Wilderness: Legislation and Issues
in the 113th Congress
Katie Hoover
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney
Sandra L. Johnson
Information Research Specialist
April 17, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41610
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
Summary
The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the National Wilderness Preservation System and
directed that only Congress can designate federal lands as part of the system. Free-standing bills
to designate wilderness areas are typically introduced and considered in each Congress; such bills
are not amendments to the Wilderness Act, but typically refer to the act for management guidance
and sometimes include special provisions. Numerous wilderness bills were introduced in the 112th
Congress, but it was the first Congress since 1966 that did not add to the wilderness system. The
only wilderness law that was enacted in the 112th Congress reduced the size of a wilderness area.
To date, the 113th Congress has introduced many bills to add to the wilderness system, and passed
one bill designating additional wilderness.
Wilderness designation can be controversial. The designation generally prohibits commercial
activities, motorized access, and human infrastructure from wilderness areas; however, there are
several exceptions to this general rule. Advocates propose wilderness designations to preserve the
generally undeveloped conditions of the areas. Opponents see such designations as preventing
certain uses and potential economic development in rural areas where such opportunities are
relatively limited.
Most bills direct management of designated wilderness in accordance with the Wilderness Act.
However, proposed legislation also often seeks a compromise among interests by allowing other
activities in the area. Pre-existing uses or conditions are often allowed to continue, sometimes
temporarily, with nonconforming uses to be halted and/or nonconforming conditions to be
rectified. More commonly, the authority is permanent, with limited access permitted for specific
areas, uses, and times, or with the authority to operate and maintain pre-existing infrastructure.
Wilderness bills often contain additional provisions, such as providing special access for
particular purposes, for example, border security. Water rights associated with wilderness
designations have also proved controversial; many statutes have addressed wilderness water
rights.
Controversies regarding management of existing wilderness areas also have been the subject of
legislation. Bills have been introduced to expand access to wilderness areas for border security; to
guarantee access for hunting, fishing, and shooting; to release wilderness study areas from
wilderness-like protection; and to limit agency review of the wilderness potential of their lands.
The latter two issues have been contentious for Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands for
two reasons. First, BLM is required by law to protect the wilderness characteristics of its
wilderness study areas (WSAs) until Congress determines otherwise. Second, a December 2010
secretarial order directed BLM to maintain a wilderness inventory, to consider wilderness
potential in planning, and to protect wilderness characteristics of those “Wild Lands” unless
alternative management was deemed appropriate. The FY2012 Interior Appropriations Act
(Division E of P.L. 112-74) prohibited using funds to implement the secretarial order, and bills
were introduced to terminate the order. In June 2011, Secretary Salazar withdrew the order, but
stated that BLM would maintain a wilderness inventory and continue to consider wilderness
characteristics as required by law. Legislation in the 113th Congress proposes to eliminate several
WSAs.
Congressional Research Service
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
Contents
The Wilderness Act and Subsequent Designations .......................................................................... 1
Pros and Cons of Wilderness Designations ............................................................................... 2
Issues for Congress .......................................................................................................................... 3
Bills Designating Wilderness Areas .......................................................................................... 3
Management in Accordance with the Wilderness Act ............................................................... 6
Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational Shooting ..................................................................... 7
Non-Conforming Uses or Conditions.................................................................................. 8
Wilderness and Border Security .............................................................................................. 10
Legislative Action ............................................................................................................. 11
Wilderness Study Areas and Reviews for Wilderness Potential .............................................. 12
Background ....................................................................................................................... 12
Legislative Action ............................................................................................................. 15
Concluding Observations ............................................................................................................... 17
Tables
Table 1. 113th Congress: Bills to Designate Wilderness Areas ........................................................ 4
Table 2. 113th Congress: Bills to Release Wilderness Study Areas ................................................ 16
Table A-1. 112th Congress: Bills to Designate Wilderness Areas .................................................. 18
Appendixes
Appendix A. 112th Congress Wilderness Legislation ..................................................................... 18
Appendix B. 112th Congress: Border Security Bills Affecting Wilderness .................................... 20
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 20
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 20
Congressional Research Service
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
he 1964 Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. §§1131-1136) established the National Wilderness
Preservation System and directed that only Congress can designate federal lands as part of
Tthe system.1 Many believe that special areas should be designated to protect and preserve
their unique values and characteristics, and bills are usually introduced in each Congress to
designate wilderness areas. Others oppose such legislation because commercial activities,
motorized access, and roads, structures, and facilities generally are prohibited in wilderness areas.
Debate over wilderness bills that may be introduced in the 113th Congress is likely to follow this
pattern, especially as to how those prohibited activities affect law enforcement in wilderness areas
along U.S. national borders. In addition, a December 2010 change to the Interior Department
policy dictating management for wilderness-suitable areas stimulated legislation in the 112th
Congress over the timing and nature of wilderness reviews. Despite the policy’s retraction in
2011, this continues to spur congressional interest.
This report presents background information on wilderness protection and a discussion of issues
in the wilderness debate—the pros and cons of wilderness designation generally; possible
considerations for specific legislation; and a discussion of possible wilderness study area
designation and protection. This report also tracks the status of legislation introduced in the 113th
Congress to designate new wilderness or release wilderness study areas. A table of legislation
from the 112th Congress is in Appendix A to this report.
The Wilderness Act and Subsequent Designations
The Wilderness Act established a National Wilderness Preservation System of federal lands,
initially with 54 wilderness areas containing 9.1 million acres of federal land within the national
forests. It reserved to Congress the authority to add areas to the system, although agencies were
given the authority to review the wilderness potential of certain lands. This congressional
authority is based on what is known as the Property Clause of the Constitution, which gives to
Congress the “Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the
Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”2
The Wilderness Act and 118 subsequent laws have designated wilderness areas. As of December
31, 2013, the National Wilderness Preservation System totaled 759 areas, with nearly 110 million
acres.3 To date, the 113th Congress has designated one additional wilderness area, adding 32,500
acres to the system. The wilderness areas are part of existing units of federal land administered by
the several federal land management agencies—the Forest Service in the Department of
Agriculture, and the National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) within the Department of the Interior. Thus, statutory provisions for
these agencies’ lands, as well as the Wilderness Act and the subsequent wilderness statutes,
govern the administration of the designated wilderness areas.
Wilderness designations can be controversial because the Wilderness Act restricts the allowed
uses of the land within designated areas. In general, the Wilderness Act prohibits commercial
1 This report does not address the administrative, legislative, and judicial actions related to national forest roadless
areas, which some observers believe were an administrative attempt to create wilderness; see CRS Report RL30647,
National Forest System (NFS) Roadless Area Initiatives.
