Order Code IB10076
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Lands and National Forests
Updated July 20, 2005
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
Energy Resources
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Wild Horses and Burros
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Wilderness
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Wildfire Protection
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
R.S. 2477: Rights of Way Across Public Lands
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Other Issues
Competitive Sourcing
Grazing Management
Hardrock Mining
National Forest Planning
Roadless Areas of the National Forest System
National Monuments and the Antiquities Act
LEGISLATION
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10076
07-20-05
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National Forests
SUMMARY
The 109th Congress is considering issues
Questions also persist about wilderness review
related to the public lands managed by the
and managing wilderness study areas (WSAs).
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the
Numerous bills to designate areas have been
national forests managed by the Forest Service
introduced, and the 109th Congress may ad-
(FS). The Administration is addressing public
dress wilderness review and WSA protection.
lands and national forests through budgetary,
regulatory, and other actions. Several key
Wildfire Protection. The Healthy For-
issues of congressional and administrative
ests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148)
interest are covered here.
contains provisions from President Bush’s
Healthy Forests Initiative and other provisions
Energy Resources. Comprehensive
to protect communities from wildfires by
energy legislation remains a priority for the
expediting fuel reduction. Wildfire protection
109th Congress, and access to federal lands for
also has been addressed through changes in
energy and mineral development continues to
regulations. The 2005 fire season is on a pace
command congressional and administrative
to be among the worst in recent years. The
interest. The House and Senate have passed
109th Congress is conducting oversight on fire
their own versions of the Energy Policy Act of
protection and implementation of the law and
2005, H.R. 6. They would affect energy
regulations.
development on federal lands, and provisions
include changes to federal oil, gas, and coal
Southern Nevada Land Sales. The
leasing; energy development in the Arctic
Southern Nevada Public Land Management
National Wildlife Refuge; and the application
Act allows the Secretary of the Interior to sell
of environmental laws to certain energy-re-
land near Las Vegas, with the proceeds perma-
lated administrative actions.
nently appropriated for certain purposes. The
President has proposed altering the distribu-
Wild Horses and Burros. The 108th
tion of receipts, with 70% going to the Trea-
Congress made controversial changes to the
sury rather than to a special account. No
Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of
related legislation has been introduced.
1971. Changes gave the agencies new author-
ity to sell certain old and unadoptable wild
R.S. 2477 Rights of Way. Revised
horses and burros, and removed prohibitions
Statute (R.S.) 2477 granted rights of way to
on selling wild horses and burros and their
construct highways across unreserved federal
remains for processing into commercial prod-
lands, but the extent of valid rights of way is
ucts. Currently, BLM has resumed the sale of
unclear in some states. Congress prohibited
animals with provisions seeking to prevent
regulations “pertaining to” R.S. 2477. The
their slaughter. H.R. 297 and S. 576 seek to
Bush Administration developed regulations on
overturn the changes, while H.R. 2993 and S.
“disclaimers of interest,” which may be used
1273 seek to foster adoptions and sales.
to clear title to R.S. 2477 highway easements.
Whether the regulations “pertain to” R.S.
Wilderness. Many wilderness recom-
2477 remains controversial. Congress may
mendations are pending for federal lands.
consider validation of such easements.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10076
07-20-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
! The Senate passed its version of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as an
amendment to H.R. 6, on June 28, 2005. H.R. 6 currently is in conference.
! H.R. 2361, the FY2006 Interior appropriations bill as passed by the House,
would bar funds for the sale or slaughter of wild horses and burros; require
the Secretary to report on expenditures under the Southern Nevada Public
Land Management Act; cap funds for DOI and FS competitive sourcing
studies; bar funds for energy leasing activities within the boundaries of
presidentially created national monuments; and provide funds for DOI and
FS wildfire protection and firefighting. The latter three provisions are also
in the version passed by the Senate.
! As of July 14, 2005, wildfires in 2005 have burned more than 3 million
acres, more than 50% above the 10-year average.
! H.R. 2993 and S. 1273, introduced June 20, 2005, seek to foster adoptions
and sales of wild horses and burros.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Department of the Interior (DOI) and
the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture (USDA) manage 454 million acres
of land, two-thirds of the land owned by the federal government and one-fifth of the total
U.S. land area. The BLM manages 261.5 million acres of land, predominantly in the West.
The FS administers 192.5 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 also has unique emphases and
functions. For instance, most BLM 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
under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (TGA, 43 U.S.C. §§315, et seq.).
Congress frequently has debated how to manage federal lands, and whether to retain or
dispose of the remaining public lands. In 1976, Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. §§1701, et seq.), sometimes called BLM’s
Organic Act because it consolidated and articulated the agency’s responsibilities. Among
CRS-1

---

IB10076
07-20-05
other provisions, the law establishes a general national policy that the BLM-managed public
lands be retained in federal ownership, establishes management of the public lands based on
the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, and generally requires that the federal
government receive fair market value for the use of public lands and resources. Today BLM
public land management encompasses diverse uses, resources, and values, such as energy and
mineral development, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, recreation, wild horses and
burros, fish and wildlife habitat, and preservation of natural and cultural resources.

