Federal Land Management Agencies: Appropriations and Revenues

Introduction

Two perennial issues for Congress are appropriations for management of federal lands and resources, and the revenues derived from these lands and resources. The focus of legislative action has been on the four major federal land management agencies: the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture.¹ In determining discretionary appropriations for these agencies, Congress establishes the level of funds for diverse programs, projects, and activities. Congress also has enacted legislation to provide mandatory appropriations for varied programs and purposes. Further, these agencies receive distributions of funding from other agencies for specific purposes.

How appropriations for federal land management are used throughout the states is of continuing interest to Congress. Questions relate to the amount of each agency's appropriations used within a particular state, factors influencing the distribution of appropriations among states, the purposes for which appropriations are used, and the extent to which appropriations are used on federal versus nonfederal land in each state.

Other questions pertain to the revenues generated from federally managed lands. They include the amount of revenue generated on federal lands, the sources of revenue, and factors influencing the variation among states in the amount and type of revenue generated on federal lands.

In this context, this report provides information on appropriations and revenues related to federal lands in each state.² It focuses on lands managed by the BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS, as these agencies administer approximately 95% of the roughly 640 million acres of federal land.³ In particular, this report provides state-by-state information in four areas:

• appropriations for, and revenues collected by, the four agencies,
• distributions of funds from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to the four agencies for their lands,
• payments under the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program and the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 (SRS), and
• mineral leasing revenues for onshore federal lands, as reported by the DOI Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR).

Comprehensive data covering these areas do not exist in a single source.⁴ State-by-state data for some types of information are readily available in public sources,⁵ as identified in the pertinent sections below. Where this was not the case, CRS sought to obtain the information directly from the pertinent agencies.⁶

Organization of Report

The first four sections of this report pertain to appropriations for the four major land management agencies and revenues collected by those agencies.⁷ The appropriations figures represent budget authority, both discretionary and mandatory. For all four agencies, discretionary appropriations are provided primarily through the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations law. The agencies have varied sources of mandatory funding under legislation originated by authorizing committees. Laws authorizing mandatory appropriations allow the agencies to spend money without further action by Congress.⁸

Appropriations figures in this report generally represent new budget authority for FY2013⁹ and thus generally do not include appropriations carried over from prior fiscal years.¹⁰ Figures representing total budget authority could present a different picture of agency funding for some states.¹¹ Figures showing obligations or expenditures¹² of funds also could differ considerably in some cases from the appropriations figures used in this report. ¹³ Appropriations figures in this report also reflect any supplemental funds for FY2013 and reductions under the sequester order of the President of March 1, 2013.¹⁴

By contrast, revenue figures throughout this report represent the actual amounts collected, because revenues are not subject to sequestration. The revenue data in the BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS sections reflect revenues collected by each agency, whether these revenues were retained by the agencies for use in the state where collected, used by the agency for other purposes, or allocated to another source (e.g., to the general fund of the Treasury). Depending on the agency, sources of revenue might include land sales, grazing, timber, recreation entrance/use, hardrock minerals, and rights of way, among others. The revenue data in these sections do not reflect the share of each agency's revenues, if any, from onshore mineral leasing. This is because these revenues are collected by the DOI Office of Natural Resources Revenue for all federal lands, as discussed below.

Distributions to the BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS from the Federal Highway Administration are shown in the fifth section of this report. The funds are from several federal lands highway programs. They are the largest allocations to the four agencies outside of the departments in which they are located (DOI and Department of Agriculture).¹⁵

The sixth section of this report provides information on payments under the PILT and FS Payments to States programs. These programs compensate local governments for the presence of most federally owned land. PILT applies to many types of federal land, while the FS payments apply to counties with national forest lands and certain BLM forested lands.¹⁶

The ONRR section of this report, presented next, reflects the mineral leasing revenues from all federal onshore areas. The revenues are derived from a variety of energy and mineral activities on federal lands, involving a wide array of commodities.¹⁷ Finally, the Appendix lists the federal acreage managed by each of the four agencies, by state.

Caveats

Several caveats about interpreting the information in this report deserve note. First, this report provides statistics for only one year. While some funding amounts might be largely consistent from year to year, others might vary by different degrees. For example, congressional and presidential priorities might change, influencing funding for particular programs, projects, and activities and the location of agency spending. Also, the appropriations to agencies for wildland fire management, and their distribution among states, vary from year to year in part depending on the severity of fires. Similarly, land acquisition may occur in some states and not others in any given year. Another factor is unplanned events, such as natural or man-made disasters, as shown by the appropriation of supplemental funds for FY2013 to address the consequences of Superstorm Sandy.¹⁸ Still other factors relate to the budgetary framework, with one example being the reduction of FY2013 appropriations under the President's sequester order of March 1, 2013.¹⁹

Second, figures in this report should be regarded as estimates and are not aggregated across agencies or across states, for a variety of reasons. For one, the agencies receive and allocate appropriations differently. The allocation might be by state or by other geographic area, such as by national forest (which may cross state lines) or regional office. Agencies also differ as to how they define, organize, and report data. For instance, revenue data might reflect total revenue collected by an agency or only revenues collected from activities and resources on lands the agency owns. For example, BLM data include payments from federal, state, and local governments for fire work performed on non-BLM land, but the FS data reflect revenue generated exclusively on FS lands. Another difference is how agencies reflect appropriations for operations of their headquarters or regional offices. For instance, FWS and NPS reflect headquarters appropriations with the state in which the headquarters are located, while BLM does not reflect them with any state.

An additional complication in making comparisons across agencies is whether to consider total appropriations or only those used on agency-owned lands. This is because agencies differ considerably in the extent to which they use appropriations in a state on lands other than those they own. As an illustration of this point, FWS uses about two-thirds of its appropriations on lands not managed by the agency, while virtually all of BLM appropriations are used on agency-managed lands.

There is also overlap in some of the information provided by the agencies and reported here, such as for some mandatory appropriations included in both an agency's appropriations and its revenue totals (e.g., for recreation). Further, some amounts are reflected in multiple sections of this report, as is the case for SRS monies reflected in the BLM, FS, and SRS sections. As a result of these overlaps, aggregation could lead to double counting of some monies. Additional challenges and issues associated with particular data in this report are discussed in the pertinent sections.

Third, this report does not provide information on the broader economic dimensions related to federal lands managed by the four agencies. An analysis of economic costs and benefits and other impacts is beyond the scope of this report.