2 Art. IV, §3, cl. 2.
3 See CRS Report RL31447, Wilderness: Overview and Statistics.
Congressional Research Service
1
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
activities, motorized access, and roads, structures, and facilities in wilderness areas. Specifically,
Section 4(c) states:
Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be
no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this
Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for
the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and
safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles,
motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport,
and no structure or installation within any such area.4
This section thus prohibits most commercial resource exploitation (such as timber harvesting) and
motorized entry (via cars, trucks, off-road vehicles, aircraft, or motorboats) except for “minimum
requirements” to administer the areas and in emergencies. However, Section 4(d) provides
numerous exceptions, including (a) possible continued use of motorboats and aircraft; (b)
measures to control fires, insects, and diseases; (c) mineral prospecting conducted “in a manner
compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment”; (d) water projects; (e)
continued livestock grazing; and (f) commercial recreation activities. Subsequent wilderness
statutes have included additional provisions for administering those wilderness areas, including
exceptions to the general Wilderness Act prohibitions.5
Valid existing rights established prior to the designation of an area as wilderness remain, unless
expressly modified by the wilderness statute. The phrase valid existing rights means that the
designation does not alter property rights, and does not suggest that all uses prior to the
designation are allowed. There must be a property right, rather than a general right of use. Courts
have consistently interpreted “subject to valid existing rights” to mean that the wilderness
designation is not intended to take property in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution.6 Ownership of land within a wilderness area would confer existing rights.
While most uses—timber harvesting, livestock grazing, motorized recreation—are not rights to
the lands and resources, the mining and mineral leasing laws do provide a process for establishing
rights to the mineral resources. The Wilderness Act allowed implementation of these laws through
1983 for the original areas designated; many subsequent laws explicitly withdrew the designated
areas from availability under these laws. Three statutes—P.L. 97-466, P.L. 101-628, and P.L.
103-77—directed that mineral leases within the wilderness be acquired through exchanges for
mineral leases elsewhere.
Pros and Cons of Wilderness Designations
Proponents of adding wilderness generally seek designations of specific areas to preserve the
areas in their current condition and to prevent development activities from altering their
wilderness character. Most areas protected as or proposed for wilderness are undeveloped, with
few (if any) signs of human activity, such as roads and structures. The principal benefit of a
4 16 U.S.C. §1133(c).
5 For more information, see CRS Report R41649, Wilderness Laws: Statutory Provisions and Prohibited and Permitted
Uses.
6 See Stupak-Thrall v. United States, 89 F.3d 1269, 1280 (6th Cir. 1996), and Utah v. Andrus, 486 F. Supp. 995, 1010
(D. Utah 1979).
Congressional Research Service
2
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
wilderness designation is to maintain such undeveloped conditions and the values that such
conditions generate—clean water, undisturbed wildlife habitats, natural scenic views,
opportunities for nonmotorized recreation (e.g., backpacking), unaltered research baselines, and
for some, the simple knowledge of the existence of such pristine places. These conditions and
values may be constrained by existing rights and other exceptions and exemptions provided for
specific areas by Wilderness Act prohibitions and restrictions on development and access.
Opponents of wilderness generally seek to retain development options for federal lands. The
potential use of lands and resources can provide economic opportunities in extracting and
developing the resources, especially in the relatively rural communities in and around the federal
lands. The principal cost of a wilderness designation is the lost opportunity for economic activity
resulting from resource extraction and development. While some economic activities, such as
grazing and outfitting, are allowed to continue within wilderness areas, many are prohibited. The
potential losses (opportunity costs) for some resources, such as timber harvesting, can be
determined with relative accuracy, since the quality and quantity of the resource can be measured.
However, for other resources, particularly minerals, the assessments of the quality and quantity of
the unavailable resources are more difficult to determine, and thus the opportunity costs are less
certain.
The potential benefits and opportunity costs of wilderness designation can rarely be fully
quantified and valued. Thus, decisions about wilderness generally cannot be based on a clear
cost-benefit or other economic analysis. Rather, deliberations commonly focus on trying to
maximize the benefits of preserving pristine areas and minimize the resulting opportunity costs.
However, the individuals and groups who benefit from wilderness designations may differ from
those who may be harmed by the lost opportunities, increasing conflict and making compromise
difficult. Wilderness designations are not necessarily permanent. Congress has statutorily deleted
lands from 18 wilderness areas, commonly to adjust boundaries to delete private lands or roads
included inadvertently in the original designation. Thus, changes can be made if subsequent
information shows a wilderness designation should be altered.
Issues for Congress
In general, Congress addresses several issues when drafting and considering new wilderness bills.
These issues include the general pros and cons of wilderness designation and specific provisions
regarding management of wilderness areas to allow or prohibit certain uses.
Bills Designating Wilderness Areas
The first step in developing legislation to designate wilderness areas is to choose which areas to
designate. While the Wilderness Act requires areas of at least 5,000 acres for future designations,7
no minimum size is required for designations made under new legislation. As a result, wilderness
areas have taken all shapes and sizes; the smallest is the Pelican Island Wilderness in Florida,
with only 5½ acres, while the largest is the Mollie Beattie Wilderness (Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge) in Alaska, with 8.0 million acres. Many wilderness statutes have designated a single area,
or even a single addition to an existing area. Others have designated more than 70 new areas or
7 16 U.S.C. §1132(c).
Congressional Research Service
3
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
additions in a single statute. Some bills address a particular area, while others address all likely
wilderness areas for a state or sub-state region (e.g., the California desert), usually for one
agency’s lands, although occasionally for two or more agencies’ lands in the vicinity. Typically,
the bill references a particular map for each area, and directs the agency to file a map with the
relevant committees of Congress after enactment, and to retain a copy in relevant agency offices
(commonly a local office and/or the DC headquarters).
Numerous bills to designate wilderness areas are usually introduced in each Congress. For
example, 33 bills that would have designated wilderness areas (plus 13 companion bills) were
introduced in the 111th Congress.8 One was enacted—the Omnibus Public Land Management Act
of 2009, P.L. 111-11. It included 16 subtitles (many of which had been introduced in wilderness
bills in the 110th and 111th Congresses) designating 2,050,964 acres of wilderness in various
locales, as well as including numerous land, water, and other provisions. The 112th Congress was
the first in decades not to designate additional wilderness; the only wilderness law that was
enacted reduced the size of a wilderness area in the state of Washington and transferred the land
to the Quileute Indian Tribe.9
So far in the 113th Congress, over 30 bills have been introduced to expand U.S. wilderness
holdings, and one bill has been enacted, designating 32,500 acres of wilderness in Michigan. See
Table 1 for an alphabetical list of legislation introduced and the most recent action (as of
publication of this report). Some of these bills include proposals to designate more than one
wilderness area, and one proposes to designate several wilderness areas in different states.
Table 1. 113th Congress: Bills to Designate Wilderness Areas
Bill Title
Bill No.
State
Acreagea
Most Recent Action
Alpine Lakes Wilderness
H.R. 361
WA
22,173 acres
H.R. 361 hearing 7/23/13
Additions and Pratt and
Middle Fork Snoqualmie
S. 112
S. 112 passed Senate 6/19/13
Rivers Protection Act
America’s Red Rock
H.R. 1630
UT 9,144,240
acresb
H.R. 1630 introduced 4/18/13
Wilderness Act of 2013
S. 769
S. 769 introduced 4/18/13
Arizona Sonoran Desert
H.R. 1799
AZ
290,823 acres
Introduced 4/26/13
Heritage Act of 2013
Browns Canyon National
S. 1794
CO
10,400 acres
Introduced 12/10/13
Monument and Wilderness
Act of 2013
Central Idaho Economic
H.R. 145
ID
332,928 acres
Introduced 1/3/13
Development and
Recreation Act
Clear Creek National
H.R. 1776
CA
21,000 acres
Introduced 4/26/13
Recreation Area and
Conservation Act
8 For information on these bills from the 111th Congress, see CRS Report R40237, Federal Lands Managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (FS): Issues in the 111th Congress.