History of the Forest Service
The FS was created in 1905, when forest lands reserved by the President (beginning in
1891) were transferred from DOI into the existing USDA Bureau of Forestry (initially an
agency for private forestry assistance and forestry research). Management direction for the
national forests, first enacted in 1897 and expanded in 1960, identifies the purposes for
which the lands controlled by the Forest Service are to be managed and directs “harmonious
and coordinated management” to provide sustained yields of the many resources found in the
national forests — including timber, grazing, recreation, wildlife and fish, and water.
Many issues concerning 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. In part to address these issues, 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. This
NFMA planning has been widely criticized as expensive, time-consuming, and ineffective
for making decisions and informing the public. (See “Other Issues,” below.)
Wilderness protection also is a continuing issue for the FS. The Multiple-Use
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. §528-531) included wilderness as an appropriate use
of national forest lands, and possible national forest wilderness areas have been reviewed
under the 1964 Wilderness Act as well as in the national forest planning process. Pressure
to protect pending wilderness recommendations and other areas contributed to the Clinton
Administration’s decision to protect “roadless areas” not designated as wilderness. (See
“Other Issues,” below.)
Scope of Issue Brief
Many issues affecting BLM and FS lands are similar, and the missions of the agencies
are nearly identical. By law, the BLM and FS lands are to be administered for multiple uses,
although slightly different uses are specified for each agency. 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 — a high level of resource outputs in perpetuity, without impairing the productivity of
the lands. Further, many issues, programs, and policies affect both agencies. For these
reasons, BLM and FS lands often are discussed together, as in this issue brief.
This brief focuses on several issues affecting BLM and FS lands that are of interest to
the 109th Congress. While in some cases the issues discussed here are relevant to other
federal lands and agencies, this brief does not comprehensively cover issues primarily
CRS-2

---

IB10076
07-20-05
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 RL32393, Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and Resource
Management. For brief, general information on natural resource issues, see CRS Report
RL32699, Natural Resources: Selected Issues for the 109th Congress. Information on
FY2006 appropriations for the BLM and FS (and other agencies and programs funded by
Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bills) is included in CRS Report RL32893,
Interior and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations. For information on park and
recreation issues, see CRS Issue Brief IB10145, National Park Management, and CRS Issue
Brief IB10141, Recreation Issues in the 109th Congress. For information on oil and gas
leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), see CRS Issue Brief IB10136,
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th Congress. For
information on local compensation for the tax-exempt status of federal lands, see CRS
Report RL31392, PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, and CRS Report
RS22004, The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000: Forest
Service Payments to Counties. For information on other related issues, see the CRS web
page at [http://www.crs.gov/].
Energy Resources (by Aaron M. Flynn)
Background. BLM administers the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, which governs the
leasing of onshore oil and gas, coal, and other minerals on many federal lands, including
lands managed by the BLM and the FS. Before BLM may lease minerals on FS lands, the
FS must perform a leasing analysis and approve leasing decisions for specific lands.
A controversial issue is whether and how to increase access to federal lands for energy
and mineral development. A BLM study (December 1, 2000) determined that, of the roughly
700 million acres of federal minerals, (1) about 165 million acres (24%) have been
withdrawn from mineral entry, leasing, and sale, subject to valid existing rights, and (2)
mineral development on another 182 million acres (26%) is subject to the approval of the
surface management agency and must not be in conflict with land designations and plans.
In January 2003, several federal agencies issued a similar assessment, Scientific Inventory
of Onshore Federal Lands’ Oil and Gas Resources and Reserves and the Extent and Nature
of Restrictions or Impediments to Their Development. Some assert that these reports show
that more federal lands currently are available for energy development than generally had
been realized, while others focus on the amount of lands withdrawn.
The oil and gas industry contends that entry into areas that are off-limits to
development, particularly in the Rocky Mountain region, is necessary to ensure future
domestic oil and gas supplies. Opponents maintain that the restricted lands are
environmentally sensitive or unique, and the United States could realize equivalent energy
gains through conservation and increased exploration elsewhere. (For more information, see
CRS Report RL32315, Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on Public Lands.)
Administrative Actions. Executive Order 13212 (May 18, 2001) established a
policy of encouraging increased energy production on federal lands. On April 14, 2003, the
BLM announced new management strategies intended to remove impediments and
streamline the permitting process for oil and gas leasing on federal lands. Features of this
CRS-3

---

IB10076
07-20-05
strategy include the use of multiple applications for a permit package when appropriate and
use of a geographic area development plan for the analysis and permitting process under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. §§4321-4347).
A goal of new FS land management planning regulations (70 Fed. Reg. 1023, Jan. 5, 2005)
is to increase management flexibility and streamline energy project permitting. (See “Other
Issues,” below.)
The BLM also has recently proposed or made final changes to its oil and gas leasing
process. On June 27, 2005, BLM adopted new procedures for filing protests to oil and gas
lease sales in an effort to provide for a more orderly leasing process that can reasonably be
expected to meet the statutory deadline for the issuance of leases. Previously, protests could
be filed until the day of the lease sale, but now they must be filed at least 15 calendar days
prior to the sale. Protests also now must state the interest of the filing party and be received
by mail or telefax. Some have asserted that similar proposals unnecessarily limit the public
review of proposed lease sales and make the protest filing process more burdensome.
Finally, the BLM has proposed new rules (70 Fed. Reg. 41531, July 19, 2005) increasing
existing fees and imposing new fees to cover the costs of processing certain documents
relating to its mineral programs, including oil and gas leasing.
In addition, the Administration is moving forward on proposals to develop federal lands
for a variety of other energy purposes. Recently, the BLM completed a Final Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement addressing the environmental, social, and economic
impacts associated with the development of wind energy on public lands. The BLM also has
initiated an oil shale research, development, and demonstration leasing program as the first
stage in its overall oil shale development program. The lease terms are provided for in the
final lease form published in the Federal Register (70 Fed. Reg. 33753, June 9, 2005).
Legislative Activity. The 108th Congress saw several versions of comprehensive
energy legislation. While such legislation was not enacted, some energy tax incentives were
included in a corporate tax law (P.L. 108-357), including incentives for marginal oil and gas
producers; for the Alaskan natural gas pipeline; and for the use of a specific clean coal
technology (termed K-Fuel) that can cut certain emissions by 20%.
In the 109th Congress, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, H.R. 6, has passed the House.
The Senate also passed the bill with its own version of comprehensive energy legislation.
Both versions of the bill would affect federal lands in a variety of ways. They would
significantly amend the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, providing new guidelines for
geothermal development of BLM and FS lands. These amendments also would impose new
royalty rates and deem geothermal leasing consistent with existing land management plans.
They also would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to modify statutory requirements governing
federal coal leases, ending the 160-acre limit on coal lease modifications and allowing
mining operations under a mining plan to extend beyond the current 40-year limitation. In
addition, both versions would require the Secretary of the Interior to evaluate the existing oil
and gas leasing process, with particular emphasis on streamlining permitting time frames.
There are differences between the House- and Senate-passed versions. The House version,
for instance, would shield a variety of energy-related activities on federal lands from NEPA
review, a provision that does not appear in the Senate version.
CRS-4

