timber for military use, new laws in the late 1800s reflected the growing concern that rapid development threatened some of the scenic treasures of the nation, as well as resources that would be needed for future use. A preservation and conservation movement evolved to ensure that certain lands and resources were left untouched or reserved for future use. For example, Yellowstone National Park was established in 1872 to preserve its resources in a natural condition, and to dedicate recreation opportunities for the public. It was the world's first national park,⁸17 and like the other early parks, Yellowstone was protected by the U.S. Army—primarily from poachers of wildlife or timber. In 1891, concern over the effects of timber harvests on water supplies and downstream flooding led to the creation of forest reserves (renamed national forests in 1907).

18 Emphasis shifted during the 20^th century from the disposal and conveyance of title to private citizens to the retention and management of the remaining federal lands. During debates on the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934,⁹19 some western Members of Congress acknowledged the poor prospects for relinquishing federal lands to the states, but language included in the act left disposal as a possibility. It was not until the enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) that Congress expressly declared that the remaining public domain lands generally would remain in federal ownership.¹⁰20 This declaration of permanent federal land ownership was a significant factor in what became known as the Sagebrush Rebellion, an effort that started in the late 1970s 1970s and 1980s to strengthen state or local control over federal land and management decisions. Recently, there has beenIn the second decade of the 21^st century, there was renewed interest in some western states in assuming ownership of some federal lands within their borders. This21 That interest stemsstemmed in part from concerns about the extent, condition, and cost of federal land ownership and the type and amount of land uses and revenue derived from federal lands. Judicial challenges and legislative and executive efforts generally have not resulted in broad changes to the level of federal ownership. Current authorities for acquiring and disposing of federal lands are unique to each agency.¹¹

Current Federal Land Management

The creation of national parks and forest reserves laid the foundation for the current federal agencies whose primary purposes are managing natural resources on federal lands—the BLM, FS, FWS, and NPS. These four agencies were created at different times, and their missions and purposes differ. As noted, DOD is the fifth-largest land management agency, withA fifth agency, the DOD, manages lands consisting of military bases, training ranges, and more. These five agencies, which together manage about 9695% of all federal land, are described below. Numerous other federal agencies—the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation,¹² Post Office, the22 U.S. Postal Service, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Energy, and many more—each administer relatively small amounts of additional federal lands.

Agencies¹³

23 Bureau of Land Management

The BLM was formed in 1946 by combining two existing agencies.¹⁴24 One was the Grazing Service (first known as the DOI Grazing Division), established in 1934 to administer grazing on public rangelands. The other was the General Land Office, which had been created in 1812 to oversee disposal of the federal lands.¹⁵ The BLM currently administers25 As of September 30, 2024, the BLM administered 244.4 million acres, more federal lands in the United States than any other agency. BLM lands are heavily concentrated (more than 99%) in the 11 contiguous western states and Alaska.¹⁶

26 As defined in FLPMA,¹⁷ enacted in 1976,²⁷ BLM management responsibilities are similar to those of the FS—sustained yields of multiple uses, including recreation, grazing, timber, energy and minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish habitat, and conservation. However, each agency historically has emphasized different uses. For instance, more rangelands are managed by the BLM, while most federal forests are managed by the FS. In addition, the BLM administers more than 700 million acres of federal subsurface mineral estate throughout the nation, including the subsurface of other federally owned lands and some privately owned surface lands.²⁸ U.S. .¹⁸

Forest Service

The FS is the oldest of the four federal land management agencies. It was established in the Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1905 and is charged with conducting forestry research, providing assistance to nonfederal forest owners, and managing the National Forest System (NFS).¹⁹ Today, the FS administers 192.929 As of September 30, 2024, the FS administered 193.1 million acres of land in the United States,²⁰30 predominantly in the West, while also managing about three-fifths of all federal lands in the East (as shown in Table 5).

The first forest reserves—later renamed national forests—originally were authorized to protect the lands, preserve water flows, and provide timber. These purposes were expanded in the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960.²¹31 This act added recreation, livestock grazing, and wildlife and fish habitat as purposes of the national forests, with wilderness added in 1964.²²32 The 1960 act directed that these multiple uses be managed in a "harmonious and coordinated" manner "in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people."³³ The act also directed the FS to manage 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.