9 Although 41 bills to designate wilderness were introduced in the 112th Congress, see Appendix A, no new wilderness
areas were created for the first time since the 89th Congress (1965-1967). P.L. 112-97 reduced the wilderness area in
Olympic National Park by 222 acres, transferring the land to an Indian tribe.
Congressional Research Service
4
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
Bill Title
Bill No.
State
Acreagea
Most Recent Action
Colorado Wilderness Act of
H.R. 2552
CO
735,650 acres
Introduced 6/27/13
2013
Columbine-Hondo
H.R. 1683
NM
45,000 acres
H.R. 1683 introduced 4/23/13
Wilderness Act
S. 776
S. 776 hearing 11/20/13
Devil’s Staircase Wilderness
H.R. 2491/
OR 30,520
acres H.R. 2491 introduced 6/25/13;
Act of 2013c
H.R. 1526
30,540 acres
H.R. 1526 passed House 9/20/2013
S. 352/S.
1784
S. 352 passed Senate 6/19/13/S.
1784 hearing 2/6/14
Douglas County
S. 1263
NV
12,330 acres
Introduced 6/27/13
Conservation Act of 2013
Forest Jobs and Recreation
S. 37
MT
626,192 acres
Ordered reported 12/19/13
Act of 2013
Gold Butte National
S. 1054
NV
221,558 acres
Introduced 5/23/13
Conservation Area Act
Hermosa Creek Watershed
H.R. 1839
CO 37,236
acres H.R. 1839 hearing 3/6/14
Protection Act of 2013
S. 841
S. 841 hearing 11/20/13
Maine Coastal Islands
H.R. 1808
ME
3,256 acres
Hearing 7/23/13
Wilderness Act of 2013
Northern Rockies
H.R. 1187
ID, MT, 20,971,000 acresd Introduced
3/14/13
Ecosystem Protection Act
OR,
WA,
WY
Oregon and California Land
S. 1784
OR
86,640 acres
Hearing 2/6/14
Grant Act of 2013c
Oregon Treasures Act of
S. 353
OR
~77,340e Reported
9/10/13
2013c
Organ Mountains-Desert
S. 1805
NM
241,067 acres
Introduced 12/12/13
Peaks Conservation Act
Pine Forest Range
H.R. 433
NV
26,000 acres
H.R. 433 hearing 7/23/13
Recreation Enhancement Act
of 2013
S. 342
S. 342 reported 6/27/13
Restoring Healthy Forests
H.R. 1526
OR
88,620 acres
H.R. 1526 passed House 9/20/2013
for Healthy Communities
Actc
Rio Grande del Norte
H.R. 560
NM 21,420
acres H.R. 560 introduced 2/6/13
National Conservation Area
Establishment Act
S. 241
S. 241 reported 6/27/13
Rocky Mountain Front
S. 364
MT
67,112 acres
Hearing 7/30/13
Heritage Act of 2013
Rogue Wilderness Area
H.R. 2488/
OR
59,986 acres
Introduced 6/25/13; H.R. 1526
Expansion Actc
H.R. 1526
passed House 9/20/2013
S. 1784
S. 1784 introduced 12/9/13
San Juan Mountains
S. 341
CO
33,200 acres
Reported 9/10/13
Wilderness Act
Congressional Research Service
5
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
Bill Title
Bill No.
State
Acreagea
Most Recent Action
Sleeping Bear Dunes
H.R. 163
NV
32,557 acres
P.L. 113-87
National Lakeshore
Conservation and
S. 23
Recreation Act
Stephen Mather wilderness
H.R. 1156
WA
no net change of
Reported 5/17/13
boundary adjustment (no
acreage
formal title)
Tennessee Wilderness Act
S. 1294
TN
19,556 acres
Reported 4/8/14
Udal -Eisenhower Arctic
H.R. 139
AKf
1,559,538 acres
H.R. 139 introduced 1/3/13
Wilderness Act
S. 1695
S. 1695 introduced 11/13/13
Virgin Valley Tourism and
H.R. 2276
NV
221,558 acres
Introduced 6/6/13
Lake Mead Preservation Act
Wasatch Wilderness and
H.R. 2808
UT
13,407 acres
Introduced 7/24/13
Watershed Protection Act
Wild Olympics Wilderness
H.R.
WA
126,554 acres
H.R. 3917 introduced 1/16/14; H.R.
Act of 2014
3917/H.R.
3922 introduced 1/17/14
3922
S. 1949 introduced 1/16/14
S. 1949
Wovoka Wilderness - Lyon
H.R. 696
NV ~48,981
acresg
H.R. 696 hearing 4/18/13
County Economic
Development and
S. 159
S. 159 reported 9/10/13
Conservation Act
Source: Congressional Research Service.
a. Estimated acreage as identified in the latest version of the legislation—as introduced, reported, passed, or
enacted.
b. Total includes nine potential wilderness areas.
c. The wilderness designations proposed in H.R. 2491 (Devil’s Staircase Wilderness) and H.R. 2488 (Rogue
Wilderness) were incorporated into Title III of H.R. 1526 (Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy
Communities Act). Title III of S. 1784 (Oregon and California Land Grant Act) includes the wilderness
designations proposed in S. 352 (Devil’s Staircase Wilderness). Title III of S. 1784 also proposes to designate
the Rogue Wilderness, which is one of the three proposed wilderness designations in S. 353 (Oregon
Treasures Act).
d. Total includes potential wilderness in five states.
e. Total acreage is based upon conditional land transfers occurring.
f.
Designates land in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
g. Acreage specified in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Lyon County
Economic Development and Conservation, report to accompany S. 159, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., September 10,
2013, S.Rept. 113-94.
Bills introduced in the 112th Congress to designate wilderness areas are listed alphabetically in
Table A-1 in Appendix A.
Management in Accordance with the Wilderness Act
Most bills direct that the designated areas are to be managed in accordance with the Wilderness
Act, meaning human impacts, such as commercial activities, motorized and mechanical access,
Congressional Research Service
6
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
and infrastructure developments, are generally prohibited. The land management agency may
allow an otherwise prohibited use in order to meet the minimum requirements necessary for
administration of the area.10 The Wilderness Act does allow some activities that affect the natural
condition of the property, such as access for emergencies and for minimum management
requirements; activities to control fires, insects, and diseases; livestock grazing; and presidentially
authorized water projects. Subject to valid existing rights, wilderness areas are withdrawn from
the public land laws and the mining and mineral leasing laws. Acquisition of nonfederal lands is
authorized from willing sellers, and “reasonable access” to nonfederal lands within the wilderness
area must be accommodated. State jurisdiction over and responsibilities for fish and wildlife and
water rights are unaffected.
Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational Shooting
The Wilderness Act provides that the area will be managed, in part, for recreational use.11
Accordingly, wilderness areas are generally open to hunting and fishing, although motorized
vehicles, which may be helpful in removing big game from remote areas, are typically forbidden.
Legislation introduced in the 113th Congress would alter management of wilderness areas for
those activities.
The Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act, S. 170, would ensure that
wilderness areas managed by BLM or the Forest Service would be open for hunting, shooting,
and recreational shooting, unless the land management agency closed an area. Closure would be
allowed where “necessary and reasonable and supported by facts and evidence.”12 The bill states
that it would not allow motorized vehicle access for those activities. If enacted in its current form,
S. 170 would not significantly alter the management of wilderness areas.
In contrast, H.R. 1825, a bill with the same name as S. 170, directs land management agencies to
provide access to designated wilderness for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. H.R. 1825
also prohibits the land management agency from exercising discretion to limit access except
when closure is determined to be supported by the best scientific evidence, a different standard
than required by the Wilderness Act.13 H.R. 1825 also addresses the allowed uses in a wilderness
area. The standard under the Wilderness Act is that uses are allowed when found to meet the
minimum requirements necessary to administer the area.14 A subsection of H.R. 1825 deems that
hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting meet the “minimum requirements necessary for the
administration of the wilderness area,” but that the bill would not authorize uses “not otherwise
allowed by the Wilderness Act.”15 If enacted in its current form, H.R. 1825 would alter the
management of wilderness areas by designating all wilderness areas as open to hunting, fishing,
and recreational shooting, unless the land management agency determines using the best science
available that the activities violate statutory mandates to protect wilderness resources.
10 16 U.S.C. §1133(c).
11 16 U.S.C. §1133(b)
12 S. 170, §3(d)(2).
13 H.R. 1825, §4(a)(3).
14 16 U.S.C. §1133(c).
15 H.R. 1825, §4(e)(1).
Congressional Research Service
7
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
A bill of the 112th Congress, the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012, H.R. 4089, also would have
addressed hunting, fishing, and shooting on federal lands. Section 104(e) of that bill might have
changed how the Wilderness Act applies to wilderness area management, possibly opening
wilderness areas to any activity that related to hunting and fishing, even if otherwise inconsistent
with wilderness values, such as motorized transport. Although this bill passed the House on April
17, 2012, it was not brought to a vote in the Senate. A similar bill (S. 838) was considered in the
Senate, but also was not brought to a vote in the Senate.
Non-Conforming Uses or Conditions16
Lands do not have to be untouched by humans to be eligible for statutory designation as
wilderness. Enabling legislation could terminate or accommodate any non-conforming uses or
conditions. Existing wilderness statutes have directed immediate termination of non-conforming
uses or have allowed such uses to continue for a specified period. Similarly, existing statutes
typically have provided the agencies a specified period for removing, remediating, or restoring
non-conforming conditions or infrastructure. Alternatively, many non-conforming uses and
conditions have been permitted to remain in designated wilderness areas. The Wilderness Act
explicitly allowed continued motorized access by aircraft and motorboats in areas where such
uses were already established. Numerous wilderness statutes have permitted existing
infrastructure (e.g., cabins, water resource facilities, telecommunications equipment) to remain,
and have authorized occasional motorized access to operate, maintain, and replace the
infrastructure. A few statutes have also allowed new infrastructure developments (e.g.,
telecommunications equipment and a space energy laser facility) within designated wilderness
areas. While such authorizations are usually for a specific area, some statutes have provided more
general exemptions, such as for maintaining grazing facilities or for fish and wildlife management
by a state agency in all areas designated in the statute.
Courts have looked narrowly at exceptions to permitted uses. Accordingly, broad legislative
language to continue excepted uses risks being interpreted by courts in a way not intended. For
example, in one case, the law creating a wilderness specifically allowed the management agency
to “upgrade, maintain and replace” one structure. The court held that did not mean that Congress
intended preservation of other similar structures in that wilderness.17 In another case, the Eleventh
Circuit stated that unless the enabling legislation permitted it, maintenance and preservation of
structures, even those deemed historic, could not be permitted: “Congress wrote the wilderness
rules and may create exceptions as it sees fit. Absent these explicit statutory instructions,
however, the need to preserve historical structures may not be inferred from the Wilderness Act
nor grafted onto its general purpose.”18
A law enacted in the 113th Congress, P.L. 113-99, requires the Forest Service to operate and
maintain the Green Mountain Lookout in the Glacier Peak Wilderness in Washington. The
lookout is on the National Register of Historic Places, and at one point was fully disassembled
16 For a discussion on uses in wilderness statutes, see CRS Report R41649, Wilderness Laws: Statutory Provisions and
Prohibited and Permitted Uses, by Kristina Alexander and Katie Hoover.
17 Olympic Park Associates v. Mainella, No. C04-5732, 2005 WL 1871114 (W.D. Wash. August 1, 2005).
18 Wilderness Watch v. Mainella, 375 F.3d 1085, 1092 (11th Cir. 2004).
Congressional Research Service
8
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
due to damage.19 In 2012 a federal court ruled that maintaining the structure was contrary to the
Wilderness Act and ordered it removed.20 P.L. 113-99 reverses that decision.
H.R. 2276, Section 307(b), which establishes wilderness in Clark County, Nevada, would allow
motor vehicles for management activities to promote healthy fish and wildlife populations.
Buffer Zones
Many existing wilderness statutes have addressed management outside of the designated
wilderness area. For example, some legislation has also proposed prohibiting buffer zones around
the wilderness area, contending that the management of adjoining lands would be altered by the
presence of wilderness. Such provisions direct that non-conforming activities can occur up to the
wilderness boundary, and that the ability to see or hear a non-conforming activity from within the
wilderness is not a reason to prohibit the activity.
Special Access
Various existing wilderness statutes have included special access provisions for particular needs.
For example, statutes designating wilderness areas along the Mexican border commonly have
allowed motorized access for law enforcement and border security. (See “Wilderness and Border
Security” below.) Similarly, several statutes have included provisions addressing possible military
needs in and near the designated areas, particularly for low-level military training flights. Other
statutes have contained provisions allowing particular access for tribal, cultural, or other local
needs. Several statutes have included provisions authorizing the agencies to prevent public
access, usually temporarily and for the minimum area needed, to accommodate particular needs.
Reserved Water Rights
Under the so-called Winters doctrine, when Congress reserves federal land for a particular
purpose, it also reserves enough water to fulfill the purpose of the reservation.21 Initial wilderness
designations were seen as having a minimal effect on water rights, as they were made in national
forests, which are congressional reservations of federal land and often included the headwaters of
affected rivers and streams. Section 4(d)(7) of the Wilderness Act explicitly stated that the
wilderness designations did not “constitute an express or implied claim or denial … as to
exemption from State water laws.” Water is particularly an issue for BLM lands, since many
BLM lands are public domain lands (acquired by the federal government from a foreign
sovereign) that were not reserved by Congress. Furthermore, as BLM lands often do not contain
the headwaters of streams (in contrast to the national forests), upstream diversions can affect the
water flowing through a wilderness area. Wilderness statutes have taken various approaches to
19 See Forest Service, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest website at http://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/mbs/
recreation/recarea/?recid=41669.