---

IB10076
07-20-05
Another version of comprehensive energy legislation also would address certain issues
related to energy development on federal lands. H.R. 1640 would require Interior and
Agriculture to coordinate and streamline their application processing for oil and gas
development on federal lands. The agencies, and others, also would be directed to study and
designate energy corridors on federal lands and to amend land management plans as
necessary to accommodate future right-of-way grants. In addition, the bill would require
federal agencies to comply with Executive Order 13211, which directs agencies to prepare
an analysis of any actions resulting in adverse energy impacts.
Whether to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas
development continues to be one of the most contentious issues in the energy debate.
Various legislation to open ANWR, including provisions within the House-passed version
of H.R. 6, has been introduced. For information on ANWR legislation, see CRS Issue Brief
IB10136, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th Congress.
Additional bills have been introduced in the 109th Congress addressing specific energy and
other mineral leasing issues, such as geothermal energy access, potash or soda ash royalties,
and coal leasing procedures. However, the numerous bills on specific energy and other
mineral leasing issues are not listed in the “Legislation” section of this report.
Wild Horses and Burros (by Carol Hardy Vincent)
Background. The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (16 U.S.C.
§1331 et seq.) sought to protect wild horses and burros on federal land and placed them
under the jurisdiction of BLM and the FS. For years, management of wild horses and burros
has generated controversy and lawsuits. Controversies have involved the method of
determining the “appropriate management levels” (AMLs) for herd sizes, as the statute
requires; whether and how to remove animals from the range to achieve AMLs; alternatives
to adoption for reducing wild horses and burros on the range, particularly fertility control and
holding animals in long-term facilities; and whether appropriations for managing wild horses
and burros are adequate. There was particular concern that adopted horses were slaughtered,
despite prohibitions on that practice. (For background, see CRS Report RS21423, Wild
Horse and Burro Issues.)
The 108th Congress enacted changes to wild horse and burro management on federal
lands (§142, P.L. 108-447). These changes have intensified controversies. One change gave
the agencies new authority to sell, “without limitation,” excess animals (or their remains) that
essentially are deemed too old (more than 10 years old) or otherwise unable to be adopted
(tried unsuccessfully at least three times). Proceeds are to be used for the BLM wild horse
and burro adoption program. A second change removed the ban on wild horses and burros
and their remains being sold for processing into commercial products. A third change
removed criminal penalties for processing into commercial products the remains of a wild
horse or burro, if it is sold under the new authority. Also, the law did not expressly prohibit
BLM from slaughtering healthy wild horses and burros, as annual appropriations bills
apparently had since FY1988. These changes have been supported as providing a cost-
effective way of helping the agencies achieve AML, to improve the health of the animals,
protect range resources, and restore a natural ecological balance on federal lands. The
changes have been opposed as potentially leading to the slaughter of healthy animals.

CRS-5

---

IB10076
07-20-05
Administrative Actions. On April 25, 2005, BLM temporarily suspended sale and
delivery of wild horses and burros, due to concerns about the slaughter of some animals sold
under the new authority. According to BLM, 41 animals that were sold under the new
authority were subsequently resold or traded, and then sent to slaughterhouses by the new
owners. Another 52 animals also had been sold to slaughterhouses, but Ford Motor Co.
committed to purchasing them. On May 19, 2005, the agency resumed sales after revising
its bill of sale and pre-sale negotiation procedures to protect sold animals from slaughter.
Purchasers formerly gave written affirmation of an intent to provide humane care, and now
also must agree not to sell or transfer ownership of animals to persons or organizations that
intend to resell, trade, or give away animals for processing into commercial products. Sales
contracts also now incorporate criminal penalties for anyone who knowingly or willfully
falsifies or conceals information. Some horse advocates have questioned whether the
penalties would withstand legal challenge, because the law provides for the sale of animals
without limitation. Also, according to BLM, once purchased the animals are classified as
private property free of federal protection. BLM also is pursuing agreements with the three
U.S. horse processing plants to not purchase horses sold under the new law.
According to the BLM, of the 8,400 wild horses and burros affected by the new law,
about 992 animals had been sold and delivered, and another 950 had been sold pending
delivery, as of May 6, 2005. BLM has been negotiating sales of groups of excess animals,
for instance with ranchers, tribes, and horse, humane, and other organizations, with the price
determined on a case-by-case basis. Ranchers, horse advocates, and other prospective
purchasers are considering or promoting several related ideas. They include outsourcing the
sale of wild horses and burros; creating private sanctuaries as tourist attractions; raising funds
for wild horses and burros by selling horse sponsorships; and changing current law to allow
proceeds of BLM disposals to be used for wild horse and burro management.
As of February 2005, there were about 32,000 wild horses and burros on the range, with
the national maximum AML set at 28,000, according to BLM. BLM has been pursuing a
multi-year effort to achieve AML. Some critics assert that the current AMLs are set low in
favor of livestock. BLM manages another 23,000 animals in holding facilities. For
management of wild horses and burros during FY2006, BLM has requested $36.9 million,
a reduction of $2.1 million (5%) from the FY2005 level of $39.0 million. The agency asserts
that the reduction can be accomplished through program efficiencies, such as a reduction in
the cost of the adoption program; an increase in animals adopted; and an expected reduction
during FY2005 of 5,000 animals in long-term holding facilities. The cost per animal per year
in these facilities is $465-$500, according to varying BLM estimates.
Legislative Activity. The House- and Senate-passed versions of the FY2006 Interior
appropriations bill (H.R. 2361) would provide $36.9 million for BLM management of wild
horses and burros, and an additional $1.2 million in fees collected from adoptions. The
House version also would prohibit funds for the sale or slaughter of wild horses and burros.
The Senate Appropriations Committee report (S.Rept. 109-80) encourages BLM to fund the
pilot adoption program of the National Wild Horse Association in Nevada.
Bills have been introduced (H.R. 297 and S. 576) to overturn the changes to wild horse
and burro management enacted during the 108th Congress. (See “Background,” above.)
Other bills (H.R. 2993 and S. 1273) seek to foster the sale and adoption of wild horses and
burros while establishing further protections. Changes include: eliminating the limit of four
CRS-6