34 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The first national wildlife refuge was established by executive order in 1903, although it was not until 1966 that the refuges were aggregated into the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) administered by the FWS.²³35 The NWRS includes wildlife refuges, national monument areas, waterfowl production areas, and wildlife coordination units. Outside of the NWRS, the FWS administers lands for administrative sites, National Fish Hatcheries, and national monument areas. In total, as of September 30, 2024, the FWS administered 89.3, the FWS administers 89.2 million acres of federal land in the United States, of which 76.67 million acres (85.9%) arewere in Alaska.²⁴

36 The NWRS's mission is to administer a network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.²⁵37 Other uses (recreation, hunting, timber cutting, oil or gas drilling, etc.) may be permitted, to the extent that they are compatible with the NWRS mission and an individual unit's purpose.²⁶38 However, wildlife-related activities (hunting, bird watching, hiking, education, etc.) are considered "priority uses" and are given priority consideration in refuge planning. It can be challenging to determine compatibility, but theThe relative clarity of the mission generally has minimized conflicts over refuge management and use, although there are exceptions.²⁷

39 National Park Service

The NPS was created in 1916 to manage the growing number of park units established by Congress and monuments proclaimed by the President.²⁸ By40 As of September 30, 20182024, the National Park System had grown to 417434 units with 79.980.1 million acres of federal land in the United States.⁴¹ About two-thirds of the lands (52.5 million acres, or 65. 6%) are in Alaska.²⁹ NPS units have diverse titles—national park, national monument, national preserve, national historic site, national recreation area, national battlefield, and many more.³⁰

42 The NPS has a dual mission—to preserve unique resources and to provide for their enjoyment by the public. Activities that harvest or remove resources from NPS lands generally are prohibited. Park units include spectacular natural areas, unique prehistoric sites, and special places inrelevant to American history, as well as recreational opportunities. The tension between providing recreation and preserving resources has caused many management challenges.

Department of Defense

43 The National Security Act of 1947 established a Department of National Defense (later renamed the Department of Defense, or DOD) by consolidating the previously separate Cabinet-level Department of War (renamed Department of the Army) and Department of the Navy and creating the Department of the Air Force.³¹ Responsibility(P.L. 80-253) established a Department of Defense and placed under its purview three "military departments," including the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the newly created Department of the Air Force.⁴⁴ These military departments retained responsibility for managing the land on federal military reservations was retained by these departments, with some transfer of Army land to the Air Force upon its creation.

There are more than 4,775 As of September 30, 2024, there were more than 4,870 defense sites worldwide on a total of 26.98 million acres of land owned, leased, or otherwise possessed by the DOD.⁴⁵ These sites include traditional military installations and naval port facilities as well as large tracts of land in sparsely populated areas that the DOD uses for training in land and aerial warfare or testing various weapons systems. TheDOD. Of the DOD sites, DOD owns 8.84 million acres in the United States, with individual parcel ownershipsizes ranging from 1 acre to more than a1.5 million acres.³²46 Although management of military reservations remains the responsibility of each of the various military departments andor defense agencies, those secretaries and directors operate under the centralized direction of the Secretary of Defense. With regard to natural resource conservation, defense instruction provides that

in part that a. The principal purpose of DODDoD lands, waters, airspace, and coastal resourcescoastal areas, and nearshore areas is to support mission-related activities. All DOD natural resources conservation program activities shall work to guarantee DOD continued access to its land, air, and water resources for realistic military training and testing and to sustain the long-term ecological integrity of the resource base and the ecosystem services it provides.... DOD shall manage its natural resources to facilitate testing and training, mission readiness, and range sustainability in a long-term, comprehensive, coordinated, and cost-effective manner.³³

Federal Land Ownership, 2018

The 615.3 million acres of federal land in the United States managed by the five major land management agencies represents about 27% of the total land base of 2.27 billion acres. Table 1 provides data on the total and further the national defense strategy.

(1) All DoD natural resources programs should be integrated with the national defense strategy, mission activities, installation planning and programming, and other activities, to the extent practicable.