20 Wilderness Watch v. Iwamoto, 853 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (W.D. Wash. 2012).
21 Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908). See also CRS Report R41081, The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
(WSRA): Protections, Federal Water Rights, and Development Restrictions, by Cynthia Brougher, for a discussion of
federal reserved water rights in similarly protected areas.
Congressional Research Service
9
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
water rights.22 Congress may consider addressing federal water rights in wilderness legislation,
especially for places that have water availability constraints.
Wilderness and Border Security
One issue that has received attention from some Members of Congress in recent years is the
impact on border security of the Wilderness Act and other federal laws governing land and
resource management.23 Many are concerned that wilderness areas abutting and near the Mexican
border are conduits for illegal aliens and drug trafficking because limitations on motorized access
may restrict apprehension efforts.
There are 15 designated wilderness areas within about 20 miles of the Mexican border. However,
only 5 actually abut the border (for approximately 96 linear miles).24 As noted above, the
Wilderness Act authorizes motorized access for emergencies and administrative needs, but does
not describe what is meant by “administrative needs.” The act is silent on access specifically for
border security, but some actions related to controlling drug trafficking and illegal immigration
might be considered administrative needs or emergencies. Language within a specific enabling
statute may be more specific.
The first explicit language on the issue of wilderness access for border security was in Title III of
the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-628). Section 301(g) directs that
Nothing in this title, including the designation as wilderness of lands within the Cabeza Prieta
National Wildlife Refuge shall be construed as (1) precluding or otherwise affecting continued
border operations ... within such refuge, in accordance with any applicable interagency
agreements in effect on the date of enactment of this Act; or (2) precluding … new or renewed
agreements ... concerning ... border operations within such refuge, consistent with management of
the refuge for the purpose for which such refuge was established.
The California Desert Protection Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-433) also contains explicit guidance on
border security for all designated areas, including one adjacent to the Mexican border and six
others within about 20 miles of the border. Section 103(g) directs that
Nothing in this Act, including the wilderness designations ... may be construed to preclude
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies from conducting law enforcement and border
operations as permitted before the date of enactment of this Act, including the use of motorized
vehicles and aircraft, on any lands designated as wilderness by this Act.
The most recent statute designating a border-adjacent wilderness area, the Otay Mountain
Wilderness Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-145), also addresses border security. The act requires the
22 For more information, see also CRS Report R41649, Wilderness Laws: Statutory Provisions and Prohibited and
Permitted Uses.
23 Other laws commonly cited as potentially impeding efforts to halt drug traffic and illegal aliens include the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because they require an assessment of
impacts prior to the activity’s being authorized.
24 Of the five wilderness areas that abut the border with Mexico, two are in California (the Otay Mountain Wilderness
(3.25 mi) and Jacumba Wilderness (9.5 mi), both managed by the BLM), and three are in Arizona (the Cabeza Prieta
Wilderness (37.5 mi) managed by the FWS, the Organ Pipe Cactus Wilderness (42 mi) managed by the NPS, and the
Pajarita Wilderness (3.75 mi) managed by the Forest Service). Mileage calculated by CRS from the National Atlas.
Congressional Research Service
10
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
southern boundary of the wilderness to be at least 100 feet from the border. Also, Section 6(b)
allows border operations to continue consistent with the Wilderness Act:
Because of the proximity of the Wilderness Area to the United States-Mexico international
border, drug interdiction [and] border operations ... are common management actions throughout
the area.... This Act recognizes the need to continue such management actions so long as such
management actions are conducted in accordance with the Wilderness Act and are subject to such
conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate.
Concerns about access limitations to wilderness areas (and other legal constraints that apply more
broadly to federal lands) persist. On April 15, 2011, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee
on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands and the House Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations held a joint
hearing on the issues.25 The Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified, based on two
reports from late 2010.26 GAO noted that most border officials reported that any delays and
restrictions reported in border security operations did not affect security:
[D]espite the access delays and restrictions experienced by these [Border Patrol] stations, 22 of
the 26 patrol agents-in-charge reported that the overall security status of their jurisdiction had not
been affected by land management laws. Instead, factors such as the remoteness and ruggedness
of the terrain have had the greatest effect on their ability to achieve operational control in these
areas. Four patrol agents-in-charge reported that delays and restrictions had affected their ability
to achieve or maintain operational control, but they either had not requested resources for
increased or timelier access or their requests had been denied by senior Border Patrol officials
because of higher priority needs of the agency.
Legislative Action
The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, S. 744, as
introduced in the 113th Congress, would affect wilderness area management along the U.S. border
with Mexico. The bill would authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive all laws in
order to expedite construction activities along the border, including roads and barriers.27 To the
extent that those construction activities are in a wilderness area, the Wilderness Act could be
waived, as it otherwise would limit such projects. An additional provision of S. 744, Section
1105, addresses border patrol activities along the Arizona-Mexico border. That area includes
wilderness comprising most of the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and the Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument. Section 1105 requires the land management agencies to allow
“immediate” access for certain border patrol activities. That apparently would preclude the land
management determination of whether an activity was necessary to meet the minimum
requirements to administer the area, as typically is made for wilderness areas.28
25 See http://naturalresources.house.gov/Calendar/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=234828.
26 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Southwest Border: Border Patrol Operations on Federal Lands, GAO-11-
573T, April 15, 2011, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11573t.pdf. See also GAO, Southwest Border: More Timely
Border Patrol Access and Training Could Improve Security Operations and Natural Resource Protection on Federal
Lands, GAO-11-38, October 2010, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1138.pdf; and GAO, Border Security: Additional
Actions Needed to Ensure a Coordinated Federal Response to Illegal Activity on Federal Lands, GAO-11-177,
November 2010, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11177.pdf.
27 S. 744, §3(d).
28 See, e.g. Wilderness Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 629 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2010).
Congressional Research Service
11
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
Bills were introduced in the 112th Congress to reduce the potential restrictions of the Wilderness
Act and other federal statutes on border security activities; however, none of the bills were
enacted. See Appendix B for a discussion of those bills.
Wilderness Study Areas and Reviews for Wilderness Potential
The 113th Congress may consider when (and whether) the agencies can and must review the
wilderness potential of their lands. A controversial DOI policy from December 2010, perceived
by some as expanding wilderness protection by BLM to non-designated lands, stimulated debate
in the 112th Congress. FY2011 and FY2012 Interior appropriations acts removed funding for the
policy,29 which was formally revoked by the then Secretary of the Interior in June 2011. DOI
announced that, in place of the so-called Wild Lands policy, BLM would maintain wilderness
study areas and consider wilderness characteristics in its land management planning.30 Issuance of
updated guidance documents in March 2012 for conducting wilderness inventories may renew
congressional interest in how BLM manages its land.31
Background
The Wilderness Act and other statutes direct land management agencies to review the wilderness
potential of certain federal lands. A particular effort was made in the late 1970s to identify areas
suitable for wilderness designation. Such a finding of wilderness potential can be interpreted as a
limitation on developing that area’s resources. Later congressional action “released” BLM and the
Forest Service from maintaining certain areas as wilderness.
