Order Code RL33792
Federal Lands Managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
and the Forest Service (FS):
Issues for the 110th Congress
Updated May 17, 2007
Ross W. Gorte, Carol Hardy Vincent, and Marc Humphries
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Kristina Alexander
American Law Division

Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (FS):
Issues for the 110th Congress
Summary
The 110th Congress is considering several issues related to the public lands
managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the national forests
managed by the Forest Service (FS). The Administration also is addressing issues
through budgetary, regulatory, and other actions. Key issues include the following.
Energy Resources. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 affected energy
development on federal lands. In response, significant new regulations have been
issued or are in progress, including on the oil, gas, and coal leasing programs and on
application of environmental laws to certain energy-related agency actions.
Hardrock Mining. The General Mining Law of 1872 grants free access to
individuals and corporations to prospect for minerals in open public domain lands,
and allows them, upon making a discovery, to stake a claim on the deposit, develop
the minerals, and apply for a patent to obtain full title of the land and minerals. H.R.
2262 was introduced on May 10, 2007, to reform aspects of the General Mining Law.
Roadless Areas in the National Forest System. The Clinton Administration
issued rules to protect inventoried roadless areas in the national forests.
Implementation of the rules was enjoined. The Bush Administration issued rules in
May 2005 to supplant the Clinton rules and allow governors to petition for roadless
area protections in their states. On September 19, 2006, a district court judge set
aside the Bush rules and reinstated the Clinton rules; the decision has been appealed.
Wild Horses and Burros. Controversial changes to the Wild Free-Roaming
Horses and Burros Act of 1971, enacted in the 108th Congress, authorized the sale of
certain old and unadoptable animals and removed the ban on selling wild horses and
burros and their remains for commercial products. The House has passed legislation
(H.R. 249) to overturn these changes. The BLM continues to dispose of animals
through sale, adoption, and placement in long-term holding facilities. The agency
requested $32.1 million for managing wild horses and burros in FY2008, a 12% cut.
Wilderness. Many agency recommendations for wilderness areas are pending.
Questions persist about wilderness review and managing wilderness study areas
(WSAs). Several areas were designated by the 109th Congress, but other bills
designating wilderness areas were not enacted. Wilderness area bills have been
introduced in the 110th Congress, and Congress may address other wilderness issues.
Wildfire Protection. President Bush’s Healthy Forests Initiative, the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003, and other provisions seek to protect communities
from wildfires by expediting fuel reduction. Some believe that more effort is needed;
others fear that changes will increase timber sales and damage the environment. The
110th Congress may debate wildfire appropriations, consider legislation on post-fire
rehabilitation, oversee implementation of new authorities, and examine litigation
over fuel treatments.

Contents
Background and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
History of the Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
History of the Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Scope of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Onshore Energy Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Hardrock Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Roadless Areas in the National Forest System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Judicial Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Wild Horses and Burros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Wilderness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Wildfire Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
FS NEPA Categorical Exclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
National Forest Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
National Forest Land Sales and County Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
BLM Land Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Grazing Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
National Landscape Conservation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Reports on Related Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
List of Tables
Table 1. 110th Congress Bills to Designate Wilderness Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) and the Forest
Service (FS): Issues for the 110th Congress
The 110th Congress is considering actions that affect the various uses and
management of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and
the Forest Service. These actions include legislation, administrative or regulatory
proposals, and litigation and judicial decisions. Issues areas include access to energy
resources on federal lands, especially implementation of the Energy Policy Act of
2005; development of hardrock minerals; roadless area management and protection;
management, protection, and disposal of wild horses and burros; wilderness
designation and management; and wildfire management and protection. Many of
these issues have been of interest to Congress and the nation for decades.
Background and Analysis
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Department of the Interior
(DOI) and the Forest Service (FS) in the U.S. 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 rangelands are managed by the BLM,
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 forest landowners. Moreover, development of the two agencies has
differed, and historically they have focused on different issues. Nonetheless, there
are many parallels. By law, 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. Thus, the two agencies’ lands are
often discussed together, as is done in this report.
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

CRS-2
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 (created in 1812) and
the U.S. Grazing Service (created in 1934). The General Land Office had helped
convey land to settlers, 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 (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 or to expand federal land ownership.
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 other provisions,
the law establishes a general national policy that 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. 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 are to be managed and directs
“harmonious and coordinated management” to provide for multiple uses and
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. In part to address these
issues, Congress enacted the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA; 16
U.S.C. §§ 1600-1614, et al.) to revise timber sale authorities and to elaborate on
considerations and requirements in land and resource management plans.
Wilderness protection also is a continuing issue for the FS. The Multiple-Use
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. § 528-531) authorizes wilderness as an
appropriate use of national forest lands, and possible national forest wilderness areas
have been reviewed under the 1964 Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1131-1136) as
well as in the national forest planning process. Pressures persist to protect the
wilderness character of areas in pending wilderness recommendations and other
roadless areas.

CRS-3
Scope of Report
The missions of the BLM and FS are similar, and many issues, programs, and
policies affect both agencies. For these reasons, BLM and FS lands often are
discussed together, as in this report. This report focuses on several issues affecting
both agencies’ lands that are likely to be of interest to the 110th Congress, including
energy resources, hardrock mining, FS roadless areas, wild horses and burros,
wilderness, wildfire protection, and others. It does not comprehensively cover
general issues affecting management of these and other federal lands. For
background on federal land management generally, see CRS Report RL32393,
Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and Resources
Management
, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent. For other information on BLM,
FS, and natural resources issues and agencies generally, see the CRS website at
[http://www.crs.gov/] and the CRS reports on related issues listed at the end of this
report.
Onshore Energy Resources1 (by Marc Humphries)