Fourth, this report is not intended to make implications about these lands if they were under nonfederal ownership, such as the level of funds that might be provided for their management; the revenues that might be generated through their use; or the broader economic costs, benefits, and impacts that might occur. For example, the legal and political frameworks pertinent to management under state law may vary considerably from those that apply to the BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS.

Finally, for all categories of data, figures are provided for FY2013 as the most recent fiscal year for which data were available across categories. Throughout the report, figures generally are rounded to the closest million. Due to rounding, figures of less than $50,000 are shown as <$0.1 million. Territories are not shown in a table if they did not receive the appropriations or payments, or collect the revenues, shown in the table. Also, figures may not sum to the totals provided due to rounding.

Overview

BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS received widely varying amounts of FY2013 appropriations for federal land management, as shown in Figure 1. Each agency dispersed its appropriations differently among the states. The lands of these agencies across states also generated widely differing amounts of revenue. Influencing the allocation of appropriations among states, and the amount of revenue collected in each state, were the acreage of federal land; land resources, conditions, availability, uses, and impacts; demographics; fire activity; and other factors. Many of these factors are common among the agencies, while others apply more particularly to one or a subset of agencies. For instance, FWS appropriations used in a state are particularly affected by the number of species listed under the Endangered Species Act, entry ports for regulated wildlife, and two major state grant programs for conservation of game and sport fish (Wildlife Restoration and Sportfish Restoration).

Figure 1. Comparison of Appropriations by Agency, FY2013 (in millions of dollars)

Source: Prepared by CRS with data from various sources. Figures for BLM, FWS, and NPS were derived primarily from the respective agencies. FS discretionary appropriations data are derived from detailed funding tables prepared by the House Committee on Appropriations. FS mandatory appropriations data are derived from Forest Service, Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Justification, at http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/media/2014/25/2015-BudgetJustification-030614.pdf. Notes: Figures reflect total appropriations for all agencies. For details related to a particular agency, see the pertinent appropriations sections in this report.

The FY2013 appropriation to the FS ($5,709.8 million) was more than twice the appropriation to BLM ($2,048.1 million) and FWS ($2,591.6 million) and more than 40% bigger than the appropriation for NPS ($3,305.8 million). Of these totals, FS received the most in discretionary appropriations ($4,934.7 million), while FWS had the highest mandatory appropriation ($1,053.1 million). Wildland Fire Management constituted the largest portion of FS appropriations for the 12 states covered in this report (and overall). For the other three agencies, the biggest appropriation was for the main operations and management account.

The agencies have many sources of mandatory appropriations, some of which are common among them and across states (e.g., recreation). Others are unique to one agency, with the contribution for annuity benefits for U.S. Park Police being one example. Still other mandatory accounts are specific to not only one agency but one state; this is the case for BLM's appropriations for Secure Rural Schools payments, which are made to Oregon. The largest mandatory appropriations differed among the agencies: for BLM, the Helium Production Fund²⁰; for FWS, state grants for conservation of game and sport fish (Wildlife Restoration and Sportfish Restoration); for NPS, recreation fees; and for FS, payments to states generally.

Another distinction is in the extent to which the four agencies use appropriations on lands other than those they manage. Very little if any of BLM appropriations for most states are used on non-BLM lands. A relatively small amount of NPS and FS appropriations are used off agency lands. By contrast, roughly two-thirds of FWS appropriations are used on lands under non-FWS ownership.

Revenue collections during FY2013 were small for the FWS ($18.9 million) as compared with the other agencies. BLM's revenue collections were the largest ($525.0 million). They were more than double the FS amount ($223.6 million) and more than one-third bigger than NPS collections ($333.4 million). Depending on the agency and state, sources of revenue might include land sales, grazing, timber, hardrock minerals, recreation, and rights of way. Sales of helium were the biggest revenue source for BLM. FWS had four revenue sources of roughly the same size (from $4.0 million to $5.0 million). On NPS lands, recreation generated the most revenue ($179.5 million). While recreation also was the single largest source of revenue on FS lands ($61.4 million), revenue/collections associated with timber or salvage timber sales collectively were a larger portion of FS revenues ($129.5 million). Figure 2 shows revenues collected by agency.

Figure 2. Comparison of Revenues Collected by Agency, FY2013

Source: Prepared by CRS with data from various sources. BLM and NPS figures were derived primarily from data from the respective agencies. FWS information was derived from U.S. Department of the Interior, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2015, Fish and Wildlife Service, at http://www.fws.gov/budget/2014/FY2015_FWS_Greenbook-DOI31014.pdf. FS information was derived from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, All Service Receipts (ASR), Final Forest Statement of Receipts (ASR-13-2), http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3795423.pdf. Notes: For details related to a particular agency, see the pertinent revenue sections in this report.

Supplementing the appropriations to BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS are allocations of funding from outside the agencies. A major allocation is from the Federal Highway Administration for federal lands highway programs. Of the total distributed in FY2013 ($573.8 million), the NPS received almost half ($280.6 million), and another two-fifths ($227.2 million) went to state Programming Decisions Committees. Smaller amounts were allocated to the FWS ($36.5 million), FS ($19.8 million), and BLM ($9.6 million). With a distribution of $86.5 million, California received significantly more funds than any other state; the next largest distribution was $36.1 million for Montana, and only nine states received more than $20.0 million.²¹ Two eastern states—Connecticut and Delaware—received the lowest distributions (less than $0.1 million). Factors affecting the distribution among states include the amount of federal lands, public road miles, recreational visitation, and federal public bridges as well as agency priorities.

The Payments in Lieu of Taxes program and FS Payments to States program compensate local governments for the presence of federally owned land. PILT applies to many types of federal lands, with payments based on county population and several other factors. Of the total PILT payment in FY2013 ($401.8 million), 17 states (and other areas) received less than $1.0 million, while 10 states received more than $20.0 million. The FS Payments to States program provided $312.5 million in FY2013 payments to counties with national forest lands and certain BLM forested lands. Payments are based on either historic or current revenue generated on the lands and other considerations. Of the 41 states that received FY2013 payments, 21 received less than $2.0 million.²² Oregon received the highest payment—$97.1 million—about three times more than the next highest state.

From federal onshore areas, ONRR reported collecting $4,296.9 million in mineral leasing revenues during FY2013. The revenue was from different types of payments: bonuses, rents, and royalties. It derived from many energy and mineral commodities, including coal, gas, hardrock minerals, oil, phosphate, sodium, and sulfur. The FY2013 total was from federal lands in 37 states. Wyoming and New Mexico together accounted for more than two-thirds of the total, while about half the states had revenue of less than $1.0 million (including 13 states with no onshore receipts). Revenue levels not only vary widely among states but can vary considerably from year to year. Factors affecting revenues derived in each state include the amount of federal acreage, the extent of that acreage containing recoverable energy and mineral resources, weather conditions, and other circumstances.