Forest Service Wilderness Considerations
The Forest Service is required to review the National Forest System for potential wilderness areas
during the development and revision of land and resource management plans (also known as
forest plans), approximately every 15 years.32 In the 1970s and 1980s, the agency conducted two
reviews—known as the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE) I and II—that resulted in
some, but not all, of these inventoried roadless areas being recommended for a wilderness
designation in January 1979.33 However, a successful judicial challenge to those
recommendations by the state of California34 led to uncertainty over the validity of the RARE II
recommendations and to disputes over the need to protect the wilderness characteristics of the
reviewed areas. Congress released the Forest Service from the duty of reviewing wilderness
29 P.L. 112-10, §1769; P.L. 112-74, §175, respectively.
30 Memorandum from Secretary, Department of the Interior, to Director, Bureau of Land Management, Wilderness
Policy (June 1, 2011), http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/upload/Salazar-Wilderness-Memo-Final.pdf.
31 See BLM Manual 6310 – Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands (March 15, 2012); BLM
Manual 6320 – Considering Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in BLM Land Use Planning Process (March 15,
2012). Both are available online at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/
blm_manual.html.
32 Under Section 6(f)(5) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-378), as
amended by NFMA, management plans for the national forests must be revised at least every 15 years.
33 Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II. 2000.
34 California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that the Forest Service had not satisfied the National
Environmental Policy Act or NFMA in producing the recommendations).
Congressional Research Service
12
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
potential in the initial forest plans and from preserving the wilderness characteristics of areas not
recommended for wilderness designation. This was known as release language, and was enacted
in 30 state-by-state Forest Service wilderness statutes between 1980 and 1990.35
Review of potential wilderness is now part of the forest planning process; however, management
of Forest Service inventoried roadless areas has been controversial.36 Starting in 2001, the Clinton
and Bush Administrations each proposed different roadless area policies. Both were heavily
litigated; however, the Clinton policy to prohibit many activities on roadless areas—with
significant exceptions—remains intact after the Supreme Court refused to review a lower court’s
decision in 2012. Release language is no longer significant for national forest wilderness
legislation, although some bills do include release provisions. For example, S. 1967 would release
all inventoried roadless areas in Wyoming national forests.
BLM Wilderness Review
BLM must review the wilderness potential of its “roadless areas of five thousand acres or more
and roadless islands of the public lands, identified during the inventory required by section 201(a)
of this Act as having wilderness characteristics.”37 Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act38 (FLPMA) required BLM to present its wilderness recommendations to the
President within 15 years of October 21, 1976, and the President then had two years to submit
wilderness recommendations to Congress. BLM presented its recommendations by October 21,
1991, and Presidents George H. W. Bush and William Clinton submitted wilderness
recommendations to Congress. Although these areas have been reviewed and Congress enacted
several statutes designating BLM wilderness areas, many of the wilderness recommendations for
BLM lands remain pending. There are two continuing issues for potential BLM wilderness:
protection of the wilderness study areas; and whether BLM has a continuing obligation under
FLPMA to conduct wilderness reviews.
Protection of BLM Wilderness Study Areas
In 1977-1979, BLM identified suitable wilderness study areas (WSAs) from roadless areas
identified in its initial resource inventory under FLPMA Section 201. Section 603(c) of FLPMA
directs the agency to manage those lands “until Congress has determined otherwise … in a
manner so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness.” Thus,
BLM must protect the WSAs as if they were wilderness until Congress enacts legislation that
releases BLM from that responsibility. This is sometimes referred to as a nonimpairment
obligation.
WSAs have been subject to litigation challenging BLM’s protection. In the early 2000s, BLM
was sued for not adequately preventing impairment of WSAs from increased off-road vehicle use.
In Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the
35 See, e.g., P.L. 98-321 (Wisconsin).
36 For more information, see CRS Report RL30647, National Forest System (NFS) Roadless Area Initiatives, by
Kristina Alexander.
37 43 U.S.C. §1782(a).
38 P.L. 94-579; 43 U.S.C. §§1701-1787.
Congressional Research Service
13
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
nonimpairment obligation was not enforceable by court challenge.39 The Court held that while
WSA protection was mandatory, it was a broad programmatic duty and not a discrete agency
obligation. The Court also concluded that the relevant FLPMA land use plans (which indicated
that WSAs would be monitored) constituted only management goals that might be modified by
agency priorities and available funding, and were not a basis for enforcement under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Therefore, it appears that although BLM actions that would
harm WSAs could be enjoined, as with any agency enforcement obligation,40 forcing BLM to
take protective action is difficult at best.
BLM Reviews for Wilderness Potential
Despite BLM’s continuing obligation under FLPMA Section 201 to identify the resources on its
lands, giving priority to areas of critical environmental concern,41 it is unclear whether BLM is
required to review its lands specifically for wilderness potential after expiration of the reviews
required by Section 603.42 In contrast to the Forest Service, which must revise its land and
resource management plans at least every 15 years, BLM is not required to revise its plans on a
specified cycle; rather it must revise its land and resource management plans “when appropriate.”
Furthermore, while NFMA includes wilderness in the planning process, both directly and by
reference to the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960, FLPMA is silent on wilderness in the
definitions of multiple use and sustained yield and in the guidance for the BLM planning process.
Thus, BLM wilderness reviews are less certain than future Forest Service wilderness reviews.
In 1996, then-DOI Secretary Bruce Babbitt used the inventory authority in Section 201 of
FLPMA to identify 2.6 million acres in Utah as having wilderness qualities. This was in addition
to the lands inventoried and reviewed in the 1970s and 1980s. The state of Utah challenged the
inventory as violating Section 603, and in September 2003, then-DOI Secretary Gale Norton
settled the case.43 The BLM Assistant Director issued guidance (Instruction Memoranda Nos.
2003-274 and 2003-275) prohibiting further reviews and limiting the term “wilderness study
areas” and the nonimpairment standard to areas already designated for the original Section 603
review.44 Instruction Memorandum 2003-274 advised that because the Section 603 authority
expired, “there is no general legal authority for the BLM to designate lands as WSAs for
management pursuant to the non-impairment standard prescribed by Congress for Section 603
WSAs.” These memoranda rescinded the Wilderness Inventory and Study Procedures Handbook.
39 542 U.S. 55 (2004).
40 See, e.g., Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985); United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 123-124 (1979);
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974); Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 182 (1967) (“an agency’s decision not
to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency’s
absolute discretion”).
41 FLPMA §201; 43 U.S.C. §1711.
42 FLPMA §603; 43 U.S.C. §1782 (requiring a review within 15 years [by 1991] of roadless areas greater than 5,000
acres to determine suitability for wilderness).
43 Utah v. Norton (no written decision is available).
44 BLM Assistant Director, Instruction Memorandum 2003-275, Consideration of Wilderness Characteristics in Land
Use Plans (Excluding Alaska), p. 1 (September 29, 2003) (“It is, therefore, no longer BLM policy to continue to make
formal determinations regarding wilderness character, designate new WSAs through the land use planning process, or
manage any lands—except WSAs established under Section 603 of the FLPMA and other existing WSAs—in
accordance with the non-impairment standard prescribed in the [Interim Management Policy])”). Available at
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction.html.
