Order Code IB10076
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Public (BLM) Lands and
National Forests
Updated June 14, 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
06-14-02
Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests
SUMMARY
The 107th Congress is addressing issues
continues higher funding for most fire pro-
related to the public lands managed by the
grams, but supplemental funding may be
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the
needed for firefighting efforts. Questions for
national forests managed by the U.S. Forest
the 107th Congress include whether to autho-
Service (FS). A key issue is how to balance
rize new forest health programs for BLM or
the protection and development of these lands.
FS lands.
Other questions relate to which lands the
government should own, and the adequacy of
Energy and Minerals. The Bush
funds and programs for agencies to acquire
Administration and Congress are examining
and protect lands. A related focus is authority
whether to increase access to federal lands for
for collecting fees for land use.
energy and mineral development, and related
legislation (H.R. 4) has passed both chambers.
National Monuments and the
A second issue is whether to clarify the Gen-
Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act of 1906
eral Mining Law of 1872 regarding the num-
authorizes the President to establish national
ber and size of millsites per mining claim. A
monuments on federal lands. Congress is
third issue is the Bush Administration’s revi-
considering limiting the authority of the Presi-
sions of the hard rock mining regulations
dent and amending particular monuments.
finalized by the Clinton Administration.
The Administration is developing manage-
ment plans for some monuments created by
Federal Land Acquisition. Debate is
President Clinton, and is considering a new
focused on funding levels for land acquisition
monument in Utah.
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. Implementa-
provide more certain funds for land acquisi-
tion was enjoined, and the Administration did
tion.
not appeal (but intervenors did). The Bush
Administration has sought public comment on
Recreational Fee Demonstration Pro-
whether and how to revise the roadless rules.
gram. The “Fee Demo” program was created
Interim direction is now in effect, and new
to allow land management agencies to test the
final rules are being developed. A bill to
feasibility of generating revenues for self-
protect roadless areas has been introduced.
financing through new fees. In his FY2003
budget, President Bush proposed making the
Wildfire Protection. The threat of
program permanent, and legislation to make it
catastrophic wildfires seems to have become
permanent has been introduced. The FY2002
more severe, and the 2002 fire season seems
budget request proposes extending the pro-
earlier and more severe than most. Congress
gram, and Congress enacted legislation to
has substantially increased funding for wild-
extend and revise the program.
fire management. The FY2003 budget request
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10076
06-14-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
H.R. 2114, to limit presidential designation of national monuments and amend the
monument designation process, is on the House calendar. DOI agencies have begun to
develop management plans for many of the monuments created by President Clinton. The
Bush Administration is considering designating a monument in Utah and selling Governors
Island, including Governors Island National Monument, for a nominal fee.
The wildfire season has begun earlier than is normal, and to date more fires and more
acres have burned than during the severe 2000 fire season. In his FY2003 budget, President
Bush proposed continuing most of the fire management programs expanded by President
Clinton, with total fire funding of $2.11 billion, but supplemental firefighting money is
expected to be needed in the next few weeks.
President Bush proposed making the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program
permanent, and bills to do so have been introduced. The Administration has sought public
comment on amending rules to prohibit developments in Forest Service roadless areas, but
final rules are not complete; H.R. 4865, to protect roadless areas, has been introduced.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in DOI and the Forest Service (FS) in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture 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
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
CRS-1

---

IB10076
06-14-02
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
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
CRS-2

---

IB10076
06-14-02
protect roadless areas not designated as wilderness. (For FS and BLM wilderness issues, see
CRS Report RL31447, 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 RL31306. 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
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.,
CRS-3

---

IB10076
06-14-02
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 President may proclaim
national monuments on federal lands containing “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 protected objects.
Congress subsequently limited the President’s authority in Wyoming and Alaska.
Administrative Actions. President Clinton proclaimed 19 new monuments and
enlarged 3 others, totaling about 5.9 million federal acres. He selected the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) to manage many of the monuments. Recent controversies have focused
on how President Clinton created monuments; the size of the areas and types of resources
protected; and restrictions on land uses that may result. Critics contend that the Antiquities
Act should require congressional, state, or public input or environmental reviews.
Supporters defend presidential authority to rapidly protect valuable federal lands and
resources, and contend that monuments have broad public support.