(2) In accordance with Sections 670 through 670f of Title 16, United States Code (U.S.C.), also known and referred to in this issuance as the "Sikes Act," all DoD Components will manage natural resources to:

(a) Guarantee DoD Components continued access to, with no net loss to the capability and capacity of, DoD lands, waters, airspace, coastal areas, and nearshore areas to perform mission activities.

(b) Sustain the long-term ecological integrity and resilience of DoD lands, waters, airspace, coastal areas, and nearshore areas and ecosystems services.⁴⁷

The DOD has authority under 10 U.S.C. §2667 to lease DOD property to third parties under certain circumstances. In certain circumstances, the DOD may use the General Services Administration (GSA) real property disposition process to dispose of certain property.⁴⁸ Alternatively, Congress has in the past authorized a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission, which has involved a unique DOD-led property disposition process that prioritizes community input in determining the follow-on use for surplus military property.⁴⁹ In some instances, federal statutes may make a distinction between laws governing the use of land that the DOD obtained directly from the public domain compared with "acquired lands" that the DOD purchased or otherwise obtained from a previous nonfederal landowner.⁵⁰

Although 15 states, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam. While 14 eastern or midwestern states and the District of Columbia each contain less than half a million acres of federal land,³⁵ the 1152 11 of the contiguous western states and Alaska each have more than 10 million acres managed by these five agencies within their borders.⁵³ This contrast is apartly the result of early treaties, land settlement laws and patterns, and laws requiring that states agree to surrender any claimclaims to federal lands within their border as a prerequisite for admission to the Union. Management of these lands is oftenborders as conditions of statehood.⁵⁴ As noted, ownership and management of federal lands often has been controversial, especially in states where the federal government is a predominant or majority landholder and where competing andor conflicting uses of the lands are at issue.

Figure 1. Western Federal Lands Managed by Five Agencies

Source: Map boundaries and information generated by CRS using federal lands GIS data from the National Atlas, 2005, and an ESRI USA Base Map. Notes: Scale 1:11,283,485. The line along the coast of California indicates BLM administration of numerous small islands. Also, the map may reflect a broader definition of DOD land than shown in the data in Table 2.

Figure 2. Eastern Federal Lands Managed by Five Agencies

Source: Map boundaries and information generated by CRS using federal lands GIS data from the National Atlas, 2005, and an ESRI USA Base Map. Note: Scale 1:13,293,047. Also, the map may reflect a broader definition of DOD land than shown in the data in Table 2.

Figure 3. Federal Lands in Alaska and Hawaii Managed by Five Agencies

Source: Map boundaries and information generated by CRS using federal lands GIS data from the National Atlas, 2005, and an ESRI USA Base Map. Note: Hawaii scale 1:8,000,000. Alaska scale 1:20,000,000. Also, the map may reflect a broader definition of DOD land than shown in the data in Table 2.

Federal Land Ownership Changes, 1990-2018

Since 1990, total federal lands in the United States have generally declined. Many disposals of areas of federal lands have occurred. At the same time, the federal government has acquired many parcels of land, and there have been various new federal land designations, including wilderness areas and national park units. Through the numerous individual acquisitions and disposals since 1990, the total federal land ownership has declined by 31.5 million acres, or 4.9% of the total of the five agencies, as shown in Table 3.

The total acreage decline reflects decreased acreage for two agencies but b. The FS territories total of 28,929 reflects acreage in Puerto Rico (28,789 acres) and the U.S. Virgin Islands (140 acres). The FWS territories figure of 25,219 includes acreage in America Samoa (1,613 acres), Guam (1,218 acres), Puerto Rico (21,797 acres), and the U.S. Virgin Islands (590 acres). Acreage amounts for FWS-managed land in US territories do not include lands in the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The NPS territories figure of 26,859 reflects acreage in Guam (958 acres), Puerto Rico (53 acres), and the U.S. Virgin Islands (25,848 acres). The DOD territories figure of 171,524 includes acreage in Guam (62,128 acres), Puerto Rico (17,008 acres), the U.S. Virgin Islands (44 acres), Johnston Atoll (684 acres), the Northern Mariana Islands (89,059 acres), and Wake Island (2,600 acres).

Source: Created by CRS using data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2024, Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) 4.1 and U.S. Census Bureau.