Background. A controversial issue is whether or how to increase access to
federal lands for energy and mineral development. A BLM study in 2000 estimated
that about 165 million acres of lands with federally owned mineral rights2 (24% of
all federal mineral acreage) have been withdrawn from mineral entry, leasing, and
sale, subject to valid existing rights. Mineral development on another 182 million
acres (26% of all federal mineral acreage) is subject to the approval of the surface
management agency3 and must not be in conflict with land designations and plans.
A 2006 BLM-coordinated study found that 51% of the estimated oil and 27% of the
estimated natural gas on the 99 million acres of federal land inventoried (about 15%
of all federal lands) are off-limits to leasing.4 The oil and gas industry contends that
entry into currently unavailable areas is necessary to ensure future domestic oil and
gas supplies. Opponents maintain that the restricted lands are unique or
environmentally sensitive and that the United States could realize equivalent energy
gains through conservation and increased exploration elsewhere.5
1 This report does not cover offshore energy resources, such as oil and gas development in
the Outer Continental Shelf, or the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
2 Most of these are federal lands, but in some cases, the U.S. government owns the minerals
under privately owned lands.
3 The BLM administers mineral resources under all federal lands, regardless of which
agency has responsibility for administering the surface.
4 U.S. Depts. of the Interior, Agriculture, and Energy, Scientific Inventory of Onshore
Federal Lands’ Oil and Gas Resources and the Extent and Nature of Restrictions or
Impediments to their Development
(Phase II), 2006, available on the website of the BLM at
[http://www.blm.gov/epca/]. This study was mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2000
as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Phase I of the study was completed in
January 2003.
5 See CRS Report RL33014, Leasing and Permitting for Oil and Gas Development on
Federal Public Domain Lands
, by Aaron M. Flynn and Ryan J. Watson.

CRS-4
Development of oil, gas, and coal on BLM and FS lands (and other federal
lands) is governed primarily by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. § 181).
Leasing on BLM lands goes through a multi-step approval process. If the minerals
are located on FS lands, the FS must perform a leasing analysis and approve leasing
decisions for specific lands before the BLM may lease minerals. The Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) made significant changes to the laws governing federal
energy resources, including the management of energy development on BLM and FS
lands. Implementation of these changes is discussed below.
Administrative Actions. The Administration is responding to the 2005
Energy Policy Act. For example, the BLM solicited comments and held a series of
meetings to prepare its report for Congress on the management of split estates.6 This
BLM report analyzed the respective rights and responsibilities of owners of mineral
leases, private surface owners, and the federal government under existing law.7 It
also compared the surface owner consent provisions found in the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. §§ 1201 et al.) to those applicable
to federal oil and gas. Finally, the report recommended administrative actions that
allow for access to oil and gas deposits while seeking to address surface owner
concerns. The report did not make any recommendations for legislative action.
Pursuant to § 352 of the 2005 act, the BLM has issued a final rule that allows
ownership of oil and gas leases covering greater acreages than previously allowed.8
The law generally limits a single entity to owning leases of up to 246,080 acres in
one state. The new regulation exempts from the overall limitation the area
attributable to producing leases and leases committed to “communitization
agreements.”9 The final regulation also amends the lease reinstatement petition
process. Currently, if a lease is terminated for late or non-payment of rent, a lessee
may petition for reinstatement for up to 24 months from the date of termination (the
previous deadline was 15 months).
Additionally, under §§ 353 and 354 of the Energy Policy Act, the BLM was to
conduct rulemaking and grant royalty relief if such relief would encourage
development of natural gas hydrates and enhanced recovery of oil from underground
injection of carbon dioxide. On August 4, 2006, the DOI deferred rulemaking on
§§ 353 and 354 because the Minerals Management Service (another DOI agency)
concluded that royalty incentives would not increase production from gas hydrates,
and the BLM concluded that royalty incentives were unnecessary for increasing oil
recovery through carbon dioxide injection.
6 A split estate is where the surface is owned by one entity and rights to the subsurface
minerals are owned by a different entity.
7 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Energy Policy Act of 2005 —
Section 1835 Split Estate, Federal Oil and Gas Leasing and Development Practices, A
Report to Congress
(Dec. 2006), available at [http://www.blm.gov/bmp/Split_Estate.htm].
8 71 Fed. Reg. 14821, March 24, 2006.
9 A communitization agreement is an agreement among all parties holding interests in a
particular formation (usually determined by a state oil and gas commission) to combine
those interests for operating efficiency and other communal benefits.

CRS-5
In January 2006, the BLM completed a final programmatic environmental
impact statement (EIS) for developing wind energy facilities on BLM lands.10 This
document supports land management plan amendments providing for wind energy
development in the western states. The review was undertaken in compliance with
Executive Order 13212,11 and seeks to comply with congressional directives in the
Energy Policy Act directing renewable energy development on public lands.
Under § 369 of the 2005 act, the BLM has begun a programmatic EIS to support
a tar sands and oil shale leasing program for research, development, and
demonstration (RD&D).12 On November 13, 2006, the BLM announced completion
of environmental assessments for five proposed oil shale RD&D projects on federal
lands in Colorado. A finding of no significant impact (FONSI) was reached on each
of the proposed projects. A Record of Decision signed by DOI on April 30, 2007,
will allow issuance of a sixth RD&D lease in Utah. Regulations to govern this
leasing program are required, and implementation of a commercial leasing program
also is underway.
On May 1, 2007, DOI announced its final rule for developing geothermal energy
on federal lands.13 Much of the nation’s geothermal energy potential is located on
federal lands. The Administration has asserted that improving the efficiency of the
federal geothermal leasing process could increase geothermal energy production.
The BLM administers 423 geothermal leases, of which 55 are currently in
production. The Energy Policy Act, §§ 221-236, amended the Geothermal Steam Act
of 1970 (30 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1028) to change the leasing procedures to offer more
competitive leasing and establish a new royalty and rental rate framework.
Legislative Activity. In the 109th Congress, various bills sought to suspend
any royalty relief program applicable to oil or natural gas production from federal
lands as well as other federal resource production incentives contained in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. Numerous other bills were also introduced, but not enacted,
addressing such issues as geothermal energy access, potash or soda ash royalties, and
coal leasing procedures. Oversight of oil and gas development on federal lands
seems likely to be a priority in the 110th Congress. At an April 17, 2007, oversight
hearing, many witnesses argued that the 2008 sale date for commercial leases of oil
shale would be too soon, based on the current state of oil shale technology and the
potential environmental impacts.14 Additionally, while the BLM continues to
conduct its pilot project in streamlining the Application for Permit to Drill (APD)
program, the number of APD applications continues to increase. Some hearing
witnesses asserted that, as more APDs are approved, the environment is likely to be
subject to greater risks, a view disputed by the Administration.
10 71 Fed. Reg. 1768, Jan. 11, 2006.
11 “Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects,” 66 Fed. Reg. 28357, May 22, 2001.
12 70 Fed. Reg. 73791, Dec. 13, 2005.
13 72 Fed. Reg. 24358, May 3, 2007.
14 U.S. House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources,
Implementation of Title III, the Oil and Gas Provisions, of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(April 17, 2007).