DOI has been examining the monument actions of President Clinton, receiving input
from officials in states containing new monuments. On April 24, 2002, Interior Secretary
Norton announced her intention to develop management plans for the new DOI monuments.
Notices published in the Federal Register on that date formally begin the planning process
with scoping periods (of at least 60 days each) to identify the key issues for each monument.
Controversies are expected over recreational uses, including off-highway vehicles, and
commercial uses, including grazing and energy development. The Secretary encouraged
agencies to include maximum public input during the planning process, and to consider
“creative, non-traditional” management options. These options include land exchanges;
conservation and other easements; partnerships for activities including grazing and
recreation; and contracts and agreements for local governments, volunteers, and businesses
to provide services. The Secretary also published notice of her intention to establish advisory
committees to advise agencies on the development and implementation of some of the plans.
Some observers interpret this planning effort as an indication that the Secretary is dropping
consideration of significant reductions to monument sizes due to their general popularity.
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 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.
CRS-4

---

IB10076
06-14-02
The Bush Administration also 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. Some environmental groups fear the size will be too small and 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. Terms
of the proposal have not been announced. 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 $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, and include public use
proposals such as using part of the island as a campus for the City University of New York.
Legislative Activity. 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. The language applies to the creation of new monuments and to
additions to existing monuments if the acreage exceeds 50,000. The bill also establishes a
process for input into presidential monument designations. Specifically, a monument
proclamation affecting more than 50,000 acres may not be issued until 30 days after the
President has solicited written comments on the proposal from the Governor(s) of the state(s)
in which the monument would be located. Further, for any monument proclamation, to the
extent consistent with the protection of the resources on the lands to be designated, the
President is to solicit public input, and to consult with the Governor and congressional
delegation, to the extent practicable, at least 60 days before the proclamation is issued. The
measure also requires monument management plans to be developed in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. At markup, the House Resources Committee
agreed to an amendment to clarify that the bill would apply to future proclamations. The
Committee reported the measure on April 15, 2002, essentially on a party line vote with
Democrats opposed. Earlier, the Bush Administration testified in support of this bill. The
measure is on the Union Calendar and available for House floor action.
Three bills would govern management, and transfer management, of Governors Island
National Monument. H.R. 1334 and S. 689 would authorize the conveyance of the Island to
New York for free. It is not clear how a conveyance might affect the Monument part of the
Island. H.R. 4759 seeks to ratify the establishment of the monument and prohibit it from
being sold. The measure would transfer jurisdiction and management of the monument, at
no cost, from the Administrator of General Services to the Secretary of the Interior. As a
condition of conveyance, certain rights of access and use are reserved. The Secretary is to
manage the monument in accordance with the bill and laws applicable to the National Park
System, and to submit a monument management plan to the House Resources Committee
and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committees by January 19, 2004.
Other bills pertain to particular monuments. One measure (H.R. 601) would allow
hunting in the expanded portion of the Craters of the Moon National Monument. Another
bill (H.R. 4076) would modify the boundaries of the Agua Fria National Monument, 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.
CRS-5

---

IB10076
06-14-02
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 RL31447, Wilderness: Overview and Statistics.)
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 supported 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 generally would have been prohibited, except for specified purposes.
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. H.R. 552, for example, would protect
specified roadless areas and require an assessment of their wilderness suitability, with
recommendations to Congress within 3 years of enactment. H.R. 4865 has been introduced
with 174 co-sponsors, to direct management of inventoried roadless areas in accordance with
the final rule promulgated by the Clinton Administration.
CRS-6

---

IB10076
06-14-02
Wildfire Protection (by Ross W. Gorte)
Background. The 2002 fire season is on track to be worse than the 2000 fire season,
which was, by most standards, one of the worst in the past 50 years. Wildfire funding was
more than doubled in the FY2001 Interior Appropriations Act; that level (except for some
of the emergency funding) was sustained in FY2002, and the Administration has proposed
modest reductions for FY2003. Congress is considering whether the funding levels and
programs are adequate to protect lands, resources, and structures from catastrophic wildfires.
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). This is $159
million less than FY2002, primarily for emergency fire contingency (shifting some to fire
suppression funding) and community assistance. However, current estimates are that
supplemental funding for firefighting will be needed. The Administration also has proposed
more 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 and the FY2002 Act included
$2.24 billion, maintaining the program funding increases, but not the emergency fire control
and rehabilitation funding. Despite significant increases since FY2000, FS fuel treatment
appropriations 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. The conference agreement on H.R. 2646 included a new program for assisting
communities with protection from wildfires. However, the House and Senate proposals to
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)
and to authorize grants to biomass energy facilities (to offset the costs of acquiring and
transporting hazardous biomass fuels from federal lands) were both deleted in the conference
agreement. H.R. 2646 was enacted into law (P.L. 107-171) on May 13, 2002.
CRS-7