The total funding for federal land management in a state, and total revenues derived from federal lands in a state, are difficult to ascertain with certainty for varied reasons. They include differences among agencies in how they receive and allocate appropriations and define, organize, and report data. For these and other reasons, figures in this report are not aggregated across states. Moreover, there are variations from year to year in appropriations among states and revenues derived on federal lands across states. This report provides a snapshot of one fiscal year.

Bureau of Land Management

Appropriations

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) estimates that appropriations for FY2013 were $2,048.1 million.²³ The majority of this funding was discretionary. Specifically, the total includes $1,714.9 million (83.7%) in discretionary appropriations and $333.1 million (16.3%) in mandatory appropriations. According to the BLM, virtually all appropriations to the agency are used for managing agency-owned lands.²⁴ Table 1 and Figure 3 provide the discretionary, mandatory, and total BLM appropriations by state.

Discretionary Appropriations

For FY2013, BLM received $1,714.9 million in discretionary appropriations through six accounts, as shown in Table 2. The largest account was for Management of Lands and Resources, which in FY2013 received $1,020.9 million (59.5%) of BLM's discretionary appropriation. This account funds an array of BLM programs and activities, including land resources, wildlife and fisheries, threatened and endangered species, recreation, energy and minerals, and resource planning for agency lands. The second-largest discretionary appropriation was for Wildland Fire Management.²⁵ This account funds fire preparedness and suppression, hazardous fuels reduction, and other programs. BLM's allocation from this department-wide account comprised $478.1 million (27.9%) of the agency's discretionary appropriations for FY2013.

The FY2013 appropriations for BLM's four other discretionary accounts were considerably smaller. Oregon and California Grant Lands received $106.0 million (6.2%) of the discretionary appropriation for managing certain timberlands in western Oregon.²⁶ Another $62.4 million (3.6%) was for the Working Capital Fund, a revolving fund used for purchasing supplies, equipment, facilities, and services in support of BLM programs.²⁷ Service Charges, Deposits, and Forfeitures provided $26.3 million (1.5%) of discretionary appropriations. The account funds administrative expenses and other costs of certain BLM actions for which the public has paid fees, such as for processing applications and authorizations for use of public lands and resources. The remaining $21.2 million (1.2%) of the discretionary appropriation was for Land Acquisition, for BLM to acquire lands or interests in land.²⁸

Mandatory Appropriations

A variety of laws provide for mandatory appropriations for BLM. Of the $333.1 million provided under these laws in FY2013, the largest amount was from the Helium Production Fund—about three-fifths ($202.2 million, 60.7%) of the FY2013 mandatory appropriation. In FY2013, receipts from BLM sales of federal crude helium were deposited in the Helium Production Fund.²⁹ The second-largest mandatory appropriation, with $38.0 million (11.4%) of the total, was for Secure Rural Schools payments to western Oregon counties.³⁰ The Land and Resources Management Trust Fund, with $21.8 million (6.5%) of the mandatory appropriations, reflects donations to BLM from individuals, companies, state agencies, and others for certain activities and services. Another $17.5 million (5.3%) was from receipts from recreation fees, with $16.7 million (5.0%) from onshore mineral leasing receipts deposited in the Permit Processing Improvement Fund. Land disposals in Nevada under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act and livestock grazing on BLM lands (Range Improvements) generated another $10.5 million (3.2%) and $9.5 million (2.9%), respectively. The remaining $16.9 million (5.1%) of mandatory appropriations derived from several other sources. Table 3 contains the mandatory appropriations by account.

Discussion

BLM manages its lands through 12 state offices, which in some cases administer BLM lands and onshore federal minerals in more than one state. Each of these state offices received a portion of BLM's FY2013 appropriations, as did the Office of Fire and Aviation, a national-level office. Other FY2013 appropriations were not allocated to any state office. Most of these funds, shown as "no state" in the tables, were provided to BLM headquarters in Washington, DC, for expenses that support all BLM land management and national programs.

As shown in Table 1 and Figure 3, BLM state offices received widely varying amounts of FY2013 appropriations, ranging from $17.0 million for all eastern states to $299.6 million for New Mexico. The level of appropriations allocated by BLM to state offices is influenced by a number of factors. One is the amount of lands and onshore federal minerals managed by BLM, of which acreages vary widely among states.³¹ Different land resources, conditions, uses, and impacts can affect the cost of land management, as can demographics. Another variable is the extent of wildfire suppression and other fire activity, which affects the allocation of funds among states for wildland fire management.

Another factor is that some programs may have no or very little activity within a state, resulting in none or a small portion of these program funds being allocated to the state. In particular, some programs are specific to one state, and some of these state-specific programs received relatively large appropriations. For example, the New Mexico state office received the largest FY2013 appropriation because BLM's sale of helium is shown as budget authority for that state.³² Excluding the Helium Production Fund, the appropriation for New Mexico would have been about two-thirds lower—$97.4 million. As a second example, the Oregon state office received the second-largest appropriation among states ($283.4 million),³³ primarily because it received the overwhelming majority of the discretionary appropriations for Oregon and California Grant Lands and the mandatory appropriation for Secure Rural Schools.³⁴

Figure 3. Bureau of Land Management Appropriations by State, FY2013 (in millions of dollars)

Source: Prepared by CRS with data from the Bureau of Land Management, Budget Division, July 22, 2014. Adapted by CRS. Notes: See notes to Table 1.

Revenue

Revenue collected by BLM in FY2013 totaled $525.0 million.³⁵ These monies were derived from a variety of activities and resources on BLM lands, donations, and payments to BLM from other entities. Table 4 and Figure 4 show the amount of revenue from each source during FY2013, by state.

BLM sales of helium generated the largest source of revenue—$203.7 million (38.8%) of the total. Mining claim fees, primarily from locatable minerals,³⁶ brought in the second largest amount, with $67.7 million (12.9%). Rents for varied uses of public lands, such as for communication, solar energy, and wind farm sites, generated $44.4 million (8.5%). Wildland fire reimbursements, which represent payments to BLM for fire work undertaken to assist other federal agencies, were $40.7 million (7.8%). BLM collected $30.9 million (5.9%) in fees from applicants for permits to drill (APD) for oil and gas on federal land. The agency also collected $27.7 million (5.3%) in fees to recover costs of certain activities, such as processing applications for rights of way. Timber receipts from Oregon and California Grant Lands and Coos Bay Wagon Road lands together totaled $25.1 million (4.8%). Other sources of revenue were donations ($22.6 million, 4.3%); fees for recreating on BLM lands ($17.9 million, 3.4%); and proceeds from sale of public domain lands and resources on those lands, for example, timber ($15.9 million, 3.0%). Ten other revenue categories generated the balance of the FY2013 revenue—$28.5 million (5.4%).