Source: Created by CRS using data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2024, Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) 4.1 and U.S. Census Bureau.

Note: Scale 1:17,000,000. BLM = Bureau of Land Management, FS = U.S. Forest Service, FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NPS = National Park Service. PAD-US, 2024 contains data for these land management agencies with differing dates of currency.

Source: Created by CRS using data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2024, Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) 4.1 and U.S. Census Bureau.

Note: Hawaii scale 1:7,500,000, Alaska scale 1:33,000,000, Guam scale 1:900,000, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands scale 1:4,500,000. BLM = Bureau of Land Management, FS = U.S. Forest Service, FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NPS = National Park Service. PAD-US, 2024 contains data for these land management agencies with differing dates of currency.

.⁵⁹ In contrast, the NPS, FWS, and FS expanded their acreage during the period, with the NPS having the largest increase in both acreage and percentage growth─3.8—3.9 million acres (5.02%). In some cases, a decrease in one agency's acreage was tied to an increase in acreage owned by another agency.⁴⁰

2009). The total federal acreage decline (shown in Table 3) is a composite of various decreases in acreage in 1516 states and increases in acreage in 3635 states (including the District of Columbia). A reduction in federal lands in Alaska was a major reason for the total Much of the decline in federal lands since 1990land ownership since 1990 occurred in Alaska. As shown in Table 4, federal land declined in Alaska by 23.03 million acres (9.45%) between 1990 and 20182024. As noted, this decline in Alaska is largely the result of the disposal of BLM land under Alaska-specific laws. Specifically, from 1990 to 2018, BLM land in Alaska declined by 21.1 million acres (22.8%).

BLM land in Alaska declined from 92.5 million acres in 1990 to 71.1 million acres in 2024, a 21.4 million acre (23.1%) decline. Since 1990, federal land also has decreased in the 11 contiguous western states, by 10.7 million acres (3.0%)from 356.0 million in 1990 to 345.5 million in 2024, a 10.5 million acre (2.9%) decline. Reflected in the overall decline are reductions for 6 of the 11 states, with decreases of 6.34 million acres in Arizona, 3.79 million acres in Nevada,⁴¹61 and smaller decreases in four other states. FiveFrom 1990 to 2024, 5 of the 11 states each had increases ranging roughly from 0.2 million acres to 0.5 million acres, with the largest being 0.5 million acres in Colorado.

Outside Alaska and the other western states, federal land increased by 2.1 million acres (4.5%)from 45.2 million acres in 1990 to 47.3 million acres in 2024. This was a 2.1 million acre (4.7%) increase. This increase was not uniform, with declines in some states and varying increases (in acreages and percentage) in others.

Current Issues

Extent of Ownership

or private landowners to foster state, local, and private control over lands and resources.⁶³ Other issues center on the suitability of authorities for acquiring and disposing of lands and their use the use of such authorities in particular areas. Congress has provided to the federal agencies varying authorities for acquiring and disposing of land.⁴³64 With regard to acquisition, the BLM has relatively broad authority, the FWS has various authorities, and the FS authority is mostly limited to lands within or contiguous to the boundaries of a national forest. The DOD also has authority for acquisitions.⁴⁴65 By contrast, the NPS has no general authority to acquire land to create new park units. Condemnation for acquiring land is feasible, but,The five agencies have authority to acquire land by condemnation, but with the exception of DOD, rarely is used by these agencies. Its potential use has been controversial in some cases. this authority has been used rarely by these agencies in recent decades. The primary funding mechanism for federal land acquisition, for the four major federal land management agencies, has been appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).⁴⁵66 For the FWS, the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (provides an additional source of mandatory spending for land acquisition. This fund is supported by sales of Duck Stamps and import taxes on arms and ammunition) provides an additional source of mandatory spending for land acquisition..⁶⁷ Funding for acquisitions by DOD isthe DOD has been provided in DOD appropriations laws. There continue to be different views as to acquisition funding, including the appropriate amount, type (discretionary and/or mandatory), and location of use.