CRS-6
Hardrock Minerals (by Marc Humphries)

Background. The General Mining Law of 1872 is one of the major statutes
that direct the federal government’s land management policy. The law grants free
access to individuals and corporations to prospect for minerals in open public domain
lands, and allows them, upon making a discovery, to stake (or locate) a claim on the
deposit. A claim gives the holder the right to develop the minerals and apply for a
patent to obtain full title of the land and minerals. A continuing issue is whether this
law should be reformed, and if so, how to balance mineral development with
competing land uses.
The right to enter federal lands and freely prospect for and develop minerals is
the feature of the claim-patent system that draws the most vigorous support from the
mining industry. Critics consider the claim-patent system a giveaway of publicly
owned resources because royalty payments are not required and because of the small
amounts paid to maintain a claim and to obtain a patent. Congress has imposed a
moratorium on mining claim patents through the annual Interior appropriations laws
since FY1995, but has not restricted the right to stake claims or extract minerals.
The lack of direct statutory authority for environmental protection under the
Mining Law of 1872 is another major issue that has spurred reform proposals. Many
Mining Law supporters contend that other current laws provide adequate
environmental protection. Critics, however, assert that these general environmental
requirements are not adequate to assure reclamation of mined areas and that the only
effective approach to protecting lands from the adverse impacts of mining under the
current system is to withdraw them from development under the Mining Law.
Further, critics charge that federal land managers lack regulatory authority over
patented mining claims and that clear legal authority to assure adequate reclamation
of mining sites is needed.
Administrative Actions. Since the late 1990s, administrative efforts have
focused on new surface management regulations, with attention centering on mine
reclamation efforts. New mining claim location and annual claim maintenance fees
were increased in 2005 to $30 and $125 per claim, respectively (from $25 and $100).
Legislative Activity. Broad-based legislation to reform the General Mining
Law of 1872 (H.R. 2262) was introduced on May 10, 2007 — the 135-year
anniversary of the original law’s signing. The proposal would, among other things,
establish an 8% royalty on hardrock mineral production (e.g., gold, copper, silver)
from public domain lands, create an abandoned hardrock mine reclamation fund,
require a reclamation plan by mineral producers, and impose new environmental
standards.
Proposals in the 109th Congress sought to limit issuing patents to claimants
whose patent applications were filed with the Secretary of the Interior on or before
September 30, 1994, and which met appropriate statutory requirements by that date.
Some bills included an abandoned locatable minerals mine reclamation fund and an
8% royalty on “net smelter returns.” Provisions in other bills would have made lands
located under the General Mining Law subject to a review by the Secretary of the
Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to determine whether they were unsuitable for

CRS-7
mineral activity. A reclamation plan and reclamation bond or other financial
guarantee would have been required before exploration and operation permits were
approved.
Roadless Areas in the National Forest System
(by Ross W. Gorte and Kristina Alexander)
Background. Roadless areas in the National Forest System were examined
as potential wilderness areas in the 1970s and early 1980s; 60 million acres of
roadless areas were inventoried in the FS’s second Roadless Area Review and
Evaluation
(RARE II). The RARE II Final Environmental Impact Statement
presented the agency’s wilderness recommendations in January 1979, but many
recommended areas still have not been designated as wilderness by Congress. Some
observers believe that the remaining roadless areas should be protected from
development, while others argue that the areas should be available for development-
type uses.
Administrative Actions. The Clinton Administration issued several rules
affecting roadless areas in the National Forest System (NFS). The principal rule
resulted in a nationwide approach that curtailed most road construction and timber
cutting in roadless areas.15 National guidance was justified by the Clinton
Administration as avoiding litigation and delays when decisions were made at each
national forest. The rule was enjoined twice.
The Bush Administration issued a new final rule to replace the Clinton rule and
allowed governors 18 months to petition the FS for a special rule for roadless areas
in all or part of their state.16 The FS can decide whether or not to approve the
roadless area management requested by a state. Until such a new regulation —
issued in response to a petition — is finalized, the FS is to manage roadless areas in
accordance with interim directives that place most decisions with the regional
forester or the Chief. These decisions remain in effect until each forest plan is
amended or revised to address roadless area management.17 This returns decision-
making on the management of roadless areas to the individual forest plans,
essentially reversing the Clinton nationwide roadless rule. The Administration has
stated that, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5 U.S.C. §§ 701, et seq.),
states can still petition for a special rule, even though the 18-month period in the
original rule has expired and a court has enjoined implementation of the Bush
Roadless Rule.
Oregon petitioned for a rule allowing any state to petition for an expedited
restoration of full protections for roadless areas in that state; this petition was denied.
Several states have submitted petitions under the Bush Roadless Rule to protect
roadless areas in those states: Virginia (December 22, 2005), North Carolina (March
9, 2006), South Carolina (April 19, 2006), New Mexico (May 31, 2006), California
15 66 Fed. Reg. 3244, Jan. 12, 2001.
16 70 Fed. Reg. 25654, May 13, 2005.
17 69 Fed. Reg. 42648, July 16, 2004.