---

IB10076
06-14-02
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 BLM administers the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 which governs the
leasing of onshore oil and gas, coal, and several other minerals on the federal lands. A BLM
study determined that of the roughly 700 million acres of federal minerals, 1) about 165
million acres have been withdrawn from mineral entry, leasing, and sale, subject to valid
existing rights, and 2) 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.
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 with increased exploration elsewhere and energy conservation.
Coal provides a sizable share of U.S. energy supply and accounts for about half of U.S.
electricity needs. Over the past 20 years, the government has emphasized developing clean
coal technologies (CCT). However, with 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 impediments to oil and gas exploration and development on federal land. The
Administration also is examining land status and reviewing public lands withdrawals. The
BLM, USGS, and Department of Energy (DOE) are working to assess the oil and gas
reserves and resources on federal lands.
The Bush Administration wants to revive the CCT programs under its Clean Coal
Power Initiative (CCPI), and is seeking $2 billion over the next 10 years (FY2002-FY2011).
Supporters note that coal resources could be more widely used if the 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 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 development. H.R. 4 also is consistent with the NEPD energy report and authorizes
spending for coal and related technologies programs for FY2002-FY2004.
The Senate passed version of H.R. 4 does not include language to open ANWR to oil
and gas drilling, one of the dominant issues. Amendments to allow limited drilling were
withdrawn after the Senate failed to invoke cloture. The bill includes an amendment with
$14 billion in tax credits and incentives for oil and natural gas producers and incentives for
CRS-8

---

IB10076
06-14-02
clean coal technology (compared to $30 billion in the House bill). It also seeks to resolve
federal leasing conflicts between the producers of coalbed methane and coal producers in the
Powder River Basin; BLM currently can issue leases for two different resources on the same
tract of land under certain circumstances, such as the overlapping coal and gas leases in the
Basin. Similar to the House version, the Senate bill would instruct the Secretary of the
Interior to ensure “timely action” on applications for oil and gas leases and drilling on federal
lands. It supports expeditious environmental reviews on public lands available for oil and
gas development and increases funding for fossil energy research and development. Energy
bill conferees have been selected to negotiate a compromise agreement.
There is likely to be a greater push from the energy industries to increase federal land
available to oil and gas development, particularly in the Rocky Mountain region. Some
regional and national organizations, including ranchers and environmentalists, have
expressed concern with, and opposition to, any increased federal leasing in the West because
of its potential impacts to wildlife, water quality, and other land uses. Other bills (H.R. 3538
and S. 1808) seek to “reduce impediments” for oil and gas development on federal lands.
Royalty in-kind (RIK) provisions are contained in H.R. 4 as passed by the House, and
the Senate-passed version 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 RIK 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.)
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
CRS-9

---

IB10076
06-14-02
exempted on-going mining operations from this decision. (For information on other mining
legislation under consideration, 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. The Bush
Administration subsequently revised these 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 eliminates some of the most controversial Clinton changes, primarily
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 land degradation.
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 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,
inconsistent with agency practice, and an indirect way of reforming the 1872 Mining Law.
Supporters 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.
CRS-10

---

IB10076
06-14-02
Legislative Activity. The millsite issue and hardrock mining regulations have been
addressed in recent Interior appropriations laws. In the FY2000 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 the
FY2000 and FY2001 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 regulations to include subjects not addressed in the NRC report, provided its
recommendations were not directly contradicted. This interpretation was controversial in
Congress. The FY2002 law 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.
Comprehensive mining law reform legislation (H.R. 4748), which was introduced May 20,
2002, contains surface management provisions that require a reclamation plan and financial
guarantees for cleanup of mine activities.
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 may be used for other purposes. Of the $25.4 billion LWCF had
accumulated through FY2001, 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 earmarks 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.
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.
CRS-11