With regard to disposal, the NPS and FWS have no general authority to dispose of the lands they administer, and the FS disposal authorities are restricted. The BLM has broader authority under provisions of FLPMA and other laws, such as the Recreation and Public Purposes Act.⁶⁸ .⁴⁶ DOD lands that are excess to military needs generally can be disposed of under the surplus property process administered by the General Services Administration (GSA). While surplus DOD real property is routinely disposed of by the GSA, legislationLegislation authorizing base realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds typically has authorized the Secretary of Defense to exercise GSA's disposal authorityGSA to delegate its disposal authority to the Secretary of Defense during BRAC rounds.⁴⁷

69 It is not uncommon for Congress to enact legislation providing for the acquisition or disposal of particular lands where an agency lacks such authority or providing particular procedures for specified land transactionsauthority, directing agencies to use existing authority, or modifying the terms and conditions of existing authorities for particular parcels of land. Further, recent Congresses have considered measures to establish or amend broader authorities for acquiring or disposing of land.

70 Western Land Concentration

The concentration of federal lands in the West has contributed to a higher degree of controversy over federal land ownership in that part of the country. For instance71 In particular, the dominance of BLM and FS lands in the western states has led to various efforts to divest the federal government of significant amounts of land. In recent years, some western states, among others, have considered measures to provide for or express support for the transfer of federal lands to states, to establish task forces or commissions to examine federal land transfer issues, and to assert management authority over federal lands. An earlier collection of efforts from the late 1970s and early 1980s, known as the Sagebrush Rebellion, also sought to foster divestiture of federal lands. However, that effort was not successful in achieving this end through legal challenges in the federal courts and efforts to persuade the Reagan Administration and Congress to transfer the lands to state or private ownershipAs noted, the Sagebrush Rebellion in the 1970s and 1980s sought to foster divestiture of federal lands. However, that effort was not successful in achieving this end, either through legal challenges in the federal courts or through efforts to persuade the Reagan Administration and Congress to transfer the lands to state or private ownership. In more recent years, some western states, among others, have considered measures to provide for or express support for the transfer of federal lands to states, to establish task forces or commissions to examine federal land transfer issues, and to assert management authority over federal lands. Some supporters of continued or expanded federal land ownership have asserted that state and local resource constraints, other economic considerations, or environmental or recreational priorities weigh against state challenges to federal land ownership. In recent years, some states have considered measures to express support for federal lands or to limit the sale of federal lands in the state.⁴⁸

72 As shown in Table 1 and Table 2, the 11 contiguous western states and Alaska have extensive areas of federal lands. Table 5 summarizes the data in Table 1 to clarify the difference in the extent of federal ownership in the United States between western and other states. As can be seen in Table 5, 60.98% of the land in Alaska is federally owned, which includes 85.9% of the total FWS lands and 65.65% of the total NPS lands. In contrast, only 0.3% of DOD-owned lands are in Alaska. Of the land in the 11 contiguous western states, 45.9% is federally owned, which includes 73.4% of total FS lands and 70.68% of total BLM lands. In the rest of the country, the federal government owns 4.1% of the lands. The FS manages the largest portion of this land in other states—61.8%—and the BLM manages the least—0.8%. Slightly more than half (51.1%) of the DOD lands are in the other states, with slightly less than half (4948.6%) in the 11 western states.

Maintaining Infrastructure and Lands

Debate continues over how to balance the acquisition of new assets and lands with the maintenance of the agencies' existing infrastructure and the care of current federal lands. Some assert that addressing the condition of infrastructure and lands in current federal ownership is paramount. They support ecological restoration as a focus of agency activities and funding and an emphasis on managing current federal lands for continued productivity and public benefit. They oppose new land acquisitions and unit designations until the backlog of maintenance activities has been eliminated or greatly reduced and the condition of current range, forest, and other federal lands is significantly improved. Others contend that expanding federal protection to additional lands is essential to provide new areas for public use, protect important natural and cultural resources, and respond to changing land and resource conditions.

73 The ecological condition of current federal lands has long been a focus of attention. For example, the poor condition of public rangelands due to overgrazing was the rationale for enacting the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and the creation ofcreating the BLM.⁴⁹74 Today, debates on the health and productivity of federal lands center on rangelands, forests, riparian areas, and other resources. These lands and resources might be affected in some areas by various land uses, such as livestock grazing, recreation, and energy development, and rights-of-way. Many other variables might impact the health of federal lands and resources, including wildfires, community expansion, invasive weeds, and drought.⁷⁵

The deferred maintenance of federal infrastructure also has been a focus of Congress and the Administrationexecutive branch for many years. Deferred maintenance, often called the maintenance backlog, is defined as maintenance that was not done when scheduled or planned.⁷⁶ The agencies assert that continuing to defer maintenance of facilities accelerates their rate of deterioration, increases their repair costs, and decreases their value.

