Order Code IB10076
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Public (BLM) Lands and
National Forests
Updated April 12, 2002
Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinators
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
History of the Bureau of Land Management
History of the Forest Service
Scope of Issue Brief
Current Issues
National Monuments and the Antiquities Act
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Roadless Areas of the National Forest System
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Wildfire Protection
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Energy and Minerals
Energy and Mineral Development on Federal Lands: Background
Legislative Activity
Hardrock Mining and Millsites: Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Federal Land Acquisition
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
LEGISLATION
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10076
04-12-02
Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests
SUMMARY
The 107th Congress is addressing issues
more severe. The 106th Congress substantially
related to the public lands managed by the
increased funding for agency wildfire manage-
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the
ment, and FY2002 appropriations and the
national forests managed by the U.S. Forest
Bush Administration’s FY2003 budget request
Service (FS). A key issue is how to balance
continue higher funding for most fire pro-
the protection and development of these lands.
grams. Questions for the 107th Congress
Other questions relate to which lands the
include whether to authorize new forest health
government should own, and the adequacy of
programs for BLM or FS lands.
funds and programs for agencies to acquire
and protect lands. A related focus is authority
Energy and Minerals. The Bush
for collecting fees for land use.
Administration and Congress are examining
whether to increase access to federal lands for
National Monuments and the
energy and mineral development, and related
Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act of 1906
legislation is under consideration. A second
authorizes the President to establish national
issue is whether to clarify the General Mining
monuments on federal lands. The Bush
Law of 1872 regarding the number and size of
Administration is reviewing the monument
millsites per mining claim. A third issue is the
actions of President Clinton, and considering
Bush Administration’s revisions of the hard
designating a new monument in Utah. Con-
rock mining regulations finalized by the
gress is considering limiting the authority of
Clinton Administration.
the President and amending particular
monuments, and has enacted legislation to
Federal Land Acquisition. Debate is
generally prohibit spending funds for energy
focused on funding levels for land acquisition
leasing activities within monuments.
using the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Questions include the amount of funds to be
Roadless Areas of the National Forest
provided, the lands to be acquired, and spend-
System. The Clinton Administration issued
ing the Fund for purposes other than land
rules that limit road construction and timber
acquisition. In addition, H.R. 701, which has
cutting in 58.5 million acres of roadless areas
been ordered reported from committee, could
in the National Forest System. On May 10, a
provide more certain funds for land acquisi-
U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunc-
tion.
tion postponing rule implementation. The
Administration did not appeal (but intervenors
Recreational Fee Demonstration Pro-
did). The Administration published a notice of
gram. The “Fee Demo” program was created
possible proposed rulemaking on July 10,
to allow land management agencies to test the
seeking comment on whether and how to
feasibility of generating revenues for self-
revise the roadless rules by September 10.
financing through new fees. In his FY2003
Interim direction is now in effect, and new
budget, President Bush proposed making the
final rules are being developed.
program permanent. In his FY2002 budget,
President Bush proposed extending the pro-
Wildfire Protection. The threat of
gram, and Congress enacted legislation to
catastrophic wildfires seems to have become
extend and revise the program.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10076
04-12-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
In his FY2003 budget, President Bush proposed making the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program permanent, and continuing most of the wildfire management
programs expanded by President Clinton, with total funding of $2.11 billion. For federal
land acquisition, the Administration is seeking $333 million for the four major federal land
management agencies. The Administration is also seeking $200 million for the state grant
program, of which $50 million would be used in a new Cooperative Conservation Initiative.
The Bush Administration is considering designating a national monument in Utah and
selling Governors Island, including Governors Island National Monument, for a nominal
fee. The House Resources Committee has ordered reported H.R. 2114 to limit presidential
designation of national monuments and amend the monument designation process.
The Administration has sought public comment on how to amend Clinton
Administration rules prohibiting road construction into Forest Service roadless areas, but
final rules have not been complete. The Administration issued new hard rock mining
regulations, effective December 31, 2001, which eliminate controversial provisions of the
Clinton Administration regulations. The Administration also issued a proposed rule
containing these and additional changes, with public comment through December 31, 2001.
Senator Daschle introduced a revised energy bill (S. 1766) on December 5, 2001, and
offered an amended version of that measure as a floor amendment to S. 517 on February 15,
2002. The amendment remains pending.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)
and the Forest Service (FS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture together manage 456
million acres of land, 70% of the land owned by the federal government and one-fifth of the
total U.S. land area. The BLM itself manages 264 million acres of land, predominantly in the
West. These lands are defined by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
(FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. §§1701, et seq.) as “public lands.” The FS administers 192 million acres
of federal land, also concentrated in the West.
The BLM and FS have similar management responsibilities for their lands, and many key
issues affect both agencies’ lands. However, each agency has unique emphases and functions.
For instance, most LM lands are rangelands, and the BLM administers mineral development
on all federal lands. Most federal forests are managed by the FS, and only the FS has a
cooperative program to assist nonfederal landowners. Moreover, development of the two
agencies has differed, and historically they have focused on different issues.
History of the Bureau of Land Management
For the BLM, many of the issues traditionally center on the agency’s responsibilities for
land disposal, range management (particularly grazing), and minerals development. These
three key functions were assumed by the BLM when it was created in 1946, by the merger
CRS-1