CRS-8
(July 12, 2006), Idaho (September 20, 2006), and Colorado (November 13, 2006).
The Idaho and Colorado petitions did not seek protection for all of their states’
roadless areas. The petitions for Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina have
been approved by the FS. The FS and the State of Idaho have agreed to develop a
memorandum of understanding for roadless area management based on the then-
governor’s petition. The new Colorado governor has sought to amend the petition
filed by his predecessor, further limiting the acreage available for roads. The
governors of several other states have decided not to petition.
Judicial Actions. Numerous lawsuits have tracked the roadless rules’ course.
On April 5, 2001, the Clinton Roadless Rule was enjoined by the U.S. District Court
for the District of Idaho,18 but that decision was overturned by the Ninth Circuit and
the rule was put back in place.19 Later in 2001, a suit challenging the application of
the Clinton Roadless Rule to the Tongass National Forest in Alaska was settled,
eventually leading to that forest being exempt from the Clinton Roadless Rule.20
In July 2003, the Federal District Court for Wyoming stopped the application
of the Clinton Roadless Rule (the second injunction, after the first was overturned).21
Another appeal was filed, this time in the Tenth Circuit, but the court ruled that there
was no longer a dispute because the Bush Roadless Rule was final.22 But that was
not the end. In August 2005, California, Oregon, and New Mexico jointly sued the
FS to challenge the Bush Roadless Rule, and the State of Washington joined the suit.
In September 2006, the District Court for the Northern District of California found
that the Bush Roadless Rule violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C.
§§ 1531-1540). In that decision, the court set aside the Bush Roadless Rule and
reinstated the Clinton Roadless Rule.23 In a related decision, the court held that the
oil and gas leases that were issued while the Clinton Rule was enjoined could not be
developed unless they complied with the Clinton Roadless Rule.24
Just days after the Northern District of California decision, a motion was filed
by the State of Wyoming in the District Court for Wyoming, seeking to have its 2003
ruling, which had rejected the Clinton Roadless Rule, put back into effect. The FS
filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit, challenging the September 2006 decision. In the
interim, the FS is using the APA to review state petitions as a rulemaking activity,
although the Clinton Roadless Rule is currently in effect.
18 Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Idaho 2001).
19 Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2002).
20 68 Fed. Reg. 75136 (Dec. 30, 2003); this is referred to as the Tongass Amendment.
Settlement was filed June 10, 2001, in Alaska v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, No. A01-039 CV
(D. Alaska 2001).
21 Wyoming v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 277 F. Supp. 2d 197 (D. Wyo. 2003).
22 Wyoming v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 414 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2005). The Bush
Roadless Rule became final in May of 2005.
23 California v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 459 F. Supp. 2d 874 (N.D. Cal. 2006).
24 California v. U.S. Dept of Agriculture, 468 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (N.D. Cal. 2006).

CRS-9
Legislative Activity. Legislation affecting roadless area management and
protection was introduced but not enacted in the 109th Congress. Similar bills, and
the litigation over the Clinton and Bush rules, might be addressed in the 110th
Congress.
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.) seeks to protect wild horses and burros on federal land and
places them under the jurisdiction of the BLM and FS. For years, management of
wild horses and burros has generated controversy and lawsuits. Controversies
include 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; methods — other than adoption — for reducing animals on the
range, particularly fertility control and holding animals in long-term facilities;
whether appropriations for managing wild horses and burros are adequate; and the
slaughter, or potential for slaughter, of horses.25
Adoption has been the primary method of disposal of healthy animals, with
216,942 adopted from FY1972 to FY2006. The 108th Congress enacted controversial
changes to wild horse and burro management on federal lands (P.L. 108-447, § 142)
to provide for the sale of wild horses and burros. Specifically, the change directed
the agencies 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 (offered 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 or 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 sold under the new authority. These
changes have been supported as providing a cost-effective way to help the agencies
achieve AMLs, to improve the health of the animals, to protect range resources, and
to restore a natural ecological balance on federal lands. They have been opposed as
potentially leading to the slaughter of healthy animals.
As of mid-FY2007, there were about 28,500 wild horses and burros on BLM
lands. However, spring foals are expected to increase the population to about 34,000.
The national maximum AML is set at 27,512, which some critics assert is set low in
favor of livestock. There were another 3,180 wild horses and burros on FS lands as
of September 30, 2006. Further, 29,772 wild horses and burros were being held in
facilities — preparation, maintenance, and long-term facilities — as of mid-FY2007,
and the BLM continues to be responsible for these animals.
Administrative Actions. The BLM has been pursuing a multi-year effort
to achieve AML and currently is closer to AML than at any time since the early
1970s. To achieve AML, the BLM continues to remove wild horses and burros from
the range, and dispose of them through adoption and sale as well as through
placement in long-term holding facilities. However, the BLM budget justification
25 See CRS Report RS22347, Wild Horse and Burro Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.