As shown in Table 4, BLM state offices collected widely varying amounts of revenue, ranging from $0.6 million for eastern states to $228.8 million for New Mexico. Many variables affect the level of revenue collected by each state office. They include the amount of lands and onshore federal minerals managed by BLM in the respective states. The types of resources on the lands, such as minerals, timber, and forage, and their availability, affect the level of revenues. Similarly, the kinds of land uses, such as recreation and rights of way, and the frequency and extent of these uses influence collections.

Further, while most state offices collected revenues from a variety of land uses and activities, some uses and activities are limited to one or a few states. Some of these uses and activities generated relatively large amounts of revenue in FY2013. For instance, the New Mexico state office collected the most revenue because revenue from the sales of helium—$203.7 million in FY2013—is attributed to that office.³⁷ Excluding helium sales, the revenue for New Mexico would have been $25.1 million. Similarly, the Oregon state office received virtually all of the $25.1 million in timber revenue from the Oregon and California Grant Lands and Coos Bay Wagon Road lands. This revenue comprised about two-thirds (64.9%) of the revenue for the Oregon state office.

Figure 4. Bureau of Land Management Revenue by Type, FY2013

Source: Prepared by CRS with data from the Bureau of Land Management, Budget Division, July 22, 2014. Notes: The abbreviation "reimb." refers to reimbursements, and the acronym "APD" refers to applications for permits to drill.

Fish and Wildlife Service

Appropriations

FWS currently estimates that total appropriations for FY2013 were $2,591.6 million.³⁸ Of this total, $1,538.5 million (59.4%) was discretionary, and $1,053.1 million (40.6%) was mandatory. In contrast to other federal land-managing agencies, only about one-third of FWS appropriations is spent on lands owned by the agency itself.³⁹ Various grant programs, conservation efforts for migratory birds, and protections of species listed under the Endangered Species Act represent substantial expenditures within a state, but frequently not on FWS lands. Thus, FWS appropriations by state only partly correlate with the amount of agency land in the state. Table 5 provides the discretionary, mandatory, and total FWS appropriations by state.

Discretionary Appropriations

For FY2013, FWS received $1,538.5 million in discretionary appropriations in 10 accounts, as shown in Table 6. The largest discretionary account by far was for Resource Management, which in FY2013 received $1,179.8 million (76.7%) of FWS discretionary appropriations. This account funds an array of FWS programs and activities, including endangered species, National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), migratory bird management, and law enforcement. The second largest discretionary appropriation was for Construction ($82.7 million, 5.4%), which funds construction, improvement, and removal of buildings and other facilities. In addition, dam repair, replacement of facilities damaged by disasters, construction of solar arrays, and project design are funded through this account. Supplemental appropriations for Construction, beyond those provided in annual appropriations laws, are sometimes enacted in the wake of natural or man-made disasters.⁴⁰ The next-largest accounts in FY2013 were State and Tribal Wildlife Grants ($58.1 million, 3.8%); Wildland Fire Management ($53.0 million, 3.4%); and Land Acquisition ($51.8 million, 3.4%). Other accounts shown in Table 6 include the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund ($45.2 million, 2.9%), and the North American Wetlands Conservation Account ($34.1 million, 2.2%).⁴¹

The three smallest accounts shown in the table merit further explanation. The National Wildlife Refuge Fund (NWRF), though largely dependent on discretionary appropriations, is supported to a limited extent by mandatory appropriations based on national receipt collection.⁴² Table 6 reflects the total appropriation for the NWRF program. In FY2012, the gross receipts were $7.2 million, and this amount was made available without further appropriation in FY2013. The discretionary appropriation was $14.0 million, making a total of $21.2 million (1.4% of discretionary spending) for the NWRF program in FY2013.⁴³ A portion of the receipts ($3.2 million) was allocated to the expenses involved in managing the revenue-generating activities. The remaining net receipts ($4.0 million) were added to the discretionary appropriation, making $19.0 million (1.2% of discretionary spending) to be allocated to local governments pro rata, based on a statutory formula.

Appropriations for the other two small accounts, the Multinational Species Conservation Fund ($9.0 million, 0.6% of discretionary spending) and the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund ($3.6 million, 0.2%), are both spent primarily in other nations.⁴⁴ They are included in the total for Virginia, where FWS national headquarters is located and through which such appropriations are allocated.

Mandatory Appropriations

A variety of laws provide for mandatory appropriations for FWS. Of the $1,053.1 million provided under these laws in FY2013, the largest amounts were from a pair of funds: the Wildlife Restoration Fund ($534.2 million, 50.7% of all FWS mandatory spending) and the Sportfish Restoration Fund ($439.1 million, 41.7%).⁴⁵ See Table 7. Together, they were 92.4% of all FWS mandatory appropriations in FY2013. These two programs provide for formula-based grants to states and territories for the conservation of game and sportfish, respectively. The two programs are funded by excise taxes on guns, revolvers, ammunition, bows, and arrows in the case of the Wildlife Restoration Fund and on rods, reels, motorboat fuel, and other fishing equipment for the Sportfish Restoration Fund. A much smaller mandatory appropriation is the Migratory Bird Conservation Account (MBCA, $65.0 million, 6.2%), funded largely by the sale of duck stamps and by import duties on arms and ammunition.⁴⁶ The MBCA funds the acquisition of lands and interests in lands to benefit habitat for migratory waterfowl and upland game birds.

The collections in these three funds during one year are available, without further appropriation, to FWS in the following year.⁴⁷ FWS spends the funds without regard to the state in which they were collected.