---

IB10076
04-12-02
of the General Land Office (itself created in 1812) and the U.S. Grazing Service (created in
1934). The General Land Office had helped convey land to settlers and issued leases and
administered mining claims on the public lands, among other functions. The U.S. Grazing
Service had been established to manage the public lands best suited for livestock grazing. The
Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (TGA, 43 U.S.C. §§315, et seq.) was the principal statute
governing the public lands in the early years of the U.S. Grazing Service, and remains a key
statute governing the use of federal rangelands for private livestock grazing. Enacted to
remedy the deteriorating condition of public rangelands, the Act provides for the management
of public lands “pending [their] final disposal.” This language expresses the view that federal
lands might be transferred to other ownership.
In subsequent decades, Congress debated how best to manage federal lands, and whether
to retain or dispose of the remaining public lands. In 1976, Congress enacted FLPMA,
sometimes called BLM’s Organic Act because it consolidated and articulated the agency’s
responsibilities, although it left the TGA in place. Among other provisions, the law
establishes management of the public lands based on the principles of multiple use and
sustained yield; provides that the federal government receive fair market value for the use of
public lands and resources; and establishes a general national policy that the public lands be
retained in federal ownership (as opposed to managed until their “final disposal.”) This
retention policy contributed to the “Sagebrush Rebellion” of the late 1970s and early 1980s,
which was an effort among some Westerners seeking to reduce the federal presence in their
states by transferring federal land to state or private ownership. Land ownership, as well as
conflicts over land use, continue to be among the key issues for BLM lands.
History of the Forest Service
The FS was created in 1905, when forest lands reserved by the President (beginning in
1891) were transferred from the Department of the Interior into the existing USDA Bureau
of Forestry (an agency for private forestry assistance and forestry research). Management
direction for the national forests, first enacted in 1897 and expanded in 1960, identify the
purposes for which the lands are to be managed, allow protection of areas as wilderness, and
direct “harmonious and coordinated management” to provide sustained yields of resources.
Many issues over national forest management and use have focused on the appropriate
level and location of timber harvesting. Major conflicts over clearcutting began in the 1960s,
and litigation in the early 1970s successfully challenged FS clearcutting in West Virginia and
elsewhere. Congress enacted the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA; P.L. 94-
588) to revise timber sale authorities and to elaborate on considerations and requirements in
land and resource management plans for the national forests. This NFMA planning has been
widely criticized as expensive, time-consuming, and ineffective for making decisions and
informing the public. The Clinton Administration promulgated new final planning regulations
on November 9, 2000 (65 Federal Register 67514-67581), which altered the planning
process by establishing ecological sustainability as the top priority for managing the national
forests. The Bush Administration is reviewing these new regulations.
Wilderness protection also has been a continuing issue for the FS. In 1960, Congress
explicitly authorized wilderness management of national forests. In 1964, Congress enacted
the Wilderness Act, creating the National Wilderness Preservation System with certain
national forest lands, and requiring review of the wilderness potential of certain other federal
CRS-2

---

IB10076
04-12-02
lands. The FS completed its “RARE II” wilderness review in 1979. In the early 1980s,
Congress responded to the agency’s wilderness recommendations by designating national
forest wilderness areas in most states. However, recommendations are pending for two states
with extensive potential wilderness—Idaho and Montana. These pending recommendations
and pressure to protect other areas contributed to the Clinton Administration decision to
protect roadless areas not designated as wilderness. (For FS and BLM wilderness issues, see
CRS Report 94-976 ENR, Wilderness: Overview and Statistics.)

Scope of Issue Brief
While the evolution and issues of traditional focus for the BLM and FS have been
different, the issues affecting their lands have become more similar. Moreover, the missions
of the agencies are nearly identical. By law, the BLM and FS lands are to be administered for
multiple uses, albeit slightly different uses are specified. In practice, the land uses considered
by the agencies include recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and
conservation. BLM and FS lands also are required to be managed for sustained yield—i.e.,
for providing in perpetuity a high level of resource outputs, without impairing the land’s
productivity. Further, many issues, programs, and policies affect both agencies. For these
reasons, BLM and FS lands often are discussed together, as in this report.
This brief focuses on issues affecting BLM and FS lands. While in some cases the issues
discussed here are relevant to other federal lands and agencies, this brief does not
comprehensively cover issues primarily affecting other federal lands, such as the National Park
System (managed by the National Park Service, DOI) or the National Wildlife Refuge System
(managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service, DOI). For background on federal land
management generally, see CRS Report RL30867. Information on appropriations for the
BLM and FS (as well as other agencies) is included in CRS Report RL31006. For
information on park and recreation issues, see CRS Issue Brief IB10093. For information on
oil and gas leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), see CRS Issue Brief
IB10073. For information on related issues, see the CRS web page at [http://www.crs.gov/].
Current Issues
A current issue for Congress continues to be how to reconcile different perspectives on
federal land ownership. Questions include how much land should be acquired from or
conveyed to state, local, or private ownership, and under what circumstances; the effect of
public ownership on state and local taxes and authorities; and the non-federal role in
managing federal lands. Debate has resumed on funding for land acquisition; within these
discussions, Members may raise concerns about acquiring private land; the effectiveness of
federal land exchange programs; and appropriations to reduce the backlog in maintaining
existing federal lands and facilities as an alternative to new acquisitions.
A key related issue for Congress is how to balance multiple uses of public lands and
national forests—resource extraction, recreation, and preservation. To what extent should
Congress support traditional commodity uses, primarily mining, oil and gas production,
livestock grazing, and timber harvesting? Historically, development of federal resources has
supported local economies; more recently, non-development values have been stressed. The
CRS-3