---

IB10076
07-20-05
animals per adopter per year; reducing the minimum adoption fee from $125 to $25 per
animal; removing the provision that excess, unadoptable animals be destroyed in a humane
and cost-effective manner and making them available for sale; imposing a one-year wait
period before buyers obtain title to sold animals, and removing the provision for sale of
animals “without limitation.” Some opponents fear that additional sales or adoptions could
increase the risk of slaughter. Also, under H.R. 2419 as passed by the Senate, the Secretary
of the Interior is to provide not more than $70.0 million to the University of Nevada for
purposes including wild horse and burro research and adoption marketing.
Wilderness (by Ross W. Gorte and Pamela Baldwin)
Background. The Wilderness Act established the National Wilderness Preservation
System in 1964 and directed that only Congress could designate federal lands as wilderness.
Designations are often controversial because commercial activities, motorized access, and
roads, structures, and facilities generally are restricted in wilderness areas. (See CRS Report
RS22025, Wilderness Laws: Permitted and Prohibited Uses.) Similarly, agency wilderness
studies are controversial because many uses also are restricted in the study areas to preserve
wilderness characteristics while Congress considers possible designations.
Some observers believe that the Clinton rule protecting national forest roadless areas
(discussed below) was prompted by a view that Congress had lagged in designating areas
which many believe should be wilderness. Others assert that the Bush Administration — in
addressing R.S. 2477 rights-of-way (discussed below), promulgating new guidance to end
additional, formal BLM wilderness study areas, and eliminating the nationwide national
forest roadless area protections of the Clinton Administration — is attempting to open areas
with wilderness attributes to energy and mineral exploration, roads, and development,
thereby making them ineligible to be added to the Wilderness System.
Administrative Actions. The Wilderness Act directed the Secretary of Agriculture
to review the wilderness potential of administratively designated national forest primitive
areas and the Secretary of the Interior to review the wilderness potential of National Park
System and National Wildlife Refuge System lands. The Forest Service expanded its review
and sent recommendations to the President and Congress in 1979. Release language, in
statutes designating national forest wilderness areas, and the new FS planning regulations (36
C.F.R. §219.7(a)(5)(ii)) provide for periodic review of potential national forest wilderness
areas in the agency’s planning process.
The Secretary of the Interior was directed to review the wilderness potential of BLM
lands in §603 of FLPMA, and to maintain the wilderness character of wilderness study areas
(WSAs) “until Congress has determined otherwise.” In 1996, following debate over
additional wilderness areas proposed in legislation for Utah, then-Secretary of the Interior
Bruce Babbitt used the BLM authority to inventory its lands and resources (§201 of FLPMA;
43 U.S.C. §1711) to identify an additional 2.6 million acres in Utah as having wilderness
qualities. The state of Utah filed suit alleging that the inventory was illegal. On September
29, 2003, Interior Secretary Gale Norton settled the case and issued new wilderness guidance
(Instruction Memoranda Nos. 2003-274 and 2003-275) prohibiting further wilderness
reviews and limiting the nonimpairment standard of management to the BLM’s previously
designated WSAs. (See CRS Report RS21917, Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Wilderness Review Issues.)
CRS-7

---

IB10076
07-20-05
Legislative Activity. Many wilderness recommendations remain pending, including
some FS areas and many BLM and Park System areas. Nearly 20 such bills for wilderness
areas in more than a dozen states have been introduced in the 109th Congress. The
“Legislation” section of this report does not identify each bill that would designate new
wilderness areas; it will identify bills to substantively amend the Wilderness Act or alter
wilderness or WSA management.
Bills were introduced in the 106th, 107th, and 108th Congresses to prohibit future BLM
wilderness reviews and to place time limits on WSA status, generally terminating WSAs 10
years after the bills’ enactment or after Congress establishes new WSAs. The House
Committee on Resources reported bills in the 106th and 107th Congresses, but there was no
floor consideration. No action occurred in the 108th Congress. To date, no wilderness review
or WSA legislation had been introduced in the 109th Congress.
Wildfire Protection (by Ross W. Gorte)
Background. Recent fire seasons have killed firefighters, burned homes, threatened
communities, and destroyed trees. The 2005 fire season is on a pace to be among the worst
in recent years, with more than 3 million acres burned through July 14, 56% above the 10-
year average. Many assert that the threat of severe wildfires has grown, because many forests
have unnaturally high fuel loads (e.g., dense undergrowth and dead trees) and increasing
numbers of structures are in and near the forests (the wildland-urban interface). Reducing
fuels on federal lands has been urged as a way to reduce the threats from fire. Proponents
of fuel reduction contend that needed treatments often are delayed by environmental studies,
administrative appeals, and litigation. Opponents of accelerated review processes argue that
streamlining fuel projects could increase logging on federal lands, that such projects might
not receive proper environmental review, and that reducing fire risk in the interface requires
reducing fuels and modifying structures on private lands. The National Fire Plan is the
program of wildfire protection activities and funding for the FS and BLM.
Administrative Actions. In August 2002 (107th Congress), the Bush Administration
proposed a Healthy Forests Initiative to improve wildfire protection by expediting projects
to reduce hazardous fuels. Congress enacted the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
(P.L. 108-148) with many of the proposals in the President’s initiative and other provisions
(described below under “Legislative Activity”).
Before legislation was enacted, the Administration made several regulatory changes to
facilitate fire protection activities, which remain unaffected by P.L. 108-148. First, two new
categories of actions can be excluded from NEPA analysis and documentation: fuel
reduction and post-fire rehabilitation activities (68 Fed. Reg. 33814, June 5, 2003). These
categorical exclusions are limited in scale, and cannot be used in certain areas or under
certain circumstances, but may be used for timber sales if fuel reduction is the primary
purpose. Second, the administrative review processes were revised (68 Fed. Reg. 33582,
June 4, 2003, for the FS; 68 Fed. Reg. 33794, June 5, 2003, for the BLM). The revisions
sought (1) to clarify that some emergency actions may be implemented immediately and
others after complying with publication requirements; and (2) to expand emergencies to
include those “that would result in substantial loss of economic value to the Government if
implementation of the proposed action were delayed.”
CRS-8