In FY2013, there were three additional mandatory appropriations. One was the Recreation Fee Enhancement Program, which allows FWS sites to collect entrance and other fees and use them to enhance visitor experiences. The program affected 164 sites in FY2013, with total collections of $5.0 million (0.5% of mandatory appropriations). The second appropriation, Contributed Funds, derives from voluntary contributions from state governments and other entities to support specified conservation activities. Amounts may vary from year to year, and totaled $5.0 million (0.5% of mandatory appropriations) in FY2013. Third, Miscellaneous Permanent Appropriations includes several appropriations that totaled $4.9 million (0.5%) in FY2013. Most of the funding was derived from rental fees for FWS staff quarters, generally in isolated locations, and was used for operation and maintenance of those quarters. Other programs funded by Miscellaneous Permanent Appropriations were management activities on Army Corps of Engineers lands managed by FWS, certain lands in Nevada, and other areas.

Discussion

FWS owns or manages land in all 50 states, four territories, and in minor outlying islands that are not part of any territory. In addition, the agency spends funds in the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands even though there are no FWS lands in those jurisdictions. Among the states, the FY2013 appropriation for Virginia was the largest ($264.6 million), given the presence of the agency's headquarters. California, with a number of refuges, major state grants, and a variety of conflicts concerning endangered species and water management, received the second-largest appropriation ($169.7 million). Alaska, having by far the largest acreage in the NWRS, was next ($149.5 million). Other states with over $100 million in FY2013 appropriations were Georgia ($112.0 million), Minnesota ($105.4 million), and Oregon ($100.4 million). By contrast, jurisdictions with FY2013 appropriations under $5 million were Midway Islands ($4.1 million), Guam ($3.6 million), Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ($2.5 million), American Samoa ($2.2 million), and Virgin Islands ($2.2 million).

The level of appropriations allocated by FWS to various states is influenced by a number of factors. One is the amount of land managed by FWS, which varies widely among states.⁴⁸ For instance, while some states have relatively large amounts of FWS land, the District of Columbia has none and Connecticut, Rhode Island, and the Virgin Islands have among the least. Different land resources, conditions, uses, and impacts can affect the cost of land management, as can demographics. Another variable is the cost of travel, with Alaska, Hawaii, and outlying islands, among others, having high operating costs due in part to the expense of staff travel to these locations.

Other factors influencing spending are the number of species listed under the Endangered Species Act, the presence of wetlands, entry ports for regulated wildlife, and other programs. Still other differences can arise from the two major grant programs with mandatory appropriations: the Wildlife Restoration Program and the Sportfish Restoration Program. The allocation of funds for both depends on a statutory formula based on the area of the state and the number of licensed hunters or fishers, respectively. Thus, large states with many hunters and fishers will receive larger amounts of funding, while small states with few hunters and few fishers will receive relatively little.

Revenue

Revenues associated with FWS can be divided into two categories. First are those that are collected by the Treasury Department, then transferred and made available without further appropriation to FWS for expenditure in the following year. In this category there are three programs: the large Wildlife Restoration and Sportfish Restoration programs, funded by excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment, respectively, and the somewhat smaller Migratory Bird Conservation Account, funded by the sale of duck stamps and by import duties on arms and ammunition. In all three cases, revenues are devoted to program activities, with a small set-aside for program administration. In general, collection of these revenues cannot be attributed by FWS to a particular state. Moreover, their expenditure is unrelated to the state where they were collected. (See the section "Mandatory Appropriations" above regarding all three programs.)

In the second category are revenues collected by FWS itself. The agency collects relatively little revenue directly as compared with other land management agencies covered in this report. Nationally, for FY2013, FWS collected $18.9 million in revenues.⁴⁹ Under law, activities in the NWRS must be compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was designated.⁵⁰ As a result, few commercial activities are permitted on lands in the NWRS unless the activities benefit wildlife conservation. For a number of years, it has been the policy of FWS gradually to eliminate preexisting incompatible uses from refuges, except in cases of valid existing rights over which the agency has no control.⁵¹ With few permitted commercial activities, very little revenue is usually collected in the NWRS. Because the revenue generated from these four sources is relatively small, no state breakdowns are provided in this section.

The FY2013 revenue collected by FWS derives from four sources, as shown in Figure 5. They are:

• Recreation fees ($5.0 million) are used largely or entirely at the refuges where they are collected.⁵² On refuges where collections are substantial, the effects on those refuges may also be substantial.
• Funds contributed for special projects at specific sites ($5.0 million) may be used in the year of the donation or in subsequent years, depending on the nature of the project, planning time, permits, and similar variables.
• Miscellaneous permanent receipts ($4.9 million) are authorized by multiple statutes with different rules about availability of funds in the year of deposit or in subsequent years.⁵³
• Funds were collected at refuges for certain commercial activities in FY2012, and the net amount was paid into the National Wildlife Refuge Fund in FY2013 ($4.0 million in net revenues). The receipts are derived from the sale of products, such as timber or gravel; rights of way; grazing permits; and leases for accommodations (such as those built for oil and gas exploration or development). Any given refuge may have all, few, or none of these activities.

Figure 5. Fish and Wildlife Service Revenue by Type, FY2013

Source: Prepared by CRS with data from U.S. Department of the Interior, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2015, Fish and Wildlife Service, at http://www.fws.gov/budget/2014/FY2015_FWS_Greenbook-DOI31014.pdf.

National Park Service

Appropriations

The National Park Service (NPS) estimates that its discretionary appropriations for FY2013 were $2,885.2 million,⁵⁴ and its mandatory appropriations were $420.6 million,⁵⁵ for a total FY2013 appropriation of $3,305.8 million. Discretionary appropriations constituted 87.3% of the total, and mandatory appropriations constituted 12.7%. The FY2013 appropriations were distributed across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and eight U.S. territories or associated states.

NPS appropriations were used both to manage agency-owned lands and to assist managers of nonfederal lands with preservation and recreation activities. Although the NPS administers many programs for nonfederal assistance, the great majority of agency appropriations go to federal units of the National Park System. One discretionary account used for agency lands—the Operation of the National Park System account—alone received over three-fifths of all NPS appropriations in FY2013.

Discretionary Appropriations

Table 8 shows the Park Service's FY2013 discretionary appropriations, by account, for each state or other area. The discretionary total of $2,885.2 million covered five accounts specific to the NPS, as well as funds allocated from a DOI department-wide account for Wildland Fire Management.⁵⁶ Nearly three-quarters of the appropriations ($2,097.3 million, or 71.9%)⁵⁷ went to the Operation of the National Park System (ONPS) account, which supports the day-to-day operations of the parks. Activities covered by this account include visitor services, natural and cultural resource stewardship, facility operations and maintenance, and park protection, among others. The majority of funds are provided directly to managers of individual park units.