---

IB10076
04-12-02
107th Congress is addressing executive actions related to land and resource protection, e.g.,
monument designations, funding for wildfire protection, and regulatory changes for mining
and roadless areas. The effect of these efforts on land uses and the role of Congress, states,
and the public in determining use and protection are among the controversies. Other issues
relate to setting fees (e.g., for rights of way and livestock grazing); collecting revenues (e.g.,
by imposing royalties on mining); and regulating the environmental effects of land uses.
Recreation issues include user fees, and access restrictions (e.g., limits on use of off-highway
vehicles). The adequacy of agency land use plans in addressing these and other current
recreation, preservation, and development issues also may arise. Following is a fuller
discussion of particular issues that are receiving attention during the 107th Congress.
National Monuments and the Antiquities Act (by Carol Hardy Vincent)
Background. Presidential establishment of national monuments under the Antiquities
Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. §§431 et seq.) has been contentious. The Act allows the President
to proclaim national monuments on federal lands that contain “historic landmarks, historic and
prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest.” The President is to
reserve “the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to
be protected.” Congress subsequently limited the President’s authority in Wyoming and
Alaska.
Recent criticisms and controversies have focused on how President Clinton created
recent monuments; the size of the areas and types of resources protected; and restrictions on
land uses, including their economic effects, that may result. Critics also contend that the
Antiquities Act is out of date in permitting land actions otherwise reserved to Congress, and
not requiring congressional, state, or public input or environmental reviews. Supporters of
the Antiquities Act assert that changes to the Act are neither warranted nor desirable. They
defend the authority of Presidents to expeditiously protect valuable federal lands and
resources, and contend that large segments of the public support monument designations.
Administrative Actions. President Clinton proclaimed 19 new monuments and
enlarged 3 others, with a total of about 5.9 million federal acres. He selected the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) to manage many of the monuments. The Department of the
Interior is examining the monument actions of President Clinton, receiving input from officials
in the states containing the new monuments as to how the lands should be managed.
The Bush Administration is considering establishing the San Rafael Swell National
Monument on some 620,000 acres in southern Utah. The monument would consist largely
of the San Rafael Swell—a giant rock dome—and include desert canyons, rock formations,
and Indian carvings. The Administration reportedly is seeking to develop the monument
proposal with the input of Utah officials, stakeholders, and the public to avoid charges that
plagued President Clinton of insufficient consultation during the monument designation
process. Some environmental groups fear the size of the would be too small and that land
uses they view as destructive, such as mining and use of motorized vehicles, will be allowed.
On April 1, 2002, President Bush stated that Governors Island, which contains the
Governors Island National Monument, would be sold to New York for a nominal fee.
Current law (P.L. 105-33, Section 9101) requires the conveyance of the Island, but at fair
market value. The fair market value has been estimated by some at between $300 million and
CRS-4

---

IB10076
04-12-02
$500 million, but by others as much less because New York authorities reportedly would
block major development. Various development possibilities for the Island have been
discussed. Two bills (H.R. 1334 and S. 689) would authorize the conveyance of the Island
to New York for free, but neither has been enacted. It is not clear how a conveyance might
affect the Monument part of the Island.
On October 4, 2001, BLM issued a revised interim management policy for newly created
national monuments. The policy, which expires September 30, 2003, is intended to guide
BLM state managers in managing national monuments during the development of monument
management plans. The policy supersedes and revises an earlier one in several areas,
including grazing, use of off-road vehicles, animal damage control, rights of way, and
activities on non-monument lands. BLM asserts that the changes seek to clarify and simplify
language in the earlier guidance, but some conservation groups view them as substantive.
Legislative Activity. In the 107th Congress, Republican leaders of the House
Resources Committee sent letters to Members of Congress with newly-created monuments
in their districts seeking information as to how their constituents and local officials view the
monuments. One bill (H.R. 601) to allow hunting in the expanded portion of the Craters of
the Moon National Monument through creation of a national preserve, has passed the House
and been the subject of Senate subcommittee hearings. Two bills (H.R. 1334 and S. 689) to
govern management, and to transfer management, of Governors Island National Monument
are under consideration. A bill (H.R. 4076) pertaining to the Agua Fria National Monument
would modify the Monument’s boundaries, bar Presidents from expanding the monument
except during a specified 90-day period, require development of a monument management
plan within 2 years, and specify allowed land uses.
Another bill, H.R. 2114, amends the Antiquities Act of 1906 to make presidential
designations of monuments exceeding 50,000 acres ineffective unless approved by Congress
within 2 years, establishes a process for public input in presidential monument designations,
and requires monument management plans to be developed in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. During markup, the House Resources Committee agreed
to an amendment to clarify that the bill would apply to future monument proclamations. The
Committee ordered the measure reported on March 20, 2002, essentially on a party line vote
with Democrats opposed. Earlier, the Bush Administration testified in support of this bill.

The FY2002 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-63) bars funds
in the bill from being used for energy leasing activities within the boundaries of national
monuments, as they were on January 20, 2001, except where allowed by the presidential
proclamations that created the monuments.
Roadless Areas of the National Forest System (by Pamela Baldwin)
Background. In its final months, the Clinton Administration issued several new rules
that affect the roadless areas of the National Forest System (NFS). New rules were finalized
with respect to: (1) the roadless areas; (2) the NFS roads that make up the Forest
Development Transportation System, and (3) the FS planning process. These three rules are
intertwined and each part affects the others. The roadless area rule limits roads and
development in approximately 58.5 million acres of inventoried FS roadless areas. (For
information on wilderness, see CRS Report 94-976, Wilderness: Overview and Statistics.)
CRS-5