CRS-10
for FY2008 states an intent to reduce the emphasis on removals. The reason for the
reduced emphasis is not clear. Specifically, in FY2008, the BLM anticipates
removing 830 animals, a significant reduction from the 9,926 removed in FY2006
and the 6,811 estimated to be removed in FY2007. Adoption will continue to be the
primary method of disposal in FY2008, as the BLM has determined that there is very
little demand for the estimated 8,000 older animals available through the sales
program.
For FY2008, the BLM requested $32.1 million for management of wild horses
and burros, a 12% decrease from the FY2006 and FY2007 level of $36.4 million.
The agency expects that the funding reduction will be achieved by reducing efforts
to gather and remove animals from the range. Whether funding will be sufficient to
care for wild horses and burros, achieve AML, and reduce long-term budgetary needs
is unclear. A particular concern has been the cost of holding animals in facilities.
The potential cost of holding animals in all facilities for one year, $26.4 million,
would be nearly three-quarters of BLM’s FY2007 appropriation for wild horse and
burro management.26 The BLM currently needs additional space in long-term
holding facilities. In August 2006 and January 2007, the agency solicited bids for
contracts for one or more new facilities. Each facility must be able to provide care
for between 750 and 1,500 animals.
Legislative Activity. On April 26, 2007, the House passed H.R. 249 to
overturn the changes enacted in the 108th Congress. Specifically, the bill would
repeal the authority to sell wild horses and burros, reimpose a ban on the sale of wild
horses and burros and their remains for processing into commercial products, and
reinstate criminal penalties for processing the remains into commercial products.27
As with the 108th Congress legislation, the debate centered on whether the sale
authority would result in the slaughter of healthy animals or whether it is needed as
a tool to manage the number of wild horses and burros on the range.
Wilderness (by Ross W. Gorte)
Background. The 1964 Wilderness Act established the National Wilderness
Preservation System and directed that only Congress can designate federal lands as
part of the national system. Designations are often controversial because commercial
activities, motorized access, and roads, structures, and facilities generally are
restricted in wilderness areas.28 Similarly, agency wilderness studies are
26 The cost for animals in preparation and maintenance facilities is $4.55 daily, for a
potential total annual cost of $17.4 million for the 10,496 animals being held as of March
30, 2007. The cost for animals in long-term facilities is $1.27 daily, for a potential total
annual cost of $8.9 million for the 19,276 animals in long-term holding. The combined cost
for all animals in holding is thus estimated at $26.4 million. Annual costs derived by CRS
from data provided by the BLM on daily costs and numbers of animals in holding facilities.
27 For information on horse slaughter legislation generally, see CRS Report RS21842, Horse
Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues
, by Geoffrey S. Becker.
28 See CRS Report RS22025, Wilderness Laws: Permitted and Prohibited Uses, by Ross W.
Gorte.

CRS-11
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 (see above) was prompted by a belief that Congress had lagged in designating
areas as wilderness. Others assert that the Bush Administration — in promulgating
new guidance to preclude 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 roads,
energy and mineral exploration, and development, thereby making them ineligible
to be added to the wilderness system.
One significant issue is when (and whether) the agencies must review the
wilderness potential of their lands. The Wilderness Act directed the review of
administratively designated national forest primitive areas and of National Park
System and National Wildlife Refuge System lands. Release language, in statutes
designating national forest wilderness areas, and FS planning regulations (36 C.F.R.
§ 219.7(a)(5)(ii)) provide for periodic review of potential national forest wilderness
areas in the FS planning process. For BLM lands, § 603 of FLPMA required the
agency to review potential wilderness, to present recommendations to the President,
and to not impair the wilderness character of wilderness study areas (WSAs) “until
Congress has determined otherwise.”
In 1996, then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt used the general BLM authority
to inventory lands and resources (FLPMA § 201; 43 U.S.C. § 1711) to identify an
additional 2.6 million acres in Utah as having wilderness qualities. The State of Utah
challenged the inventory as violating the review required by §603, and in September
2003, DOI settled the case and issued new wilderness guidance (IM Nos. 2003-274
and 2003-275) prohibiting further reviews and limiting the nonimpairment standard
to previously designated § 603 WSAs.29
Legislative Activity. More than a dozen bills to designate new wilderness
areas or expand existing ones in 10 states have been introduced in the 110th Congress.
(See Table 1.) Many agency recommendations for wilderness designations remain
pending. Bills to prohibit future BLM wilderness reviews and to place time limits
on WSA status may be considered, as in the 106th-108th Congresses, but none have
been introduced to date.
29 See CRS Report RS21917, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wilderness Review
Issues
, by Ross W. Gorte and Pamela Baldwin.

CRS-12
Table 1. 110th Congress Bills to Designate Wilderness Areas
Bill Title
Acreage
State
Bill No.
Most Recent Action
America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act of
9,425,840
H.R. 1919
H.R. 1919 introduced 4/18/07
UT
2007 (no title for House bill)
9,208,840
S. 1170
S. 1170 introduced 4/19/07
H.R. 860/
California Wild Heritage Act of 2007
2,088,766
CA
Both introduced 2/6/07
S. 493
Central Idaho Economic Development
318,765
ID
H.R. 222
Introduced 1/4/07
and Recreation Act
Chattahoochee National Forest Act of
8,448
GA
H.R. 707
Introduced 1/29/07
2007
Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness
128,660
OR
S. 647
Hearings held 5/3/07
Act of 2007
Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection
19,360,630
a
H.R. 1975
Introduced 4/20/07
Act
Owyhee Initiative Implementation Act of
517,196
ID
S. 802
Introduced 3/7/07
2007
Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act
1,559,538
AKb
H.R. 39
Introduced 1/4/07
H.R. 1011/
Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007
39,161
VA
Both introduced 2/13/07
S. 570
H.R. 886/
Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2007
106,000
WA
Both introduced 2/7/07
S. 520
a Affects lands in ID, MT, OR, WA, and WY.
b Affects the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Wildfire Protection (by Ross W. Gorte)
Background. Recent fire seasons seem to have been getting more severe,
with more acres burned and presumably more damage to property and resources than
in previous years. In 2006, more acres burned — 9.9 million acres — than in any
year since record-keeping began in 1960. This is 31% above the five-year average
and 14% more than 2005 — the second-worst year since 1960. 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 sought to reduce the threats from fire.
Administrative Actions. In August 2002, President Bush proposed the
Healthy Forests Initiative to improve wildfire protection by expediting projects to
reduce hazardous fuels on federal lands. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of
2003 (16 U.S.C. §§ 6501 et al.) included many of the proposals in the President’s
initiative and other provisions. Title I authorized a new, alternative process for
reducing fuels on FS or BLM lands in many areas; five other titles indirectly relate
to fire protection.30
30 See CRS Report RS22024, Wildfire Protection in the 108th Congress, by Ross W. Gorte.