The second-largest amount was $453.9 million (15.6%) for Construction. This account funds new construction projects as well as repairs and improvements to existing facilities. In FY2013, the appropriation included supplemental funding of $329.8 million⁵⁸ in P.L. 113-2 for response to and recovery from Superstorm Sandy, which severely damaged park units on the East Coast. Another $110.2 million (3.8%) was allocated to the NPS from DOI's department-wide account for Wildland Fire Management.

A total of $100.5 million (3.4%) was appropriated for the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) account, which assists states and localities with the conservation of cultural and historical sites and assets. This total included supplemental funding of $47.5 million⁵⁹ in P.L. 113-2 for Superstorm Sandy disaster relief. Funding is distributed to states and territories on a formula basis. State and tribal historic preservation offices administer the HPF grants, which normally require a 60% federal/40% state match.

The Land Acquisition and State Assistance account, containing NPS's share of appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), received $96.6 million (3.3%).⁶⁰ These appropriations fund both NPS land acquisition and assistance to states for outdoor recreation purposes. The National Recreation and Preservation account, which provides assistance to state, local, tribal, and private land managers, received $56.7 million (1.9%). The largest single program contained in this account is for NPS assistance to national heritage areas.⁶¹

Mandatory Appropriations

The NPS does not track mandatory appropriations by state, and thus no table of NPS mandatory appropriations is provided in this report. In FY2013, the agency received an overall total of $420.6 million from 16 mandatory appropriations, primarily composed of agency receipts.⁶² Most of the receipts were retained for use in the states in which they were collected; thus, the breakdown of NPS revenue collections by state in Table 9 may give some general sense of the geographic distribution of the agency's mandatory appropriations. However, there are significant differences between the revenues collected and the mandatory appropriations for each state. First, although park units in each state retain most of the revenues they collect, they do not retain them all; different amounts are deposited in a central fund depending on the type of revenue and other circumstances (see below). Second, in FY2013 the amount of collected revenues actually available to the states was reduced by budget sequestration, which is not reflected in the revenue table. Third, in addition to the revenue programs shown in Table 9, the NPS has some additional mandatory appropriations that do not come from revenues collected by the agency and thus are not shown in the table.⁶³ Given these differences, it is not possible to closely estimate each state's mandatory appropriation from the revenue amounts.

The largest source of NPS mandatory appropriations in FY2013 was the Recreation Fee Program, authorized under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA).⁶⁴ The act allows the NPS to charge fees for entrance to park units and for certain recreational activities. Between 60% and 100% of the fees collected under the act are retained for use at the collecting park, while the remainder are placed in a central account and may be used elsewhere in the system (for example, at parks with no fee collections).⁶⁵ In FY2013, NPS mandatory appropriations from recreation fees totaled $177.7 million, or 42.2% of all mandatory appropriations.⁶⁶ Almost all the states collected recreation fees and retained funding from the program.

The next-largest source of NPS mandatory appropriations was the Concession Franchise Fee program, consisting of fees paid to the agency by concessioners.⁶⁷ Mandatory appropriations from this program totaled $64.5 million in FY2013 (15.3%), and involved most of the states.

Other sources of mandatory appropriations included the Contribution for Annuity Benefits for U.S. Park Police, with $45.1 million (10.7%), consisting of funds warranted to the NPS from a permanent, indefinite appropriation at the Treasury Department for certain police retirement benefits; Donations, with $39.3 million (9.3%), consisting of direct cash donations to the Park Service; Operation and Maintenance of Quarters, $21.3 million (5.1%), comprising rents and charges for employee use of government housing and amenities; the Transportation Systems Fund, with $16.2 million (3.9%), covering fees for the use of public transportation services within the National Park System; Concessions Improvement Accounts of $14.2 million (3.4%), consisting of monies for facility improvements paid by some concessioners under a program that is being phased out; and the Park Buildings Lease and Maintenance Fund with $6.3 million (1.5%), composed of rents from leases on NPS buildings and other property under various provisions of law, among others.

Discussion

Units of the National Park System exist in all 50 states,⁶⁸ the District of Columbia, and several territories.⁶⁹ The agency also provides assistance to nonfederal land managers in all the states and other areas. Accordingly, funds from several NPS accounts—such as the ONPS account for park operations, the Historic Preservation Fund for state and local preservation activities, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which includes state assistance grants—have very broad geographic distribution.⁷⁰

The appropriated amounts vary considerably by state and from year to year within a given state. The distribution of NPS funding across states is related to the amount of land administered by NPS in each state but also influenced by many other factors. Although Alaska contains far and away the greatest portion of NPS lands—nearly two-thirds of the acreage of the entire system—several states (California, Colorado, New York, and Pennsylvania) and the District of Columbia received higher appropriations than Alaska in FY2013. Other factors influencing appropriations to each state include the extent of visitor services at its national park units; park security needs, which may be especially great in urban areas;⁷¹ the presence of NPS regional offices in a state;⁷² the number of facilities to be maintained in each park unit; and the costs of mitigating threats to natural and cultural resources, among others.

In FY2013, appropriations by state also were affected by the impact of Superstorm Sandy on many East Coast parks. Congress appropriated supplemental funding of $377.3 million for the Construction account and the Historic Preservation Fund, to be used for response to and recovery from the storm. Eastern states such as New York, where the Statue of Liberty and other assets suffered serious damage, benefited from these funds. For example, New York's share of appropriations from NPS's Construction account in FY2013 was over 60% of the account total.

Revenue

The NPS estimates its collected revenues at $333.4 million for FY2013.⁷³ Table 9 shows revenues collected in each state,⁷⁴ and Figure 6 shows revenues collected by type. The largest source of NPS revenues in FY2013 was the Recreation Fee Program, through which the agency collected $179.5 million (53.8% of the total). The second-largest source was Concession Franchise Fees, with $64.8 million (19.4%) collected. Revenues were $21.3 million (6.4%) from Operation and Maintenance of Quarters, $16.2 million (4.9%) from the Transportation Systems Fund, $6.3 million (1.9%) from the Park Buildings Lease and Maintenance Fund, and $45.3 million (13.6%) from a variety of other sources.⁷⁵ These programs are discussed further in the "Mandatory Appropriations" section.