---

IB10076
04-12-02
Administrative Actions. The Clinton Administration established a new approach to
the management of NFS roadless areas to provide national guidance on roads and timber
harvesting in those areas — issues that have generated litigation and expense in the past,
when decisions were made at the forest unit level. A record of decision (ROD) and a final
rule were issued on January 12, 2001, which prohibited road construction in the inventoried
roadless areas, with exceptions, e.g. for public health and safety. Environmentalists and -
those favoring less developed recreation generally favored the regulations and urged greater
protections, while the extractive industries and those favoring greater access (e.g., for
developed recreation and hunting) generally opposed them. In addition, timber harvesting in
the roadless areas would generally have been prohibited, except for specified purposes, e.g.
reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire.
The Bush Administration delayed the effective date of the roadless rule, but then
proposed letting the rule take effect while considering amendments to again allow for local
modification of roadless area protection. However, on May 10, U.S. District Court Judge
Edward Lodge issued a preliminary injunction to postpone implementation of the rule, citing
its “irreparable harm” to federal forests and their neighbors (Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v.
Veneman, 142 F.Supp. 2d 1231 (Id. D.C. 2001)). The Administration did not appeal the
injunction, but intervenors did and the appeal is awaiting decision in the 9th Circuit. A series
of directives constituting interim guidance on roadless area management have been issued.
On July 10, the Forest Service published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking asking
for public comment on whether and how to amend the roadless rules (66 Fed. Reg. 35918).
The comment period closed on September 10, 2001, but no new regulations have yet been
proposed. However, additional interim direction on roadless areas was published on
December 20, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 65796). That direction places most decisions on roadless
area management with the Regional Forester, and some with the Chief of the Forest Service
until forest plan amendments or revisions that address roadless area protection are completed.
At that time management of the roadless areas will once again be up to each forest. In a
related action, on September 20, the Forest Service proposed new interim direction on a facet
of NEPA compliance that, if finalized, could allow some activities in roadless areas without
environmental studies (66 Fed. Reg. 48412).
Legislative Activity. Congress may consider legislation on forest management in
general or on the roadless areas issue in particular. Congress may wish to provide new
direction for forest planning, the NFS roads system, or for management of the roadless areas,
either to rescind, modify, or ratify the approaches taken by the new rules. H.R. 552, in the
107th Congress, for example, would protect specified areas and require an assessment of their
wilderness suitability, with recommendations to Congress within 3 years of enactment.
Wildfire Protection (by Ross W. Gorte)
Background. The 2000 fire season was, by most standards, one of the worst in the
past 50 years. The Clinton Administration and Congress responded by more than doubling
wildfire funding in the FY2001 Interior Appropriations Act and sustaining that level (except
for some of the emergency funding) in FY2002. The Bush Administration is proposing
modest reductions for FY2003. The 107th Congress is considering whether the funding levels
and programs are sufficient and effective to protect lands, resources, and structures from
catastrophic wildfires.
CRS-6

---

IB10076
04-12-02
National attention began to focus on wildfires in May 2000, when a prescribed burn
escaped control and burned 235 homes in Los Alamos, NM, but the threat of catastrophic
wildfires seems to have become more severe in recent years. Many forests are widely thought
to have unnaturally high fuel loads (e.g., dead trees and dense undergrowth) and an
historically unnatural mix of plant species (e.g., exotic invaders). Fuel treatments have been
proposed to reduce the threats from wildfires, including prescribed burning (setting fires
under specific conditions); commercial logging followed with appropriate slash disposal; and
other treatments (e.g., precommercial thinning). Treatments often can be more effective if
combined (e.g., prescribed burning after thinning), but most fuel treatments are expensive and
their effectiveness for reducing wildfire threats depends on many factors.
Administrative Actions. President Bush’s FY2003 budget proposes continuing most
of the wildfire management programs expanded by President Clinton, with total funding of
$2.11 billion ($1.46 billion for the Forest Service and $0.65 billion for BLM). The FY2003
budget is $159 million less than FY2002, primarily for emergency fire contingency (shifting
some to fire suppression funding) and community assistance. The Administration proposes
increasing funding to reduce hazardous fuels and drafting legislation to test “fireplain
easements to acquire...perpetual easements to permit implementation of fire suppression
strategies, including the option of allowing fires to burn without suppression activities.”
Legislative Activity. Congress has focused attention on wildfire protection mostly
through annual agency appropriations. The FY2001 Interior Appropriations Act included
nearly $2.9 billion in wildfire funding for the FS and BLM, roughly corresponding to the
Clinton Administration’s funding requests. The FY2002 Interior Appropriations bill (H.R.
2217) included $2.24 billion for wildfire management, maintaining the program funding
increases, but not the emergency fire control and rehabilitation funding. Despite the
significant increase in funding, FS fuel treatment appropriations for FY2001 and FY2002 are
28% of the level that the General Accounting Office estimated was needed annually for 16
years to treat the 39 million acres of national forests identified as at high risk of catastrophic
wildfire. (Comparable estimates are not available for BLM lands.)
Congress also has addressed wildfire programs in the 2002 farm bill — H.R. 2646 and
S. 1731. Both bills contain a forestry title and similar wildfire protection programs. They
would authorize “stewardship end-results contracts” to allow the Forest Service to require
forest health improvement activities in timber sale contracts, paid for with lower timber
receipts. Both measures also would establish a new program for assisting communities with
protection from wildfires and authorize grants to biomass energy facilities to offset the costs
to acquire and transport hazardous biomass fuels from federal lands. The Senate bill would
also require the USDA Inspector General to investigate and report on all firefighter fatalities.
H.R. 2646 passed the House on October 5, 2001; Senate incorporated S. 1731 into H.R. 2646
and passed the House measure on February 13, 2002. (See CRS Report RL31195.)
Energy and Minerals (by Marc Humphries and Carol Hardy Vincent)
Energy and Mineral Development on Federal Lands: Background. A key,
controversial issue is whether to increase access to federal lands for energy and mineral
development. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 governs the leasing of onshore oil and gas,
coal, and several other minerals on the federal lands. The BLM administers the development
CRS-7