77 Congressional and administrative attention has centered on the NPS backlog. The DOI estimated deferred maintenance for the NPS for FY2018 at $11.92 billion.FY2025 at $24.24 billion.⁷⁸ Of the total deferred maintenance, 57% was for roads, bridges, and trails; 19% was for buildings; 6% was for irrigation, dams, and other water structures; and 18% was for other structures (e.g., recreation sites).⁵⁰38.9% was for transportation assets, 29.8% was for assets related to recreational and visitor experience, 17.0% was for water infrastructure and utilities, 11.5% was for operational buildings, and 2.7% was for other structures. The DOI estimates of the NPS backlog have increased overall since FY1999, from $4.25 billion in that year.⁵¹79 It is unclear what portion of the change is due to the addition of maintenance work that was not done on time or, the availability of more precise estimates of the backlog, or inflation and market trends (e.g., construction-related), among other factors. The NPS, as well as the other land management agencies, increased efforts to define and quantify maintenance needs over the past two decades.

While attention has focused on the NPS backlog, the other federal land management agencies also have maintenance backlogs. The FS estimated its backlog for FY2018 at $5.20FY2025 at $10.81 billion.⁵²80 Of the total deferred maintenance, 6155.3% was for roads,⁵³81 24.6% was for buildings, and the remaining 1520.1% was for a variety of other assets (e.g., trails, fences, and bridges). For FY2018, bridges and water systems). For FY2025, the DOI estimated the FWS backlog at $1.30 billion and the BLM backlog at $0.96 billion.⁵⁴ The four agencies together had a combined FY2018 backlog estimated at $19.38 billion.

BLM backlog at $6.60 billion, with 85.2% for transportation assets and the remainder for various other assets.⁸² The DOI estimated the FWS backlog at $3.51 billion, with 31.7% for roads, bridges, and trails and the remainder split roughly equally among three other asset classes (buildings, water management, and other structures).⁸³ The four agencies together had a combined FY2025 backlog estimated at $45.16 billion. The agency backlogs have been attributed to decades of funding shortfalls.,⁸⁴ and changes in agency methodologies for defining deferred maintenance, among other factors.⁸⁵ However, it is unclear how much total funding has been provided for the maintenance backlog over the years. Annual presidential budget requests and appropriations laws typically have not identified funds from all sources that may be used to address the maintenance backlog. Among other sources, the land management agencies receive annual discretionary appropriations for deferred maintenance. In addition, for each of FY2021-FY2025, a major source of funding for the four agencies (and the Bureau of Indian Education) was provided under provisions of the Great American Outdoors Act (P.L. 116-152).⁸⁶ That law provided $1.9 billion annually in mandatory appropriations for agency deferred maintenance. Much of the funding is in the process of being allocated, so its full effect is not known. Opinions differ over the level of funds needed to address deferred maintenance, the extent to which funding should be discretionary or mandatory, whether to use funds from other programs and/or new sources, and how to prioritize funds for maintenance needs.

Protection and Use

The extent to which federal lands should be opened to development, available for recreation, and/or preserved has been controversial. Differences of opinion exist on the amount of traditional commercial development that should be allowed, particularly involving energy development, livestock grazing, and timber harvesting. Whether and where to restrict recreation, generally and for high-impact usestypes of recreation, such as motorized off-road vehicles, also ishas been a focus. How much land to dedicate to enhanced protection, what type of protection to provide, and who should protect federal lands are continuing questions. Another area under consideration involves how to balance the protection of wild horses and burros on federal lands with protection of the range and other land uses.⁸⁷

Debates also encompass whether federal lands should be managed primarily to emphasize benefits nationally or for the localities and states where the lands are located. National benefits can include using lands to produce wood products for housing or to extract energy from traditional (oil, gas, coal) and alternative/renewable sources (wind, solar, geothermal, biomass). Other national benefits might encompass clean water for downstream uses;, biodiversity for ecological resilience and adaptability;, and wild animals and wild places for human enjoyment. Local benefits can include economic activities, such as livestock grazing, timber for sawmills, ski areas, tourism, and other types of development. Local benefits could also be scenic vistas and areas for recreation—picnicking, sightseeing, backpacking, four-wheeling, snowmobiling, hunting and fishing, and much more.

more.