---

IB10076
07-20-05
The Administration has made other regulatory changes that could affect fuel reduction,
public involvement, and environmental impacts. For example, new categorical exclusions
for small timber harvesting projects (68 Fed. Reg. 44598, July 29, 2003) and new regulations
for FS planning (70 Fed. Reg. 1023, Jan. 5, 2005; see “Other Issues,” below) have been
completed. The total impact of the regulatory changes is generally greater discretion for FS
action without environmental studies and with fewer opportunities for the public to comment
on, or to request administrative review of, those actions.
Legislative Activity. H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, was
signed into law (P.L. 108-148) on December 3, 2003. (See CRS Report RS22024, Wildfire
Protection in the 108th Congress.) Title I authorized a new, alternative process for reducing
fuels on national forest or BLM lands in certain areas. The act contained five other titles that
indirectly relate to fire protection.
The 109th Congress is overseeing the implementation of this law. On February 17,
2005, a House Resources subcommittee hearing focused on a Government Accountability
Office (GAO) review of progress in wildfire protection. The GAO report (GAO-05-147) and
testimony (GAO-05-353T) found some progress, but noted that the agencies lack a cohesive
long-term strategy for addressing excess fuels and other wildfire threats. On April 26, 2005,
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on wildfire
preparedness. GAO’s report (GAO-05-380) and testimony (GAO-05-627T) noted that the
knowledge and technology for protecting structures and improving communications exist,
but their adoption by landowners and governmental agencies has been slow. Also, questions
were raised about the airworthiness of firefighting airtankers, in the wake of an airtanker
crash (CA) on April 20. On July 14, 2005, witnesses testified before a House Appropriations
subcommittee on progress in implementing the National Fire Plan. A GAO witness testified
on the need for identifying long-term options and funding needs (GAO-05-923T).
Congress also has addressed wildfire protection through appropriations. For FY2006,
the Administration has requested $2.51 billion for the National Fire Plan. In the Interior
appropriations bill (H.R. 2361), the House provided $2.59 billion for wildfire protection and
the National Fire Plan and the Senate provided $2.54 billion. The Senate also included
provisions requiring a report on the Biscuit fire (OR) rehabilitation and consideration of the
effects of competitive sourcing (see below) on wildfire protection. For FY2005, Congress
provided $3.00 billion for wildfire protection, including supplemental and emergency
funding.1 (See CRS Report RL32893, Interior and Related Agencies: FY2006
Appropriations.) In addition, bills have been introduced to alter firefighter and fire
organization compensation and safety practices, and provisions have been included in
comprehensive energy bills to provide grants for producing energy from biomass fuels
removed from forests to reduce wildfire risks.
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (by Carol Hardy Vincent)
Background. Historically, proceeds from the sale of BLM lands under various laws
were deposited in the general fund of the Treasury. Certain recent laws have provided for
1 Funding has risen substantially over the past decade or so. Average spending for FY1994-FY1999
was $1.07 billion annually.
CRS-9

---

IB10076
07-20-05
land sales and established separate Treasury accounts available to the Secretary for
subsequent land acquisition and other purposes. A proposal in the President’s FY2006
budget seeks to change one such law — the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act
(SNPLMA, P.L. 105-623) — to send most proceeds to the Treasury.
SNPLMA allows the Secretary of the Interior to sell or exchange certain lands around
Las Vegas, NV. The Secretary and the relevant local government unit jointly choose the
lands offered for sale or exchange. In practice, these responsibilities of the Secretary are
performed by the BLM. State and local governments get priority to acquire lands for local
purposes under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (43 U.S.C. §869). Proceeds are
distributed in different ways, depending on which lands are sold. In general, 85% is
deposited into a special account, which is permanently appropriated for certain purposes,
including (1) federal acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands in Nevada; (2)
development of a multi-species habitat conservation plan in Clark County, NV; (3)
conservation initiatives on federal land in Clark County; (4) capital improvements at certain
federal areas; and (5) development of parks, trails, and natural areas in Clark County. The
other 15% of the revenues are provided to the state of Nevada and certain local entities for
state and local purposes, such as the Nevada general education program.
The law was enacted in part to promote sale of federal land for development near fast-
growing Las Vegas, to acquire environmentally sensitive land, and to foster competition in
land disposals in response to criticisms that the government did not consistently receive a fair
price for land it sold. Collections from SNPLMA land sales in FY2005 are estimated at $1.2
billion, vastly exceeding expectations at the time the law was enacted ($70 million annually)
and more than double the amount collected in FY2004 ($530.5 million).
Administrative Actions. The President’s FY2006 budget request supports amending
SNPLMA to change the allocation of revenue to the special account. The Administration
recommends that 15% of the receipts go to the special account and 70% go to the Treasury,
with the remaining 15% to the state of Nevada and local entities as under current law. The
Administration states that because SNPLMA land sales have produced receipts far beyond
expectations, there is significantly more revenue than is needed for land acquisition in
Nevada. Consequently, proceeds of land sales increasingly are being used for local projects
which are not overseen by Congress, thus reducing accountability, and do not reflect the
highest needs of the nation, according to the Administration. Further, the change would still
provide for far more money for Nevada than anticipated when the law was enacted,
according to the Administration. The SNPLMA proposal could be opposed as impeding
development in the Las Vegas area, federal acquisition of land with valuable resources, and
conservation and recreation initiatives in Clark County. It is one of many changes advocated
by the Administration that affect receipts or spending levels in FY2006 or subsequent years.