---

IB10076
04-12-02
of energy and mineral resources on federal lands and other lands where the government owns
the resources. A BLM study determined that of the approximately 700 million acres of
federal subsurface minerals under the agency’s jurisdiction in 2000, about 165 million acres
have been withdrawn from mineral entry, leasing, and sale, subject to valid existing rights.
Also of the 700 million acres, mineral development on another 182 million acres is subject to
the approval of the surface management agency, and must not be in conflict with land
designations and plans, according to a BLM representative.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that significant oil and gas resources exist
below some federal lands now off-limits, particularly in the Rocky Mountain region. The
industry contends that entry into these areas is necessary to ensure future domestic oil and gas
supplies. Opponents to opening these areas maintain that there are environmental risks,
restricted lands are environmentally sensitive or unique, and that the United States could meet
its energy needs through a combination of increased exploration elsewhere around the globe
along with increased energy conservation.
Coal has maintained a sizable share of U.S. energy supply and accounts for
approximately 50% of U.S. electricity needs. Because of a huge proven domestic coal
reserve — 272 billion short tons — coal will continue to be prominent in the U.S. energy
picture. Over the past 20 years, the federal government has emphasized developing clean coal
technologies. The Clean Coal Technology (CCT) program, begun in 1984, focused on
projects that could demonstrate emission control devices as an alternative to low sulfur coal
or scrubbers and new advanced power generating facilities. However, within the context of
environmental restrictions on coal emissions and cheaper natural gas, funding for CCT has
been deferred or rescinded over the past 5 years.
Administrative Actions. The underlying concern for the Administration is how to
best increase U.S. domestic oil and gas supplies. Proposals from the National Energy Policy
Development (NEPD) Group, established by President Bush and led by Vice President
Cheney, recommended that the President direct the Secretary of the Interior to identify and
eliminate any impediments to oil and gas exploration and development on federal land, and
this is being done. The Administration is examining land status and reviewing public lands
withdrawals. Work by the BLM, USGS, and Department of Energy (DOE) is underway to
assess the oil and gas reserves and resources on federal lands.
The Bush Administration wants to revive the clean coal technology programs under its
Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI); it is seeking $2 billion over the next 10 years (FY2002-
FY2011) for CCPI. The CCPI would be a cost-sharing industry-government program to
demonstrate advanced power technologies, emphasizing coal-based gasification projects.
Supporters note that coal is a major domestic energy resource that could be more greatly
utilized if its environmental drawbacks could be reduced. Opponents contend that new
technology will not make coal environmentally acceptable at a competitive cost.
Legislative Activity. A broad House-passed energy bill (H.R. 4) includes tax
incentives, extension of deepwater royalty relief, and relief for marginal onshore oil and gas.
The bill repeals the prohibition on leasing in the coastal plain of ANWR but ensures that not
more than 2,000 acres of surface area of the federal lands are used for carrying out oil and gas
development on the coastal plain. H.R. 4 also is consistent with the Bush energy report and
CRS-8

---

IB10076
04-12-02
authorizes spending for coal and related technologies programs for FY2002 through FY2004.
It includes a provision for establishing Clean Coal Centers of Excellence.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held hearings on two energy
measures (S. 597 and S. 388) and began marking up S. 597. Both H.R. 4 and S. 388 are
consistent with the Administration’s plan to assess resources under public lands, expedite the
oil and gas leasing process, and open ANWR to development. The Senate Majority Leader
did not view the energy bill as a priority for the first session. Senate Republicans pursued a
strategy of attaching energy legislation to other high priority bills but were unsuccessful in
that approach. Senate majority proposals for comprehensive energy legislation were delayed
until S. 1766, a revision of S. 597, was introduced on December 5, 2001. The measure does
not include a provision to open ANWR. It would increase funding for fossil energy research
and development and support expeditious environmental reviews on public lands available for
oil and gas development. Senator Daschle offered an amended version of S. 1766 as a floor
amendment to S. 517 on February 15, 2002. The amendment remains pending. Separately,
bills (H.R. 3538 and S. 1808) have been introduced to revise the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920
to “reduce impediments for prompt development of oil and gas resources on federal lands.”
On February 13, 2002, the Senate Finance Committee marked up another proposal, The
Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2002, prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). The
proposal would provide tax credits and incentives for oil and natural gas producers and
incentives for investing in clean coal technology.
Royalty in-kind (RIK) provisions are contained in H.R. 4 and S. 388. A provision in S.
517 would require a tax and royalty policy review to ascertain its impact on oil and gas
development. The issue has been the appropriate valuation for oil and gas produced on
federal land. Critics charge that the Minerals Management Service (MMS) has been
collecting less than fair market value in oil and gas royalties as a result of undervaluation of
production on federal leases. The MMS attempted to correct the situation through the
issuance, on March 15, 2000, of new rules for establishing a price for calculating the
government’s royalty share. The oil industry trade representative, the American Petroleum
Institute, has filed a lawsuit to overturn the new valuation rule. Taking federal oil and gas
royalties in-kind has been proposed as a method to solve the oil valuation issue and several
pilot studies are underway. The federal government would receive its royalty payment in
physical quantities of oil or gas then sell its quantities for a market-based price. The Bush
Administration will use the RIK program to acquire 22 million barrels of oil from the Gulf of
Mexico for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Hardrock Mining and Millsites: Background. In addition to access to federal
lands for energy development, two recent issues have been controversial. One is the
regulations governing hardrock mining operations (43 CFR 3809). The Clinton
Administration changed the regulations, seeking to enhance the agency’s ability to prevent
“unnecessary or undue degradation” of public land resources from mining operations. The
regulations authorized the BLM to deny mining operations if the result were “substantial
irreparable harm” to significant resources, and made mining operators more responsible for
reclaiming mined lands. The mining industry asserted that the regulations were unlawful,
impeded mining operations, and duplicated some existing federal and state laws. The Bush
Administration has revised these regulations. (See below.)
CRS-9