Congressional Research Service
14
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
On December 22, 2010, DOI Secretary Ken Salazar issued Order No. 3310, addressing how BLM
would manage wilderness.45 This order indirectly modified the 2003 wilderness guidance without
actually overturning the direction (or even acknowledging it). The order relied on the authority in
FLPMA Section 201 to inventory lands with wilderness characteristics that are “outside of the
areas designated as Wilderness Study Areas and that are pending before Congress” and designated
these lands as “Wild Lands.” It also directed BLM to consider the wilderness characteristics in
land use plans and project decisions, “avoiding impairment of such wilderness characteristics”
unless alternative management is deemed appropriate. While Instruction Memorandum 2003-274
indicated that, except for extant Section 603 WSAs, the nonimpairment mandate did not apply,
Order No. 3310 appeared to require an affirmative decision that impairment is appropriate in a
Section 201 wilderness resource area, or otherwise impairment must be avoided. After Congress
withheld funding, Secretary Salazar announced in June 2011 that BLM would not designate any
Wild Lands. He also announced that DOI would be gathering recommendations from
stakeholders on what areas to protect as wilderness, with those suggestions being forwarded to
Congress in a report. The memorandum did not indicate whether there was a shift on how
impairment would be considered.
Legislative Action
Several bills before the 113th Congress would release BLM WSAs, meaning they would no longer
be managed as wilderness. See Table 2 for an alphabetical list of legislation introduced and the
most recent action (as of publication of this report). H.R. 1839/S. 841 would release two WSAs in
Colorado; H.R. 995 would release three WSAs in New Mexico. Other bills provide for the release
of WSAs not incorporated into wilderness designations made within that legislation: S. 37 would
release remaining sections of nine WSAs in Montana; H.R. 1683 remainders of the 46,000-acre
Columbine-Hondo area in New Mexico; and H.R. 433/S. 342 would release remaining areas of
two WSAs in Nevada.
In FY2011 and FY2012 Interior appropriations laws (P.L. 112-10, §1769; and P.L. 112-74, §125),
Congress prohibited funds to “implement, administer, or enforce Secretarial Order No. 3310.”
The Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011 (H.R. 1581/S. 1087) would have released
certain BLM WSAs—those not designated as wilderness by Congress and those identified by the
BLM as not suitable for wilderness designation—from the nonimpairment requirement of Section
603(c) of FLPMA. The bill also would have terminated the Clinton and Bush Forest Service
roadless area rules. A similar bill in the 113th Congress—S. 1967, the Inventoried Roadless Area
Management Act—would terminate the Clinton roadless area rule on national forests in
Wyoming.
Legislation to modify WSA nonimpairment protection under Section 603 of FLPMA was offered
in earlier Congresses (106th, 107th, and 108th). The legislation typically provided release for all
remaining BLM WSAs 10 years after enactment to provide time for Congress to consider
wilderness legislation for BLM lands, meaning that if Congress had not acted by that time, the
areas would no longer be treated as WSAs. However, no hearings were held on the bills and no
legislation was enacted.
45 Secretary of the Interior, Order No. 3310, Protecting Wilderness Characteristics on Lands Managed by the Bureau of
Land Management, (December 22, 2010). Available at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/
Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/news_release_attachments.Par.26564.File.dat/sec_order_3310.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
15
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
Table 2. 113th Congress: Bills to Release Wilderness Study Areas
(areas would no longer be managed as wilderness)
Name of WSA
Bill Title
Bill No.
State
Most Recent Action
(acreage to be released)
Columbine-Hondo
H.R. 1683
NM Columbine-Hondoa (~1,000)
H.R. 1683 introduced
Wilderness Act
4/23/13
S. 776
S. 776 hearing 11/20/13
Douglas County Conservation S. 1263
NV
Burbank Canyons (1,065)
Introduced 6/27/13
Act of 2013
Forest Jobs and Recreation
S. 37
MT
Axolotl Lakes (7,804)
Ordered reported 12/19/13
Act of 2013
Bell and Limekiln Canyons
(9,650)
Blacktail Mountainsb (6,804)
Centennial Mountainsb
(3,991)
Farlin Creek (1,139)
Henneberry Ridge (9,806)
Hidden Pasture (15,509)
Humbug Spires (11,175)
Ruby Mountainsb (10,311)
Hermosa Creek Watershed
H.R. 1839
CO
West Needles Contiguous
H.R. 1839 introduced 5/6/13
Protection Act of 2013
(461)
S. 841
S. 841 hearing 11/20/13
Las Vegas Valley Public Land
H.R. 2015
NV
Sunrise Mountain (10,240)
H.R. 2015 hearing 10/3/13
and Tule Springs Fossil Beds
National Monument Act of
S. 974
S. 974 ordered reported
2013
12/19/13
Organ Mountains National
H.R. 995
NM
Organ Mountains (7,283)
Hearing 5/9/13
Monument Establishment Act
Organ Needles (7,630)
Pena Blanca (4,470)
Pine Forest Range Recreation
H.R. 433
NV
Blue Lakesc
H.R. 433 hearing 7/23/13
Enhancement Act of 2013
S. 342
Alder Creekc
S. 342 reported 6/27/13
San Juan Mountains
S. 341
CO
Dominguez Canyon (3,033)
Reported 9/10/13
Wilderness Act
Source: Congressional Research Service.
a. The release of the WSA is only to the extent that lands within that area were not included in the bill’s
wilderness designation. The enabling legislation for the Columbine Hondo WSA indicates it is approximately
46,000 acres (94 Stat. 3223). H.R. 1683, Section 101(a) identifies the new wilderness as being approximately
45,000 acres.
b. Release of these WSAs is only to the extent the lands within those areas were not included within the bill’s
wilderness designation(s). Total acreage released is based on the difference between the WSA acreage and
the acreage designated as wilderness.
c. Release of these WSAs is only to the extent the lands within those areas were not included within the bill’s
wilderness designation(s). Acreage totals are not provided in the legislation.
Congressional Research Service
16
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
Concluding Observations
Legislation is typically introduced in each Congress to add areas to the National Wilderness
Preservation System. Many interests favor wilderness designations as a means of preserving the
existing pristine nature of the areas; others oppose wilderness because it may prevent the
development and use of the resources contained in the areas. Wilderness legislation commonly
refers to the 1964 Wilderness Act for management direction, but many bills contain additional
provisions with special guidance to allow limited, nonconforming access or infrastructure within
the designated areas.
Congressional Research Service
17
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
Appendix A. 112th Congress Wilderness Legislation
Table A-1 lists alphabetically the bills introduced in the 112th Congress to designate new
wilderness areas. No new wilderness areas were created in the 112th Congress, for the first time
since the 89th Congress (1965-1967). The only wilderness bill enacted into law (P.L. 112-97)
removed 222 acres from wilderness designation.
Table A-1. 112th Congress: Bills to Designate Wilderness Areas
Bill Title
Bill No.