CRS-13
In addition, the Administration made several regulatory changes to facilitate fire
protection activities. First, additional categories of actions could be excluded from
analysis and documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347), namely certain fuel reduction and post-fire rehabilitation
activities.31 Second, the administrative review processes were revised to clarify that
some emergency actions may be implemented immediately and others after
complying with publication requirements, and 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.”32 A U.S. District Court found
that these and other regulations violate the legal requirements for public review of FS
decisions. (See “Other Issues,” below.)
The Administration made other regulatory changes that could affect fuel
reduction, public involvement, and environmental impacts. For example, new
categorical exclusions for small timber harvesting projects and new regulations for
FS planning have been promulgated.33 The total impact of the regulatory changes is
likely to be greater discretion for FS action — more fuel reduction projects, with
lower costs, and less public review and oversight of their potential effects.
Legislative Activity. The 109th Congress held hearings on various aspects of
wildfire protection — on the airworthiness of firefighting airtankers; on litigation
over the use of chemical fire retardant;34 and on litigation over NEPA categorical
exclusions (see below) for fuel reduction and post-fire recovery projects. A bill to
improve research on, and expedite action for, rehabilitation of areas after catastrophic
events passed the House, but not the Senate. The 110th Congress may consider
similar legislation, and may hold oversight hearings on fire-related litigation and on
implementation of existing authorities.
The 110th Congress is likely to consider wildfire funding issues.35 The FY2006
Interior Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-54) included $2.54 billion for the National Fire
Plan, and the FY2007 Defense appropriations law (P.L. 109-289) added $100 million
each for FS and BLM wildfire fighting during FY2006. The enacted FY2007 Interior
appropriations were $2.58 billion, and Senator Bingaman noted that the FY2006
appropriations were $900 million short of wildfire suppression expenditures.36
Because wildfire funding now constitutes nearly half the FS budget and the FS and
BLM may use other unobligated funds after wildfire appropriations are exhausted,
31 68 Fed. Reg. 33814, June 5, 2003.
32 68 Fed. Reg. 33582, June 4, 2003, for the FS; 68 Fed. Reg. 33794, June 5, 2003, for the
BLM.
33 68 Fed. Reg. 44598, July 29, 2003, and 70 Fed. Reg. 1023, Jan. 5, 2005, respectively.
34 Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics v. U.S. Forest Service, CV 03-165-M-
DVM (D. Mt. Sept. 30, 2005).
35 See CRS Report RL33990, Wildfire Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.
36 U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Costs of Wildfire Suppression,
S.Hrg. 110-10 (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, 2007), pp. 1-2.

CRS-14
some interests are concerned that fire control efforts are delaying or preventing other
agency activities, including land management and cooperative assistance.
Other Issues
Other federal lands topics may be addressed by the 110th Congress through
legislation or oversight. These may include FS categorical exclusions from the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), national forest planning, national forest
land sales and county payments, BLM land sales, and grazing management.
FS NEPA Categorical Exclusions. (by Ross W. Gorte and Kristina
Alexander) The FS historically has identified certain activities as not having
significant environmental impacts, and exempted them from analysis and associated
public participation under NEPA, except in extraordinary circumstances. Proponents
see categorical exclusions (CEs) as a way to expedite actions and reduce agency
costs. Opponents charge that some of the excluded actions could have significant
impacts, especially if extraordinary circumstances are present, and should be
examined and subject to public involvement.
Since 2003, the FS has changed the types of activities that can be conducted
without environmental review, increasing the number of types from 18 to 27.37 Some
of the nine newer CEs include biomass fuel reduction projects, “small” timber sales,
and forest plans.38 The FS also has modified its application of extraordinary
circumstances.39 Previously, the rules appeared to preclude an action from being
automatically categorically excluded if extraordinary circumstances, such as roadless
areas or endangered species habitat, were present. The new rule gives the responsible
official discretion to determine whether extraordinary circumstances warrant NEPA
analysis and public involvement in otherwise exempt projects.
Five of the new CEs were challenged in the District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama. The challenged CEs addressed fire management activities and
limited harvesting.40 The court upheld the regulations.41 Additionally, the FS issued
new regulations changing its notice, comment, and appeals procedures for land
management planning, including a change that a decision to use a CE could not be
appealed.42 These new regulations, found in 36 CFR Part 215, were also challenged.
In 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that the
regulations violated the Forest Service Decision Making and Appeals Reform Act
(P.L. 102-381, § 322; 16 U.S.C. § 1612, note) by excluding decisions from the public
37 Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, ch. 30, §§ 30.12, 31.2.
38 68 Fed. Reg. 33814 (June 5, 2003); 68 Fed. Reg. 44598 (July 29, 2003); and 70 Fed. Reg.
1023 (Jan. 5, 2005), respectively.
39 67 Fed. Reg. 54622 (Aug. 23, 2002).
40 The challenged regulations are found at FSH 1909.15, ch. 30, §§ 31.2(10) through (14).
41 Wildlaw v. U.S. Forest Service, 471 F. Supp. 2d (M.D. Ala. 2007).
42 68 Fed. Reg. 33581 (June 4, 2003); 36 CFR part 215.