Federally recognized Tribes also may have a stake in the management of federal lands, which frequently encompass areas of historic, cultural, or religious importance to Tribes and their members. Some Tribes may view the maintenance of sacred sites and continued access to culturally important vistas or natural resources as essential; others may prioritize the opportunities for economic growth or self-sufficiency that may come from development.⁸⁸

Other issues of debate include who decides the national-local balance, in control of federal lands and how those decisions are made. Some would like to see more local control of land and a reduced federal role, while othersstakeholders favor more local input and control by those in the areas where federal lands are located, to foster local needs and uses. Others seek to maintain or enhance the federal role in land management to representon the grounds that this better represents the interests and needs of all citizens.

Border Security⁵⁵

Border security presents special challenges on federal lands, given the extensive federal lands along the southwestern border with Mexico and the northern border with Canada. The federal lands on the borders tend to be geographically remote and include mountains, deserts, and other inhospitable terrain with limited law enforcement coverage. Moreover, theThe lands are managed by different federal agencies, under various laws, and for many purposes.

The southwestern border with Mexico has been a particular focus. There are various estimates and depictions of federal lands on or near the border. For instance, by one estimate, six different agencies manage 621.5 (linear) miles of federal lands along the southwestern border.⁵⁶ Second, a depiction of federal (and Indian)89 Figure 4 depicts federal lands located within 50 and 100 miles from the U.S.-Mexican border is shown in Table 4. Third, according to the House Committee on Natural Resources, there are about 26.7 million acres of federal lands within 100 miles of the border (and an additional 3.5 million acres of Indian lands).⁵⁷ Nearly half of the federal lands (12.3 million acres) are managed by the BLM, and the remainder are managed by DOD (5.8 million acres), FS (3.8 million acres), NPS (2.4 million acres), FWS (2.2 million acres), and other federal agencies (0.2 million acres).

that are managed by the four main federal land management agencies. The extent to which federal and other lands along the southwestern border should be used for the construction of barriers to deter illegal immigration and other illegal activity is under currentcontinues to be under debate. Efforts to build borderbarriers and other infrastructure to reduce illicit activity at the border, such as illegal entry and drug and contraband smuggling, are a priority for the Trump Administration as well as for some Members of Congress and portions of the public.⁹⁰ By contrast, some Members of Congress and segments of the public oppose barrier construction as potentially costly, possibly damaging to lands and resources, and unlikely to be a major deterrent to illegal activity, among other reasons.⁵⁸

91 Within DHS, the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) takes the lead role inhas responsibility for staffing and securing the international borders, but more than 40% of the southwestern border abuts federal and tribal lands overseen by the FS and the four DOI agencies (including the Bureau of Indian Affairs) that also have law enforcement responsibilities.⁵⁹92 The Trump Administration has taken actions to foster the U.S. military's involvement on border lands in the interest of security.⁹³ Differences in missions and jurisdictional complexity among these agencies may hindercomplicate border control. To facilitate control efforts, three federal agencies—DHS, the Department of Agriculture (for the FS), and DOI—have signed memoranda of understanding (MOUs) on border security. These MOUs govern information sharing, budgeting, operational planning, USBP access to federal lands, and interoperable radio communications, among other issues.⁶⁰

Figure 4. Federal and Indian Lands Near the Southwestern Border

Source: Map boundaries and information generated by CRS using U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program (GAP). May 2016. Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US), version 1.4 Combined Feature Class and an ESRI USA Base Map. Notes: Two areas of land off the southwest border (in the Pacific Ocean) are shown in dashed boxes because they are within the 100-mile zone. Federal lands not owned by BLM, DOD, FS, FWS, and NPS or held in trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs were not included due to their small size relative to the displayed federal lands.

Footnotes