State
Acreagea
Most Recent Action
Alpine Lakes Wilderness Additions
H.R.
608/ WA
22,173 acres
H.R. 608 hearing 10/25/11
and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers
Protection Act
S. 322
S. 322 reported 1/13/12
America’s Red Rocks Wilderness Act
H.R.
1916/ UT 9,174,040
H.R. 1916 introduced 5/13/11
of 2011
acres
S. 979
S. 979 introduced 5/12/11
Angeles and San Bernardino National
H.R. 113
CA
18,208 acresb Hearing
10/25/11
Forests Protection Act
Beauty Mountain and Agua Tibia
H.R.
41
CA
21,431 acres
Hearing 10/25/11
Wilderness Act of 2011
S. 1574
S. 1574 introduced 9/19/11
California Desert Protection Act of
S. 138
CA
394,441 acresc Introduced
1/25/11
2011
Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven
S. 607
OR
7,375 acresd Hearing
5/18/11
Wilderness Act of 2011
Central Idaho Economic
H.R. 163
ID
332,928 acres
Introduced 1/5/11
Development and Recreation Act
Colorado Wilderness Act of 2011
H.R. 2420/
CO 699,128
acres H.R. 2420 introduced 7/6/11
735,650 acres
H.R. 2922
H.R. 2922 introduced 9/14/11
Devil’s Staircase Wilderness Act of
H.R.
1413/ OR
30,540 acres
H.R. 1413 hearing 10/25/11
2011
S. 766
S. 766 reported 1/13/12
Eagle and Summit Counties
H.R. 1701
CO
81,790 acres
Introduced 5/3/11
Wilderness Preservation Act
Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of
S. 268
MT
666,260 acres
Hearing 5/25/11
2011
Los Padres Conservation and
H.R. 4109
CA
63,576 acres
Hearing 6/28/12
Recreation Act of 2012
Maine Coastal Islands Wilderness Act H.R. 2984
ME
3,256 acres
Hearing 3/29/12
of 2011
Manzano Mountain Wilderness (no
H.R. 490
NM
(unspecified)
Hearing 10/25/11
official title)
Northern Rockies Ecosystem
H.R.
3334
e 3,680,000 Introduced 11/3/11
Protection Act
acres
Olympic National Park Wilderness
H.R. 3222
WA
4,126 acresf Hearing
12/2/11
(no official title)
Olympic National Park Wilderness
H.R. 1162
WA
(222 acres)g
P.L. 112-97
(no official title)
Congressional Research Service
18
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
Bill Title
Bill No.
State
Acreagea
Most Recent Action
Organ Mountains—Dona Ana County S. 1024
NM
241,200 acres
Hearing 8/3/11
Conservation and Protection Act
Pine Forest Range Recreation
H.R.
3377/ NV
26,000 acres
H.R. 3377 hearing 3/8/12
Enhancement Act of 2011
S. 1788
S. 1788 hearing 3/22/12
Pinnacles National Park Act
H.R. 3641/
CA 2,905
acres H.R. 3641 Passed House
2,715 acres
7/31/12; Passed Senate
S. 161
12/30/12h
S. 161 hearing 5/11/11
Rio Grande del Norte National
H.R.
1241/ NM 21,420
acres H.R. 1241 hearing 3/29/12
Conservation Area Establishment Act
S. 667
S. 667 reported 1/13/12
Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act
S. 1774
MT
67,112 acres
Hearing 3/22/12
of 2011
Rogue Wilderness Expansion Act of
H.R.
3436/ OR 58,100
acres H.R. 3436 hearing 3/8/12
2011 (H.R. 3436 has no official
60,000 acres
S. 2001
S. 2001 hearing 3/22/12
title)
San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act
S. 1635
CO
33,200 acres
Hearing 3/22/12
of 2011
Sleeping Bear Dunes National
H.R.
977/
MI
32,557 acres
H.R. 977 hearing 10/25/11
Lakeshore Conservation and
Recreation Act
S. 140
S. 140 passed 12/30/12
Tennessee Wilderness Act of 2011
S. 1090
TN
19,556 acres
Reported 1/13/12
Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness
H.R. 6609
AZ
70,000 acres
Introduced 11/30/12
Act
Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness
H.R.
139/
AKi 1,559,538
H.R. 139 introduced 1/5/11
(S. 33 has no official title)
acres
S. 33
S. 33 introduced 1/25/11
Wasatch Wilderness and Watershed
H.R. 4267
UT
15,541 acres
Introduced 3/27/12
Protection Act
Wovoka Wilderness
S. 3701
NV
48,000 acres
Introduced 12/20/12
Source: CRS acreage calculation is based on the amounts indicated in the pertinent legislation.
Notes: Excludes legislation with minor boundary adjustments of wilderness areas.
a. Estimated acreage as identified in the latest version—as introduced, reported, passed, or enacted.
b. The Forest Service has estimated the area as 17,724 acres.
c. Total includes 48,333 acres of potential wilderness in four areas.
d. Designates as potential wilderness, and converts to wilderness upon acquisition of additional lands.
e. Designates land in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming.
f.
Includes 15 acres of potential wilderness.
g. Removed 222 acres of designated wilderness from the National Wilderness Preservation System and
transferred right, title, and interest to be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Quileute
Indian Tribe in the state of Washington.
h. The provision designating additional wilderness areas was removed prior to passage. The passed bill
changed the name of the Pinnacles Wilderness to the Hain Wilderness.
i.
Designates land in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Congressional Research Service
19
Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress
Appendix B. 112th Congress: Border Security Bills
Affecting Wilderness
The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act (H.R. 1505) would have allowed
“immediate access” for border security activities on Forest Service and Interior lands, “including
access to maintain and construct roads, construct a fence, use vehicles to patrol, and set up
monitoring equipment.” The act also explicitly would have applied the April 1, 2008, waiver of
the Secretary of Homeland Security (under Section 102(c)(1) of P.L. 104-208) for border security
actions within 100 miles of the border from many federal land and resource management and
protection laws, including the Wilderness Act.
The Border Security Enforcement Act of 2011 (H.R. 1507 and S. 803) also addressed border
security and wilderness by directing the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to “authorize
and provide ... immediate access to Federal lands for security activities, including (I) routine
motorized patrols; and (II) the deployment of temporary tactical infrastructure.” This would apply
to all federal lands, including designated wilderness areas, within 150 miles of the border.
The FY2012 Homeland Security authorization bill (H.R. 3116, §606) would have authorized
routine motorized patrols and deployment of temporary tactical infrastructure by U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” This provision would have
applied to all federal lands, including wilderness areas, within 150 miles of the southwest border.
Similar legislation in the Senate (S. 1546, §513) would have authorized routine motorized patrols
within 100 miles of Mexican border.
Author Contact Information
Katie Hoover
Sandra L. Johnson
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Information Research Specialist
khoover@crs.loc.gov, 7-9008
sjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-7214
Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney
kalexander@crs.loc.gov, 7-8597
Acknowledgments
Ross Gorte, retired CRS Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, made important contributions to earlier
versions of this report.
Congressional Research Service
20