Legislative Activity. Administration budget documents for FY2006 state that the
President intends to submit a legislative proposal to accomplish his desired change regarding
SNPLMA receipts. The Administration has not done so to date, according to the BLM, and
no related legislation has been introduced to amend SNPLMA. The House-passed version
of the FY2006 Interior appropriations bill (H.R. 2361) would require the Secretary of the
Interior to report on expenditures under SNPLMA during FY2003 and FY2004.
CRS-10

---

IB10076
07-20-05
R.S. 2477: Rights of Way Across Public Lands (by Pamela Baldwin)
Background. In 1866, in an act that became Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477, Congress
granted rights of way across unreserved public lands “for the construction of highways.”
This grant was repealed in 1976, but existing rights were protected. What constitutes
construction of highways and whether a qualifying right of way existed by the time of repeal
in 1976 can be contentious. These issues are important because possible rights of way may
affect the management of federal lands, perhaps degrading their wilderness suitability while
increasing access for recreation and other uses. Section 108 of the FY1997 Interior
Appropriations Act (P.L. 104-208) states that final regulations “pertaining to” R.S. 2477
rights of way cannot take effect unless expressly authorized by an act of Congress.
Administrative Actions. On January 6, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 494), the BLM finalized
changes to its regulations for issuing “disclaimers of interest,” a procedure to help clear title
to property or interests in property with respect to possible interests of the United States.
This procedure is to be used to acknowledge R.S. 2477 rights of way. Interior Secretary
Norton and the state of Utah executed a Memorandum of Understanding on April 9, 2003,
under which the DOI will acknowledge the existence of R.S. 2477 rights of way in Utah, by
disclaiming any federal interest. Other states also have requested MOUs. The MOU does
not fully clarify what criteria will be used to validate right of way claims. Critics assert that
the disclaimer regulations “pertain to” R.S. 2477 rights of way and are unlawful under §108
of P.L. 104-208. GAO has concluded that the Utah MOU itself is an unlawful regulation
pertaining to R.S. 2477 (GAO Opinion B-300912, Recognition of R.S. 2477 Rights-of-Way
Under the Department of the Interior’s FLPMA Disclaimer Rules and Its Memorandum of
Understanding with the State of Utah, Feb. 6, 2004). The first notice of an application for
a disclaimer (filed in regard to a Utah road) was published on February 9, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg.
6000); Utah withdrew the application on September 16, 2004. Two new Utah applications
have been filed recently (70 Fed. Reg. 19500, April 13, 2005).
Legislative Activity. The 108th Congress considered, but did not enact, legislation
which would have established a process for resolving R.S. 2477 claims and would have
defined certain terms critical to evaluating the validity of such claims. Also in the 108th
Congress, the House approved an amendment to FY2004 Interior appropriations legislation
to prohibit implementation of the 2003 changes to the disclaimer regulations in certain
federal conservation areas, but this language was eliminated in conference. The 109th
Congress may consider a process and criteria for resolving R.S. 2477 claims, and also may
consider the use of disclaimers in the R.S. 2477 context.
Other Issues
Several other federal lands topics could be addressed through legislation or oversight.
These include agency competitive sourcing initiatives, grazing management, hardrock
mining, national forest planning, national monuments and the Antiquities Act, and roadless
areas of the National Forest System.
Competitive Sourcing. (by Carol Hardy Vincent) The Bush Administration’s
Competitive Sourcing Initiative would subject federal agency activities judged to be
commercial in nature to public-private competition. This government-wide effort could
affect diverse activities in agencies including BLM and the FS. The goal is to save money
CRS-11

---

IB10076
07-20-05
through competition, particularly in areas where private business might provide better
services (e.g., administration and maintenance). The plan is controversial, with concerns as
to whether it would save the government money, the private sector could provide the same
quality of service, or it is being used to accomplish policy objectives. Through December
2004, BLM had studied 415 full-time equivalents (FTEs) to determine whether they should
be subject to competitive bidding. That is 12% of the agency’s 3,340.5 FTEs identified as
commercial. While 176 FTEs were subjected to competitive bidding, none were contracted
out. For the FS, similar information is not readily available.
The House- and Senate-passed versions of the FY2006 Interior appropriations bill (H.R.
2361) capped DOI competitive sourcing studies during FY2006 at $3.45 million. They did
not specify the portion for BLM. The House-passed bill limited FS spending during FY2006
to no more than $2.5 million, while the Senate-passed bill provided a limit of $3.0 million.
The Administration had urged removing the funding limitations. The Senate version also (1)
directed the Secretary of Agriculture to assess the affect of contracting out on FS fire
management, and (2) specified that agencies include, in any reports to the Appropriations
Committees on competitive sourcing, information on the costs associated with sourcing
studies and related activities. P.L. 108-447 capped FY2005 funds for FS competitive
sourcing studies at $2.0 million and for DOI at $3.25 million, with the portion for BLM
unspecified. The FY2006 BLM budget justification stated that the agency received $562,000
for competitive sourcing during FY2005, which will be used for planning and competitive
sourcing studies on 80 to 100 FTEs. For FY2006, the BLM sought another $562,000, for
planning and competitive sourcing studies on up to 150 FTEs. (For more information, see
CRS Report RL32893, Interior and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations; and CRS
Report RL32017, Circular A-76 Revision 2003: Selected Issues.)