The revenues collected in each state varied, with the highest totals in California ($64.6 million), Arizona ($35.2 million), Colorado ($33.1 million), and Utah ($20.7 million). These states contain some of the National Park System's best-known units—such as Grand Canyon National Park (AZ), Yosemite National Park (CA), Zion National Park (UT), and Rocky Mountain National Park (CO)—which receive high numbers of visitors. However, park visitation levels do not necessarily correspond with revenue collections. For example, in 2013, several of the most visited park units (such as the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC; Great Smoky Mountains National Park in North Carolina and Tennessee, and the Natchez Trace Parkway in Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee) were in states with relatively low amounts of revenues. In addition to visitor traffic, revenues also depend on whether entrance and recreation use fees are charged at a state's park units; how high the fees are; how much concessioners pay to the NPS to offer visitor services; and whether other types of fees, such as those for the use of transportation within the parks or for operation and maintenance of quarters, are collected.

Revenues collected in some states in FY2013 were affected by damages to the parks from Superstorm Sandy. Some park units were closed for long periods of time after the storm. For example, the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island in New York were closed from the time the storm struck (on October 28, 2012) through July 4, 2013, depressing park visitation and revenues in New York during FY2013.

Figure 6. National Park Service Revenue by Type, FY2013

Source: Prepared by CRS with data from the NPS Budget Office, personal communication, September-November 2014.

Forest Service

Appropriations

Appropriations data for the Forest Service (FS) are provided in this report for 12 western states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Those 12 western states contain 163.7 million acres (84.8%) of the total 193.0 million acres of the National Forest System. See Table 10.⁷⁶ These states also account for a large portion of the agency's overall appropriations.

The FS estimates that appropriations for the 12 western states for FY2013 were $3,380.1 million. The majority of this funding was discretionary. Specifically, the total includes $2,863.2 million (84.7%) in discretionary appropriations and $516.9 million (15.3%) in mandatory appropriations. Table 11 and Figure 7 provide the discretionary, mandatory, and total FS appropriations for the 12 western states.

A large majority of the appropriations are used for managing the 163.7 million acres of agency-owned lands in the 12 western states. Specifically, of the total appropriations, $3,105.1 million (91.9%) was spent on agency lands, although the percentage varies by state. See Table 12 for the percentage of total funding spent in each of the western states on federal and nonfederal land.

Discretionary Appropriations

For FY2013, the 12 western states received $2,863.2 million in discretionary appropriations through several accounts, as shown in Table 13. The largest account was for Wildland Fire Management, which in FY2013 received $1,696.7 million (59.3%) of FS's discretionary appropriations for the 12 western states. This account funds activities related to the management of unplanned and unwanted fires, including planning for and suppression of wildfires. The second-largest discretionary account for the 12 western states was the National Forest System, which received $647.6 million (22.6%) of the total. The National Forest System account funds an array of Forest Service programs and activities related to the management of the agency-owned lands.

The remaining FS FY2013 discretionary appropriation in the 12 western states was considerably smaller. The "Other" category totaled $214.6 million (7.5%), primarily reflecting discretionary indirect costs allocations. The Capital Improvement and Maintenance account—which funds activities related to the agency's infrastructure needs—received $212.2 million (7.4%). State and Private Forestry received $60.4 million (2.1%) for programs to provide financial and technical assistance to nonfederal forest owners and managers, and to protect communities and the environment from insects, diseases, and invasive plants. The 12 western states received $31.1 million (1.1%) for Land Acquisition and $0.6 million (<0.1%) for Forest and Rangeland Research.

Mandatory Appropriations

The FS has over 20 permanent appropriations accounts and several trust funds that constitute mandatory spending. In this report, these accounts and trust funds have been combined into broad categories representing trust funds, permanent appropriations, payment to states, and other mandatory appropriations, as shown in Table 14. The budget authority for these accounts is provided for in various authorizing laws. For several of these accounts, the budget authority is dependent on the level of receipts received for specific National Forest System activities, and some have geographic or programmatic expenditure restrictions. Of the $516.9 million provided in mandatory appropriations, the largest amount was from the Payment to States fund, $231.9 million (44.9%), which includes the payments authorized under SRS and the various revenue-sharing payments. The second-largest category of mandatory appropriations, with $146.6 million (28.4%), was for various permanent funds, such as the Brush Disposal Fund, and the collection of cost recovery fees for administering right-of-way authorizations, among others. FS trust funds, such as those used for cooperative work agreements, timber sale deposits, and reforestation projects, accounted for $97.6 million, 18.9% of the total. Indirect costs associated with the mandatory accounts were $40.8 million, 7.9% of the total appropriation.

Discussion

A precise total of FS appropriations for each state is difficult to ascertain; therefore the figures provided are considered estimates. In fact, the FS tracks and reports very little data by state. This is due in part to the agency's regional organization, which does not follow state boundaries. Rather, an FS region may contain portions of several states. Region 4, for example, contains the national forests located in Nevada, Utah, and portions of Idaho and Wyoming.⁷⁷ In addition, national forests may cross state boundaries. For example, 22 western national forests are located in more than one state.⁷⁸ Further, the agency's appropriations accounts are allocated at both the regional and national levels. For instance, FS appropriations for the National Forest System (NFS) account, among others, are allocated to nine FS regions.⁷⁹ Other appropriations—such as for suppression operations within the Wildland Fire Management subaccount—are appropriated to the national office to be allocated on an as-needed basis. While it may seem feasible to apportion funding based on national forest acreage, there is not always a one-to-one distribution between dollars and forest acreage.⁸⁰

The 12 western states received widely varying amounts of FY2013 appropriations, ranging from $64.3 million for Nevada to $984.1 million for California. The level of appropriations in each state is influenced by a number of factors. One is the amount of lands managed by the FS in each state, which varies from 5.8 million acres in Nevada to 22.2 million acres in Alaska. Different land resources, conditions, uses, and impacts can affect the cost of land management, as can demographics. In addition, wildfire activity varies from state to state, contributing to differences in appropriations for wildland fire management among states.

Figure 7. Forest Service Appropriations for 12 Western States, FY2013

Source: Prepared by CRS with data from the Forest Service, Budget Office, September 2014. Notes: Forest Service data on mandatory appropriations in the 12 western states reflect new budget authority for FY2013 but may also reflect program level data for FY2013, meaning that some carry-over funds may have been included.

Revenue

Revenue collected by the Forest Service in FY2013 totaled $223.6 million. These monies were derived from a variety of activities and resources from National Forest System land. Table 15 shows the amount of revenue by state from each source during FY2013, and Figure 8 shows revenue by type.