---

IB10076
04-12-02
A second issue involves mining millsites. Under the General Mining Law of 1872, the
holder of a mining claim has the right to claim and patent nonmineral, noncontiguous lands
to mill and process ore — millsites — from mining claims on federal lands. At issue is
whether the language in the 1872 statute allows only one millsite (of no more than five acres)
or multiple millsites per mining claim. The Clinton Administration decided that only one
millsite is allowed per claim. Congress, and later the Bush Administration, essentially
exempted on-going mining operations from this decision.
The 107th Congress also is considering legislation related to other mining issues. Among
them are bills related to the maintenance and location fees and the moratorium on mining
patents for mining or mill site claims. (See CRS Issue Brief IB89130.)
Administrative Actions. After a decade of review, the Clinton Administration
revised the hardrock mining regulations, effective on January 20, 2001. On March 23, 2001,
the Bush Administration proposed suspending the new regulations and reinstating the
previous ones to allow the BLM to address legal, economic, and environmental issues that
were raised. The Bush Administration subsequently revised the hard rock mining rules, taking
a multi-tiered approach. First, on June 15, 2001, BLM issued a final rule that changed the
dates by which financial guarantee requirements would become effective (66 Fed. Reg.
32571). Then, on October 30, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 54834), the BLM published a final hard
rock mining rule, effective December 31, 2001. The final rule keeps some of the Clinton
changes, but eliminates the most controversial features. For instance, it eliminates the part
on unnecessary and undue degradation of BLM lands that permitted BLM to stop mining
operations that would cause substantial irreparable harm to significant resources that could
not be effectively mitigated. Other important provisions that had defined “operator,” the
source and extent of liability of operators, and the authority for BLM to assess civil penalties
for violations were changed to move the Bush regulations closer to the previous 1980
regulations. The Bush Administration regulations have been challenged in court by
environmental groups claiming they fail to prevent undue degradation of lands.
Also on October 30, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 54863), BLM published a proposed rule that
proposed many of the changes that were just put in place in the final rule published the same
day. According to BLM, this unusual procedure was intended to both achieve some stability
by issuing changes in final form, but then also issuing them as proposals in order to gather
additional public comments. The proposed rule also contains several technical, clerical, and
other modifications. The BLM reopened the comment period on April 12, 2002 for 30 days
(through May 13, 2002) due to continued substantial interest in the issue. The comment
period initially ran through December 31, 2001, with an extension from February 1, 2002, to
February 15, 2002. The BLM is soliciting comments on topics including the federal/state
relationship with respect to regulation of mining on the public lands and “the delegations these
rules provide,” and whether the regulations “contain other provisions which are either overly
burdensome or fail to provide adequate environmental protection.”
With respect to millsites, on November 7, 1997, a legal opinion of the Solicitor of the
Department of the Interior stated that each mining claim could use no more than five acres
for activities associated with mining (i.e., for “millsites”). This opinion affects many modern
mining operations, such as heap-leach mines for gold, which typically require large tracks of
land beyond that of the mining claim for mining-related purposes, including disposal of waste
rock. Critics charged that this opinion was a new interpretation of the Mining Law, was
CRS-10

---

IB10076
04-12-02
inconsistent with agency practice, and was an indirect way of reforming the 1872 Mining
Law. Supporters of the decision assert that it is based both in law and practice, and necessary
because the Mining Law is anachronistic and lacks tough environmental protections.
On September 28, 2001, the Department of the Interior instructed the BLM not to apply
the millsite opinion to mines with plans of operation approved before November 29, 1999,
operations with plans submitted prior to the Solicitor’s November 7, 1997 opinion, and patent
applications grandfathered as part of the 1995 mining patent moratorium. The Department
simultaneously tasked its Solicitor (under President Bush) to review the 1997 millsite opinion,
and that opinion is now being actively reviewed. These actions came as a two-year similar
legislative exemption from the Solicitor’s 1997 opinion was due to expire.
Legislative Activity. The millsite issue and hardrock mining regulations most recently
have been addressed in appropriations laws. In the FY2000 Interior appropriations law,
Congress provided a two-year exemption from the Solicitor's millsite opinion for mines with
approved plans of operation, operations with plans submitted prior to the Solicitor's opinion,
and patent applications grandfathered as part of the 1995 mining patent moratorium.

Provisions of both the FY2000 and FY2001 appropriations laws prohibited the Secretary
of the Interior from using funds to revise the hardrock mining regulations except to make
changes “not inconsistent” with law and the recommendations contained in a National
Research Council (NRC) report entitled “Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands.” Under
President Clinton, the Department interpreted this as allowing the revised regulations to
include subjects not addressed in the recommendations of the NRC report, provided these
recommendations were not directly contradicted. This interpretation was controversial in
Congress. The FY2002 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-63)
dropped House language that would have prohibited spending funds to suspend or revise the
hardrock mining regulations. The Bush Administration’s final rule retained some provisions
not specifically addressed by the NRC recommendations.
Federal Land Acquisition (by Jeffrey Zinn)
Background. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is the principle source
of funding for land acquisition by the four major federal land management agencies. LWCF
includes a matching grant program to assist states in acquiring and developing recreational
sites and facilities. It accumulates $900 million annually, mostly from offshore oil and gas
revenues, but money becomes available only if Congress appropriates it. The unappropriated
balance is in the General Treasury and used for other purposes. Of the $25.4 billion LWCF
has accumulated to date, Congress has appropriated$12.5 billion to LWCF.
Congress is considering three policy issues related to LWCF. One issue is the level of
annual appropriations and whether to make the appropriation permanent. Some interests are
seeking full annual funding at $900 million and permanent appropriations to bypass the annual
requests. The second issue is deciding which lands federal agencies should acquire with
LWCF funds. Currently, federal agencies propose acquisitions in their annual budget
requests, and Congress apportions most of the funds for specified acquisitions. The agencies
typically can identify more potential acquisitions than the appropriations would fund. The
agencies and Congress do not similarly direct the states as to how to spend their LWCF state
grants. A final issue is spending LWCF funds on purposes other than land acquisition.
CRS-11