CRS-15
comment and appeals process and for other reasons.43 The agency initially responded
to the ruling by suspending more than 1,500 permits, projects, and contracts. The
court issued a clarifying order that held that only projects and decisions dated after
July 7, 2005, were enjoined.44 The order was further clarified two months later to
allow the FS to use CEs in emergencies.45 On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the
challenges to the regulations in Part 215 were premature, and reversed the lower
court, except for the holding that the regulation pertaining to CEs was improper.
Therefore, after all four court decisions, the appeals regulations in Part 215 are
in place, except for § 215.12(f) — that is, invoking a CE is not exempt from appeal.
Legislation in the 109th Congress (FY2007 Interior appropriations bill, H.R. 5386, §
426, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee) included a provision
exempting activities under CEs from administrative challenges under the Appeals
Reform Act, but the provision was not enacted.
National Forest Planning. (by Ross W. Gorte and Kristina Alexander) The
FS is required to prepare comprehensive, integrated land and resource management
plans for the national forests.46 The plans are to be developed and revised with public
involvement, must provide for multiple use and sustained yield of goods and
services, and must be “prepared in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969....” Regulations to implement forest planning were adopted in
1979 and substantially revised in 1982.47 They are found at 36 C.F.R. Part 219.
The Clinton Administration finalized new rules (to be phased in over three
years) that emphasized planning for the biological sustainability of the national
forests.48 The Bush Administration extended the effective date of the Clinton 2000
Rules three times, and proposed new rules in 2002. The Bush Administration issued
an interpretive rule in 2004, retaining the 1982 regulations until the new Bush
regulations were finalized.49 The Bush Administration then promulgated final rules
in 2005 to balance biological and socioeconomic sustainability, to make fewer
decisions at the national level by reducing regulatory guidelines, to limit public input
43 Earth Island Institute v. Pengilly, 376 F. Supp. 2d 994 (E.D. Cal. 2005).
44 Earth Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck, 2005 WL 5280446 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2005),
holding that a retroactive remedy would “plunge the Forest Service headlong into a crippling
morass of confusion.”
45 Earth Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck, 2005 WL3284289 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2005).
46 The requirement is in the Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act of
1974 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1600-1614). Substantial detail on the considerations and analysis to be
included in the plans was added in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA).
Hence, forest planning is also often called NFMA planning.
47 47 Fed. Reg. 43037 (Sept. 30, 1982).
48 65 Fed. Reg. 67514 (Nov. 9, 2000).
49 69 Fed. Reg. 58056 (Sept. 29, 2004).

CRS-16
into the planning process, and to exempt plans from NEPA and ESA because the
plans guide decision-making but would not make on-the-ground decisions.50
The Bush rules were challenged, and on March 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California remanded the 2005 Bush rules to the agency
because the rules violated NEPA, ESA, and APA;51 the Administration has appealed
the decision. The challenge to the interpretive rule was denied, and thus forest
planning is proceeding under the 1982 regulations until new rules are promulgated
consistent with NEPA, ESA, and APA.
National Forest Land Sales and County Payments. (by Ross W. Gorte)
For FY2008, the Administration has again proposed selling about 300,000 acres of
national forest lands. Half of the estimated $800 million in proceeds would pay for
a four-year phase-out of payments under the Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-Determination Act of 2000. (In FY2007, the President proposed that all the
proceeds to be used to reauthorize that act.) The other half would be available “for
acquisition of land for the NFS [National Forest System], conservation education,
access to public lands, habitat improvement, and to cover administrative costs of
disposal.” Current FS authorities to sell or otherwise dispose of national forest lands
are narrow, so legislation would be needed to authorize the President’s proposal.
The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000
(SRS; 16 U.S.C. § 500, note) was enacted as an alternative to two major programs
that compensate counties for the tax-exempt status of federal lands.52 Payments
under SRS expired at the end of FY2006.53 In its FY2007 and FY2008 budget
requests, the Administration has proposed extending SRS payments, to be funded by
selling national forest lands. Bills to extend the SRS payments have been introduced
in the 109th and 110th Congresses, but legislation that creates new or extends existing
mandatory spending (like SRS payments) generally must be offset by new revenues
or other changes in mandatory spending programs. Thus, without legislation to
authorize land sales or otherwise offset the cost, Congress has not passed SRS
reauthorization bills. A provision in the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Health, and
Iraq Accountability Act of 2007 (H.R. 1591) would have extended the program —
for one year in the House-passed version and in the conference agreement, and for
five years, modified and with mandatory spending for the Payments In Lieu of Taxes
50 70 Fed. Reg. 1022 (Jan. 5, 2005).
51 Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, No. C 05-1144 PJH, 2007 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 27419 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2007).
52 FS and BLM payments have traditionally been based on revenues — 25% of FS gross
revenues returned to the states for use on roads and schools in the counties where the FS
lands are located; and 50% of BLM revenues from the O&C lands returned to the counties
containing the O&C lands. FS and BLM revenues declined precipitously in the early 1990s
due to declining timber sales to protect northern spotted owls, water quality, and other
resources.
53 See CRS Report RL33822, The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Act of 2000: Forest Service Payments to Counties
, by Ross W. Gorte.

CRS-17
(PILT) Program,54 in the Senate-passed version. On May 1, 2007, President Bush
vetoed the bill, and the House failed to override the veto.
BLM Land Sales. (by Carol Hardy Vincent) The President’s FY2008 budget
request included a proposal to amend BLM’s authority to sell or exchange land under
the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (43 U.S.C. § 2301). The law currently
provides for the sale or exchange of land identified for disposal under BLM’s land
use plans “as in effect” at enactment. Proceeds from the sale or exchange of public
land are to be deposited into a separate Treasury account. Funds in the account are
available to both the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to
acquire inholdings and other nonfederal lands (or interests therein) that are adjacent
to federal lands and contain exceptional resources. The law’s purposes included
allowing for the reconfiguration of land ownership patterns to better facilitate
resource management, improving administrative efficiency, and increasing the
effectiveness of the allocation of fiscal and human resources.
The President’s proposal would direct using updated land management plans for
determining which lands to sell or exchange. It would change the distribution of the
proceeds to allow 70% of the net proceeds to be deposited in the general fund of the
Treasury, with “a portion” available to the BLM for restoration projects. It would cap
receipts retained by Interior at $60 million annually. The Administration estimated
that these changes would generate $193 million in revenue for the Treasury from
FY2008 through FY2012. The Administration made a similar proposal in its FY2007
budget. The changes were promoted in part to reduce the federal deficit and to ensure
that the public will benefit from land sales. Legislation would be needed to effect
these changes, and no such legislation has been introduced in Congress to date.
Grazing Management. (by Carol Hardy Vincent) The BLM issued new
grazing regulations, effective August 11, 2006.55 The agency revised its grazing
regulations on the grounds that changes were needed to comply with court decisions,
increase flexibility of managers and permittees, improve administrative procedures
and business practices, and promote conservation. While lauded by some, the reform
effort was criticized by others as unnecessary or harmful. Some of the regulatory
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 the BLM is required to
consult with the public. The BLM did not address some controversial issues, such
as revising the grazing fee. The BLM had expected to return to the consideration of
related grazing policy changes once the new regulations were in effect.
Lawsuits immediately following the effective date of the grazing regulations
nullified some of the changes. On August 11, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the
54 See CRS Report RL31392, PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by
M. Lynne Corn.
55 The new grazing regulations, and related information about the reform effort, are available
at [http://www.blm.gov/grazing/].