Grazing Management. (by Carol Hardy Vincent) On June 16, 2005, BLM
published a final environmental impact statement analyzing the impact of proposed changes
to grazing regulations as well as of two alternatives (see [http://www.blm.gov/grazing]). The
new regulations will take effect 30 days after their publication in the Federal Register,
expected in mid-July. BLM asserts that regulatory changes are needed to comply with court
decisions, increase flexibility of managers and permittees, improve administrative procedures
and business practices, and promote conservation. Some of the changes would (1) allow title
to range improvements to be shared by the BLM and permittees, (2) allow permittees to
acquire water rights for grazing if consistent with state law, (3) change the definition of
“grazing preference” to include an amount of forage, (4) eliminate conservation use grazing
permits, (5) extend the time to remedy rangeland health problems, and (6) reduce occasions
where BLM is required to consult with the public. BLM did not address some controversial
issues, such as revising the grazing fee. The agency received more than 18,000 comments
on earlier proposed changes to its grazing regulations (43 C.F.R. Part 4100, December 8,
2003) and a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) issued on January 2, 2004. BLM
is reportedly no longer considering related grazing policy changes. (For background, see
CRS Report RL32244, Grazing Regulations and Policies: Changes by the Bureau of Land
Management.) The 109th Congress may conduct oversight on the regulatory changes.
Legislation has been introduced to compensate livestock operators on federal lands.
H.R. 411 seeks to require federal land management agencies to compensate holders of
grazing permits when certain actions reduce or eliminate their permitted grazing, and
alternative forage is not available. The bill also would authorize grazing permit holders to
CRS-12

---

IB10076
07-20-05
sublease their allotments under specified conditions. H.R. 3166 provides for payment to
federal grazing permittees who voluntarily relinquish their permits, at a rate of $175 per
AUM. The allotments would be permanently closed to grazing. The bill also provides for
payments to counties in which the relinquished allotments are located, and authorizes
permittees to opt for nonuse or reduced use throughout a term.
Hardrock Mining. (by Aaron M. Flynn) Reform of the General Mining Act of 1872,
the law governing hardrock mining on federal lands, may be considered in the 109th
Congress. The Mining Act authorizes a prospector to locate and claim an area believed to
contain a valuable mineral deposit, subject to the payment of certain fees. At such time,
mineral development may proceed and, if certain minimum conditions are met, the Mining
Act authorizes claim holders to patent — or acquire title to — the federal land contained
within the claim area and to patent attendant millsites. Some argue that title acquisition
encourages mineral production in a variety of ways, including assurance of necessary land
access and facilitation of project financing. Others argue that the patent system is
unnecessary, deprives the government of fair market value for transferred lands, and that
mining incentives can be achieved through other measures. Similarly, critics of the Mining
Act suggest that the lack of a production-related royalty, as is required for oil, gas, and other
leasable minerals, is a subsidy to the mining industry. As this debate has continued,
Congress has annually placed moratoria on mineral claim patents in appropriations bills,
most recently in the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447). Legislation
has been introduced in previous Congresses to require royalty payments, but no such
provisions have been enacted.
Additional reforms also have been proposed. Significant issues, such as environmental
protection and abandoned mine reclamation, have been addressed in past and pending
legislation, although major reforms have not been enacted. The “Legislation” section of this
report identifies only broad, substantive bills to alter mining practices. Recent administrative
activities in these areas also have been controversial. First, in October 2001, the Bush
Administration eliminated several Clinton Administration regulations designed to enhance
the BLM’s ability to prevent “unnecessary or undue degradation” of public lands from
mining operations and to make mining operators more responsible for reclaiming mined
lands (66 Fed. Reg. 54834). A November 18, 2003 federal district court decision upheld the
Bush regulations challenged by several environmental groups, despite concluding that the
regulations may arguably constitute “unwise and unsustainable” land use policy.
National Forest Planning. (by Ross W. Gorte) New FS planning regulations were
promulgated by the Clinton Administration in November 2000, but their implementation was
delayed. On January 5, 2005, the Bush Administration issued two new rules. The first (70
Fed. Reg. 1022) removes the Clinton regulations, and the second (70 Fed. Reg. 1023-1061)
finalizes new FS planning regulations. The Clinton regulations established ecological
sustainability as the priority for managing national forests. The Bush regulations seek to
simplify planning in response to concerns about the feasibility of the Clinton regulations.
Plans are to be an articulation of desired conditions and goals, and most planning details have
been moved to agency “directives,” some of which were published on March 23, 2005 (70
Fed. Reg. 14637). Because plans will guide activity decisions but will not usually make
decisions, they can be categorically excluded from NEPA analysis and public involvement
requirements. The new regulations replace ecological sustainability as the main priority for
the national forests with a balance of ecological, economic, and social sustainability. The
CRS-13