---

IB10076
04-12-02
Administrative Actions. In FY2003, the Bush Administration has requested $333
million for federal land acquisition: $86.1 million for NPS, $44.7 million for BLM, $71.1
million for FWS, and $131.0 million for FS. The Administration seeks $200 million for the
state grant program, of which $50 million would be used in a new Cooperative Conservation
Initiative. In FY2002, the Bush Administration had sought full funding—$900 million—for
the LWCF, with half ($450 million) to the federal agencies and the other half to state grants.
Of the federal portion, the Administration proposed $50 million for incentive grants to states
to help landowners enhance habitat for rare species “while continuing to engage in traditional
land management practices,” and $10 million for a new grant program to support local,
private conservation efforts, leaving $390 million for land acquisition.
The Clinton Administration had proposed increases for many natural resource programs,
including LWCF, through its Lands Legacy Initiative. For FY2000, it had sought over $1
billion for 16 programs, including $560 million for LWCF, and Congress appropriated $727
million, including $466 million for LWCF. In FY2001, the Administration requested $1.4
billion for 20 programs, including $600 million for LWCF; Congress increased this to $1.67
billion, including $585 million for LWCF, in part because related legislation (see below) had
not been enacted. Congress also specified a cap on several funding levels for the next 5 years
for these programs, now called the Conservation Spending Category.
Legislative Activity. The FY2002 Interior Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-63) contains
$707.9 million for LWCF, less than the President’s request ($900 million) but more than
FY2001 ($584.4 million). The FY2002 appropriation includes $428.9 million for federal land
acquisition and $279 million for state and other grant programs. The federal land acquisition
appropriation was more than the President’s request ($390 million) but less than FY2001
($444.2 million). Congress also provided $50 million, as requested, in the federal portion for
state incentive grants, administered by FWS. The state/other appropriation was less than the
President’s request ($450 million) but more than FY2001 ($140.2 million), with $144 million
for state grants and $135 million for FWS state grants and incentive grants.

The Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) has been reintroduced in the 107th
Congress (H.R. 701), with provisions nearly identical to the House-passed version from the
106th Congress. It would create the CARA Fund, funding LWCF at $900 million annually —
$450 million for federal land acquisition and $450 million for state grants. The bill has 243
cosponsors, including the leaders of the House Resources Committee. That Committee held
a hearing on June 20, 2001, and ordered the bill reported on July 25. Comparable bills have
been introduced by Senator Murkowski (S. 1318) and Senator Landrieu (S. 1328).
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (by David Whiteman and Carol
Hardy Vincent)
Background. The Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (“Fee Demo”) was
authorized to begin in FY1996 as a 3-year trial to allow the four major federal land
management agencies (BLM, FS, the National Park Service (NPS), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service) to test the feasibility of recovering some of the costs of operating and maintaining
federal recreation sites through new fees. This program has been extended by Congress, most
recently through FY2004 for fee collection and FY2007 for expenditures. Currently, each
agency can establish any number of fee projects and retain and spend all the revenue collected,
CRS-12

---

IB10076
04-12-02
with at least 80% retained at the site where collected. The agencies have broad discretion in
using the Fee Demo revenues. Traditionally, Congress has set fees and designated fee use
areas, and most entrance and user fees have gone to the general fund of the Treasury, with
Congress annually appropriating funds for agency operations and maintenance. The program
was designed to supplement appropriated funds, and Congress has not offset Fee Demo
revenues with decreased appropriations.
The agencies generally support the Fee Demo program because of the discretion they
have in setting fees, determining fee sites, and using the revenues. For FY2001, Fee Demo
revenues totaled $173 million, with most collected by the NPS. The agencies assert that users
overwhelmingly support the new fees, and some supporters would like the program extended
to other agencies. Critics counter that fees restrict access and result in “double taxation” of
the recreating public, and that fee surveys are misleading because they omit those who do not
pay the fees. They also question the need for the program in recent years, given increased
appropriations for public land management. Most of the current concern has focused on the
FS’s Fee Demo program, with assertions that the fees keep poorer people out, commercialize
public lands, and are unfair if improved facilities are lacking.
Administrative Actions. The Bush Administration’s FY2003 budget proposes
making the Fee Demo Program permanent, and states an intent to draft such legislation. The
agencies in the program have collaborated on developing related legislation. Last year, in his
FY2002 budget, the President proposed extending the program through FY2006.
Legislative Activity. The FY2002 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(P.L. 107-63) extended the Fee Demo Program for 2 years — through September 30, 2004,
for collection and September 30, 2007, for expenditures. The extension is intended to allow
the authorizing committees to develop a “permanent solution” for the program. Since 1996,
the program has operated under temporary authority provided by appropriations laws. The
joint explanatory statement of the conference report states that “the managers strongly
encourage the authorizing committees to address this matter forthwith so short-term
extensions via the appropriations process are no longer germane.” The agencies in the
program are developing legislation for a permanent Fee Demo program. The law also gives
the agencies discretion to determine the number of fee sites, and requires approval by the
Appropriations Committees of Fee Demo funded capital construction projects costing more
than $500,000, to address congressional concern about large projects. The law does not fix
the percentage of collections to be used for maintenance, thus continuing the discretion of the
agencies in spending fee revenues.
In the 107th Congress, legislation has been introduced to remove FS lands from the Fee
Demo program (H.R. 908 and H.R. 1139), and to extend the program to the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers (H.R. 1013 and S. 531). An introduced
Senate bill, the National Parks Stewardship Act (S. 1011), includes authorizing a permanent
version of the Fee Demo program with between 60% and 80% of the funds retained at the
collecting site. Another Senate bill (S. 2015) would exempt residents of counties containing
Fee Demo Program areas from paying fees imposed under the program. In addition, the Fee
Demo program might be affected by bills (H.R. 359, S. 224, and S. 930) which would fund
some park capital improvement projects with bonds secured by a surcharge over, or set aside
from, park entrance fees.
CRS-13