CRS-18
District of Idaho held that the regulations pertaining to public participation were
invalid as enacted.56 On September 25, 2006, the same court held that regulations
pertaining to the fundamentals of rangeland health, including the standards and
guidelines section, violated NEPA.57
The 110th Congress may continue to consider whether to compensate livestock
operators on federal lands under certain circumstances. The 109th Congress
considered legislation 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. Other legislation sought to provide
payment to federal grazing permittees who voluntarily relinquish their permits, either
generally or in particular areas, with the allotments then permanently closed to
grazing.
National Landscape Conservation System. (by Carol Hardy Vincent)
The BLM created the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) in 2000 to
focus management and public attention on its specially protected conservation areas.
The system consists today of about 26 million acres of land, and includes national
monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness areas, and wilderness study areas
as well as thousands of miles of national historic and national scenic trails and wild
and scenic rivers. Several issues related to the NLCS have been of interest to
Congress. One issue is whether to establish the system legislatively. Legislation has
been introduced (H.R. 2016 and S. 1139) to establish the NLCS legislatively without
altering the way the areas are currently managed. The legislation seeks to “conserve,
protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes” that have outstanding values
for the benefit of current and future generations. At a hearing on the Senate bill, the
Acting Director of the BLM testified that DOI supported the bill as a way to provide
legislative support and direction to the BLM and to formalize and strengthen its
conservation system within the context of agency’s multiple use mission.58 Several
other House and Senate bills would make federal land designations (e.g., wilderness,
national monument, and outstanding natural area) and add these areas to the NLCS.
56 Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, No. CV-05-297-E-BLW, 2006 WL
2348080 (D. Idaho Aug. 11, 2006); Maughan v. Rosenkrance, No. CV-06-275-E-BLW, 2006
WL 2348077 (D. Idaho Aug. 11, 2006). The court issued nearly identical opinions in these
cases.
57 Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, No. CV-05-297-E-BLW, 2006 WL 2735772
(D. Idaho Sept. 25, 2006).
The court decisions changed the definition of interested public in 43 CFR § 4100.0-5,
and kept the term interested public in §§ 4110.2-4 (allotments) and 4110.3-3 (implementing
changes in active use). These other sections were changed: § 4120.3-2 (cooperative range
improvement methods); § 4130.2 (grazing permits or leases); § 4130.3-3 (modification of
permits or leases); § 4130.6-2 (nonrenewable grazing permits and leases); § 4180.1
(fundamentals of rangeland health); § 4180.2 (standards and guidelines for grazing
administration). Also, the BLM was enjoined from issuing nonrenewable grazing permits
or leases.
58 U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Hearing to Receive Testimony on Current Legislation (May 3, 2007).

CRS-19
Another issue relates to a BLM proposal to add certain responsibilities and
programs to the NLCS, possibly including cooperative conservation, volunteer
programs, environmental and heritage education, and alternative dispute resolution.
This proposal, part of a broader agency restructuring, has raised questions as to
whether these additional programs could dilute the focus of the system and
overextend its funding resources. Questions about the adequacy of funds for the
NLCS have been recurring, and the prospect of adding new responsibilities to the
system has perhaps heightened attention to the level of funding. Some questions
have centered on whether recent funding for management and law enforcement have
been sufficient to address vandalism and other damage to cultural resources in the
system. These questions are likely to continue in light of a proposed reduction in
funding for the NLCS in FY2008. Specifically, the Administration requested $49.2
million for the NLCS in FY2008, a decrease of $3.3 million (6%) from the FY2007
level of $52.5 million and of $9.8 million (17%) from the FY2006 level of $59.0
million.

Additional Reading
CRS Report RS21917, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wilderness Review
Issues, by Ross W. Gorte and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL32393, Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land
and Resources Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinator.
CRS Report RS21402, Federal Lands, R.S. 2477, and “Disclaimers of Interest,” by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL30755, Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL32244, Grazing Regulations: Changes by the Bureau of Land
Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL33399, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007
Appropriations, Carol Hardy Vincent and Susan Boren, co-coordinators.
CRS Report RL33014, Leasing and Permitting for Oil and Gas Development on
Federal Public Domain Lands, by Aaron M. Flynn and Ryan J. Watson.
CRS Report RL30647, The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by
Pamela Baldwin and Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL32315, Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on Public Lands,
by Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RS22347, Wild Horse and Burro Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RS22025, Wilderness Laws: Permitted and Prohibited Uses, by Ross
W. Gorte.

CRS-20
CRS Report RL31447, Wilderness: Overview and Statistics, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL33990, Wildfire Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.
Reports on Related Issues
CRS Report RL33872, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): New Directions in
the 110th Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL33399, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007
Appropriations, by Carol Hardy Vincent (coordinator), David M. Bearden, M.
Lynne Corn, Ross W. Gorte, Marc Humphries, Pervaze A. Sheikh, David L.
Whiteman, Susan Boren, Roger Walke, and Keith Bea.
CRS Report RL33484, National Park Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent, Ross
W. Gorte, Sandra L. Johnson, and Susan Boren.
CRS Report RL32699, Natural Resources: Selected Issues for the 109th Congress,
coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent, Julie Jennings, and Nicole T. Carter.
CRS Report RL33493, Outer Continental Shelf: Debate Over Oil and Gas Leasing
and Revenue Sharing, by Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RL31392, PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by
M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RL33525, Recreation on Federal Lands, by Kori Calvert (coordinator),
Sandra L. Johnson, Carol Hardy Vincent, David L. Whiteman, M. Lynne Corn,
Nic Lane, Nicole T. Carter, and Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL33822, The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000: Forest Service Payments to Counties, by Ross W.
Gorte.