---

IB10076
06-14-02
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
244 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 Carol Hardy Vincent and
David Whiteman)
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. It has been extended and revised by
Congress. Currently, each agency can establish any number of fee projects and retain and
spend all the revenue collected, with at least 80% retained at the site where collected. The
agencies have broad discretion in using the revenues.
The agencies generally support the Fee Demo program because of the discretion they
have in determining fee sites, setting fees, 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, result in “double
taxation” of the recreating public, and may not be needed given recent increases in
appropriations for public land management. Most of the current concern has focused on the
FS’s Fee Demo program, with assertions that the fees are confusing, commercialize public
lands, and are unfair if improved facilities are lacking.
CRS-12

---

IB10076
06-14-02
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
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.
Legislation has been introduced to establish a permanent recreation fee program. S.
1011 creates a permanent program with between 60% and 80% of the funds retained at the
collecting site. S. 2607 authorizes the collection of fees on certain lands administered by
DOI and DOA, prohibits other recreation fees from being collected on these lands, lists
circumstances when fees may not be charged, and authorizes between 60% and 80% of funds
to be retained at the collecting site. S. 2473 establishes a permanent fee program only for the
National Park Service, with 60%-90% of funds retained at the collecting site. Other
measures would remove FS lands from the Fee Demo program (H.R. 908 and H.R. 1139),
or extend the program to the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers (H.R.
1013 and S. 531). S. 2015 would exempt residents of counties containing Fee Demo program
areas from paying fees. 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.
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
National Monuments and the Antiquities Act
H.R. 601 (Simpson)
Authorizes continued hunting by creating a national preserve in the expanded portion
of Craters of the Moon National Monument. Passed House on May 1, 2001. Ordered
reported without amendment by Senate Energy and Natural Resources on June 5, 2002.
CRS-13

---

IB10076
06-14-02
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 developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969. House Resources reported (amended), and placed on calendar, on April 15, 2002.

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.
H.R. 4759 (Nadler)
Seeks to ratify establishment of Governors Island National Monument and prohibit its
sale. Introduced May 16, 2002; referred to Committees on Resources and on Government
Reform.
Roadless Areas
H.R. 4865 (Inslee)
Requires management of inventoried national forest roadless areas under the Clinton
Administration’s final rule. Introduced June 5, 2002; referred to Committee on Resources.
Energy and Minerals
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.
Conferees appointed May 1, 2002 (Senate), and June 12, 2002 (House).
H.R. 3538 (Cubin)
Amends the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 to reduce impediments to development of
natural gas and oil resources on federal lands. Excludes producing acreage from limitations
on taking, holding, owning, and controlling federal oil and gas leases. Introduced December
19, 2001; referred to Committee on Resources.
H.R. 4748 (Rahall)
Comprehensive mining law reform, with surface management provisions that require
a reclamation plan and financial guarantees for cleanup. Introduced May 16, 2002; referred
to Committee on Resources.
CRS-14

---

IB10076
06-14-02
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. 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 calendar on December 6, 2001.
S. 1808 (Thomas)
Amends the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 to encourage the development of natural gas
and oil resources on federal lands; exempts certain oil or gas leases from the statutory
acreage limitation. (H.R. 3538 has identical title, similar purpose, and different language.)
Introduced December 12, 2001; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Federal Land Acquisition
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 (amended) on July 25, 2001.
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.
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program
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)
Includes an extension of the Fee Demo Program to the Bureau of Reclamation and
Army Corps of Engineers. Introduced March 14, 2001. H.R. 1013 referred to Committees
on Resources, on Transportation and Infrastructure, and on Agriculture. S. 531 referred to
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
CRS-15

---

IB10076
06-14-02
H.R. 1139 (Bono)
Removes FS from the Fee Demo Program. Introduced March 21, 2001; referred to the
Committees on Resources and on Agriculture.
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.
S. 2015 (Smith, Bob)
Exempts residents of counties containing Recreational Fee Demonstration Program
areas from paying program fees. Introduced March 14, 2002; referred to Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 2607 (Bingaman)
Establishes a permanent recreation fee program. Introduced June 11, 2002; referred to
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Report RS20471, The Conservation Spending Category: Funding Natural Resource
Protection, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
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-02-10, Recreation Fees: Management Improvements Can Help the Demonstration
Program Enhance Visitor Services (Washington, DC: November 2001).
CRS-16

---