---

IB10076
04-12-02
A November 2001 report by the General Accounting Office asserts that agencies in the
program could be more innovative in setting and collecting fees to make fee payment easier
for visitors; improve coordination to eliminate inconsistent and confusing fees; and establish
performance measures to facilitate an evaluation of the program. It finds that Congress may
wish modify the requirement that 80% of the revenues be kept at the collecting site, to direct
more funds to agency-wide priorities and sites with little or no collections.
LEGISLATION
P.L. 107-63, H.R. 2217
P.L. 107-63, the FY2002 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act extends the
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program for 2 years and makes other program changes. It
also generally bars funds in the bill from being used for energy leasing activities within the
boundaries of national monuments, as they were on January 20, 2001. It contains funds for
diverse land programs, including $2.24 billion for wildland fire management and $429 million
for federal land acquisition. Signed into law November 5, 2001.
H.R. 4 (Tauzin)
Seeks to enhance energy conservation, research, and development; includes resource
assessments for federal lands and other modifications in energy production on federal lands.
Passed House 240-189 (Roll no. 320) on August 2, 2001; placed on Senate legislative
calendar on August 3, 2001.
H.R. 552 (Udall, M.)
Protects certain roadless areas in Colorado and require an assessment of their wilderness
suitability. Introduced on February 8, 2001; referred to Committee on Resources.
H.R. 601 (Simpson)
Authorizes continued hunting by creating a national preserve in the expanded portion
of Craters of the Moon National Monument. Reported by House Resources Committee on
April 3, 2001 (H.Rept. 107-34); passed House by voice vote on May 1. Senate Energy and
Natural Resources subcommittee held hearings on July 31, 2001.
H.R. 701 (Young, D.)
Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) authorizes use of royalties from Outer
Continental Shelf oil and gas production to establish a fund for land acquisition, protection,
and restoration. Committee on Resources ordered reported on July 25, 2001.
H.R. 908 (Capps)
Removes FS from the Fee Demo Program. Introduced March 7, 2001; referred to
Committees on Agriculture and on Resources.
H.R. 1013 (Deal)/S. 531 (Lincoln)
National Recreation Lakes Act of 2001 creates demonstration program to enhance
federal recreation programs at designated lakes and extends the Fee Demo Program to
Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers. Introduced March 14, 2001. H.R.
CRS-14

---

IB10076
04-12-02
1013 referred to Committees on Resources, on Transportation and Infrastructure, and on
Agriculture. S. 531 referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 1139 (Bono)
Removes FS from the Fee Demo Program. Introduced March 21, 2001; referred to the
Committees on Resources and on Agriculture.
H.R. 1334 (Gilman)/S. 689 (Schumer)
The Governors Island Preservation Act of 2001 guides management and transfers
Governors Island National Monument from General Services Administration to Department
of the Interior. H.R. 1334 introduced April 3, 2001, and referred to Committees on
Resources and on Government Reform. Senate Energy and Natural Resources subcommittee
held hearings on S. 689 on July 31, 2001.
H.R. 2114 (Simpson)
Amends the Antiquities Act of 1906 to make presidential designations of monuments
exceeding 50,000 acres ineffective unless approved by Congress within 2 years, establishes
a process for public input in presidential monument designations, and requires monument
management plans to be developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969. House Resources ordered reported (24-18) on March 20, 2002.
H.R. 3538 (Cubin)
Mineral Leasing Act Revision of 2001 amends the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 to
reduce impediments to the prompt development of natural gas and oil resources on federal
lands. Excludes producing acreage from acreage limitations on taking, holding, owning, and
controlling federal oil and gas leases. (S. 1808 has identical title and similar purpose, but
different language.) Introduced December 19, 2001; referred to Committee on Resources.
H.R. 4076 (Stump)
The Agua Fria National Monument Technical Corrections Act of 2002 contains
provisions on boundary adjustments to the monument, allowed land uses, and development
of a management plan. Introduced March 20, 2002; referred to Committee on Resources.
S. 388 (Murkowski)
Seeks to protect U.S. energy and security and decrease America’s dependency on
foreign oil to 50% by the year 2011; includes the Federal Oil and Gas Lease Management
Improvement Act of 2000 [sic] to allow state administration of leases on federal lands.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held hearings in May, June, and July 2001.
S. 597 (Bingaman)
Seeks to provide for a comprehensive and balanced energy policy. Marked up by
Energy and Natural Resources on August 2, 2001.
S. 1011 (Graham)
National Parks Stewardship Act includes establishing a permanent recreation fee
program, with between 60% and 80% of receipts retained at the collecting site. Introduced
June 11, 2001; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
CRS-15

---

IB10076
04-12-02
S. 1318 (Murkowski)
Provides coastal impact assistance to state and local governments and establishes a fund
for conservation and recreation. Introduced August 2, 2001; referred to Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 1328 (Landrieu)
Entitled the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. Introduced August 2, 2001; referred
to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 1766 (Daschle)
A comprehensive energy bill to provide for the energy security of the Nation and for
other purposes. Introduced December 5, 2001; placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders on December 6.
S. 1808 (Thomas)
Mineral Leasing Act Revision of 2001 amends the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 to
encourage the development of natural gas and oil resources on federal lands; this bill would
exempt certain oil or gas leases from the statutory acreage limitation. (H.R. 3538 has
identical title and similar purpose, but different language.) Introduced December 12, 2001;
referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 2015 (Smith, Bob)
Exempts residents of counties containing fee demonstration areas from paying fees
imposed under the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. Introduced March 14, 2002;
referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Report 98-794 ENR, Federal Recreation Fees: Demonstration Program, by Rosemary
Mazaika.
CRS Report RL30755, Forest Fire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Issue Brief IB10015, Managing Growth and Related Issues in the 107th Congress, by
Jeffrey Zinn.
CRS Issue Brief IB89130, Mining on Federal Lands, by Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RL30647, The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by Pamela
Baldwin.
CRS Report RS20902, National Monument Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
GAO-01-47, Forest Service Roadless Areas: Potential Impact of Proposed Regulations on
Ecological Sustainability (Washington, DC: November 2000).
GAO-02-10, Recreation Fees: Management Improvements Can Help the Demonstration
Program Enhance Visitor Services (Washington, DC: November 2001).
CRS-16

---