---

IB10076
07-20-05
regulations do not address species viability, roadless areas, or many other specific topics.
These and other regulatory changes affecting public participation in, and review of, agency
decisions have been criticized by many environmentalists and others. The 109th Congress
may review the new FS planning regulations.
Roadless Areas of the National Forest System. (by Pamela Baldwin) The
Clinton Administration issued several rules affecting the roadless areas of the National Forest
System (NFS). The principal rule (66 Fed. Reg. 3244, Jan. 12, 2001) resulted in a nationwide
approach to management that curtailed, but did not eliminate, most roads and timber cutting
in roadless areas. This national guidance was justified as avoiding the litigation and delays
when decisions were made at each national forest. The rule was twice enjoined. The Bush
Administration has issued a new final rule that replaces the Clinton rule and allows a
governor of a state to petition the FS to promulgate a special rule for roadless areas in all or
part of that state. (Federal Register cite not available as of May 6, 2005.) Governors have
18 months in which to submit petitions. Until such a new roadless area regulation in
response to a petition is finalized, the FS is to manage roadless areas in accordance with
interim directives (69 Fed. Reg. 42648, July 16, 2004) that place most decisions with the
Regional Forester, and the Chief of the FS, until each forest plan is amended or revised to
address roadless area management. This returns decisions on roadless area management to
the individual forest plans, basically reversing the Clinton nationwide roadless rule.
The FS also has made changes to its NEPA compliance requirements that could allow
some activities in roadless areas without environmental studies, public notice and comment,
or appeals. New NFS planning regulations (see above) do not address roadless areas,
apparently leaving decisions involving them to the project level within each forest, unless
a special rule is adopted for a particular state. (For more information on roadless area issues,
see CRS Report RL30647, The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative.) Congress
may review administrative guidance for managing roadless areas.
National Monuments and the Antiquities Act. (by Carol Hardy Vincent)
Presidential establishment of national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16
U.S.C. §§431, et seq.) sometimes 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 expressly prohibited the President from proclaiming new national monuments in
Wyoming (1950), and many assert that 1980 legislation did the same for Alaska.

President Clinton’s establishment or enlargement of 22 monuments set off renewed
controversy regarding presidential authority to proclaim monuments. To date, courts have
upheld the monuments. Currently, BLM is formulating and analyzing management options
and issuing management plans for some of the monuments. Some issues have involved
recreational uses, including off-highway vehicles, and commercial uses, including grazing
and energy development. The 108th Congress focused on land uses within monuments; the
inclusion of non-federal lands in monument boundaries; and whether the President should
be required to seek congressional, state, or public input or environmental reviews. A bill was
introduced to limit the President’s authority to designate national monuments and establish
a process for input into presidential monument designations, but no further action was taken.
As of July 15, 2005, similar legislation had not been introduced in the 109th Congress. The
CRS-14

---

IB10076
07-20-05
House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 2361, the FY2006 Interior appropriations bill,
would continue to bar funds for energy leasing activities within the boundaries of
presidentially created national monuments. (For more information on monument issues, see
CRS Report RS20902, National Monument Issues.)
LEGISLATION
H.R. 6 (Barton)
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 would, among other provisions, amend the Geothermal
Steam Act of 1970 and the Mineral Leasing Act, require the Secretary of the Interior to
evaluate the oil and gas leasing process, and shield various energy-related activities on
federal lands from review under NEPA. Conference held July 14 and 19, 2005.
H.R. 297 (Rahall); S. 576 (Byrd)
These bills would amend the Wild Horses and Burros Act to restore the prohibition on
the commercial sale and slaughter of wild horses and burros. H.R. 297, introduced January
25, 2005; referred to Committee on Resources. S. 576, introduced March 9, 2005; referred
to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 411 (Renzi)
The Cattleman’s Bill of Rights Act would direct compensation for ranchers when
government actions reduced their allowed amount of grazing. Introduced January 26, 2005;
referred to Committee on Resources and Committee on Agriculture.
H.R. 1640 (Barton)
This broad energy bill contains provisions affecting federal lands, including those
related to oil and gas development, energy corridors, right-of-way grants, and analyses of
actions. Introduced April 14, 2005; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce and
several other committees.
H.R. 2993 (Porter); S. 1273 (Reid)
These bills seek to foster the sale and adoption of wild horses and burros while
strengthening protections. H.R. 2993, introduced June 20, 2005; referred to Committee on
Resources. S. 1273, introduced June 20, 2005; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
H.R. 3166 (Grijalva)
The Multiple-Use Conflict Resolution Act would compensate livestock operators who
voluntarily relinquish grazing permits. Introduced June 30, 2005; referred to Committee on
Resources, Committee on Agriculture, and Committee on Armed Services.

S. 10 (Domenici)
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 would, among other provisions, affect energy
development on federal lands by amending the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to encourage
more leasing and production; amending the Mineral Leasing Act to reduce royalties on oil
and gas production and to repeal certain restrictions on federal coal leases; attempting to
streamline energy-related permitting on federal lands; and requiring the designation of utility
corridors on federal lands. Incorporated as amendment into H.R. 6; H.R. 6 is in conference.
CRS-15

---

IB10076
07-20-05
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Report RS21917. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wilderness Review Issues, by
Ross W. Gorte and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Issue Brief IB10143. Energy Policy: Legislative Proposals in the 109th Congress, by
Robert L. Bamberger.
CRS Report RL32393. Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and
Resources Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinator.
CRS Report RS21402. Federal Lands, “Disclaimers of Interest,” and R.S. 2477, by Pamela
Baldwin.
CRS Report RL30755. Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL32244. Grazing Regulations and Policies: Changes by the Bureau of Land
Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL32142. Highway Rights of Way on Public Lands: R.S. 2477 and Disclaimers
of Interest, by Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL32893. Interior and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations, Carol Hardy
Vincent and Susan Boren, co-coordinators.
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.
CRS Report RL32315. Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on Public Lands, by
Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RL32936. Omnibus Energy Legislation, 109th Congress: Assessment of H.R.
6 as Passed by the House, by Mark Holt and Carol Glover, co-coordinators.
CRS Report RS21423. Wild Horse and Burro Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RS22025. Wilderness Laws: Permitted and Prohibited Used, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL31447. Wilderness: Overview and Statistics, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RS21544. Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS-16

---