Recreation generated the most revenue from the national forest lands—$61.4 million (27.5%) of the total. KV revenue—collections authorized under the Knutson-Vandenberg Act of June 9, 1930⁸¹—was the second-largest source of revenue, generating $49.4 million (22.1%). Timber sales accounted for the third-largest source, generating $32.0 million (14.3%), while salvage timber sales produced an additional $28.6 million (12.8%). In addition, miscellaneous other deposits or credits associated with timber sales, such as road credits or deposits into the Timber Sale Pipeline Restoration Fund, brought in $19.6 million (8.7%).⁸² Land-use activities accounted for $18.0 million (8.0%), and power-generating activities or projects on National Forest System land generated $8.0 million (3.6%). Other sources of revenue were grazing permit fees ($4.8 million, 2.2%) and certain mineral sales ($1.9 million, 0.8%).

As shown in Table 15, the national forest revenue generated varies widely by state, ranging from just over $200 in North Dakota to $37.5 million in California. Among the 12 western states, Alaska generated the least amount of revenue, at $1.6 million. The variability is due to several factors, including the amount of National Forest System land in each state and the types of resources contained on those lands. For example, forest type and age, as well as topography, influence the potential amount and value of timber sales. Similarly, the kinds of land uses, such as recreation and power right-of-ways; the frequency and extent of these uses; as well as the value of the land in general influence collections. Other factors, such as proximity to population centers, also contribute to certain revenue sources. For example, recreation generated the most revenue in both California and Colorado national forests, due in part to the close location of several national forests within both of those states to large metropolitan areas.

Figure 8. Forest Service Revenue by Type, FY2013

Source: Prepared by CRS with data from: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, All Service Receipts (ASR), Final Forest Statement of Receipts (ASR-13-2), http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3795423.pdf.

Distributions from Federal Highway Administration

The BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS receive distributions of funds from other agencies for several purposes. A major program is the distribution of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds to states for federal lands projects. FHWA and its predecessor offices and agencies have been involved in the development of roads to and through federal lands since 1905.⁸³ The distribution of federal lands highway funds for FY2013 and FY2014 was authorized by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21^st Century Act (MAP-21)⁸⁴ and extended through May 31, 2015, by the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014.⁸⁵ MAP-21 made major changes to federal lands and tribal transportation programs.⁸⁶

The Federal Lands Highway Program is administered by FHWA's Office of Federal Lands Highway. As restructured by MAP-21, it has three components: the Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP), the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP), and the Federal Lands Planning Program (FLPP).⁸⁷ FLTP primarily funds transportation facilities on federal lands, whereas FLAP primarily funds transportation facilities that provide access to federal lands. FLPP provides funds to carry out transportation planning for federal lands and tribal transportation facilities.

MAP-21 authorized $300 million for FLTP and $250 million for FLAP for FY2013. FLPP receives a maximum 5% set-aside from these two programs. According to MAP-21, $240 million of FLTP funds goes to NPS, $30 million to FWS, and the remaining $30 million is allocated competitively among BLM, FS, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition to the planning set-aside, these amounts are subject to other reductions, such as an obligation limitation.⁸⁸ FLTP funds are distributed among the states according to agency priorities. Authorized FLAP funds are also subject to an obligation limitation. Available FLAP funds are distributed by formula. Eighty percent of FLAP funds go to states that contain at least 1.5% of the national total of federal lands, and the remaining 20% go to states with less than 1.5% of the national total.⁸⁹ Funds within these two groups are then distributed to individual states based on four factors: (1) 55% according to a state's share of federal public road miles; (2) 30% according to a state's share of recreational visitation; (3) 10% according to a state's share of federal public bridges; and (4) 5% according to a state's share of federal land area.

In addition to funds for FLTP, FLAP, and FLPP, the Office of Federal Lands Highway also distributed funding from two other federal lands highway programs in FY2013. One involved the remaining FY2012 funding from the Public Lands Highway Discretionary Program, a program authorized under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.⁹⁰ The other was funding approved for FY2013 disasters under the Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads Program (ERFO).⁹¹

In FY2013, $573.8 million was distributed by Federal Lands Highway⁹² from these five programs to BLM, FWS, NPS, or FS, or to a state Programming Decisions Committee (PDC).⁹³ Almost half of the funds available ($280.6 million, 48.9%) went to NPS, and another two-fifths ($227.2 million, 39.6%) went to state PDCs. The remaining funds were allocated to FWS (6.4%), FS (3.5%), and BLM (1.7%). Of the $573.8 million, $82.9 million cannot be identified by state because it was attributed only to a federal land management agency ($65.0 million) or it was unallocated in FY2013 ($18.0 million). The distribution by state and agency of the remaining $490.8 million can be seen in Table 16. Figure 9 shows the distribution by agency.

Figure 9. Federal Highway Administration Distributions for Federal Lands by Agency, FY2013

Source: Prepared by CRS with data from the Federal Highway Administration, March 28, 2014.

Payment Programs

Federally owned lands cannot be taxed but may create demand for services, such as fire protection, police cooperation, or longer roads to skirt the federal property. Under federal law, local governments are compensated through various programs due to the presence of most federally owned land. Some of these programs are run by specific agencies and apply only to one agency's land, while others are broader and apply to lands of multiple agencies.⁹⁴

Payments in Lieu of Taxes

The Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, or PILT, ⁹⁵ is the most widely applicable program and applies to many types of federally owned land. The program is administered by DOI. Under the statute, eligible lands are those in the National Park System; National Forest System; Bureau of Land Management; the National Wildlife Refuge System for land withdrawn from the public domain; lands dedicated to the use of federal water resources development projects; dredge disposal areas under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; lands located in the vicinity of Purgatory River Canyon and Piñon Canyon, CO, that were acquired after December 31, 1981, to expand the Fort Carson military reservation; lands on which are located semi-active or inactive Army installations used for mobilization and for reserve component training; and certain lands acquired by DOI or the Department of Agriculture under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act.

No precise dollar figure can be given in advance for each year's authorized level of PILT payments. Rather, the authorized level of PILT payments is calculated under a complex formula. Five factors affect the calculation of a payment to a given county: the number of acres eligible for PILT payments, the county's population, payments in prior years from other specified federal land payment programs, state laws directing payments to a particular government purpose, and the Consumer Price Index as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. According to the FY2013 National Summary, there were 2,130 counties eligible for PILT payments in that fiscal year.⁹⁶ Many of these counties are rural counties, which are sparsely populated. The average payment per county was $187,900. Some counties received no payment because they have very few federal lands, and PILT makes no payments under $100. By contrast, many received over $1 million, and 16 counties received over $3 million.⁹⁷ The total PILT payment in FY2013 was $401.8 million. Table 17 shows the FY2013 payments by state. PILT payments were mandatory spending in FY2013.⁹⁸ Figure 10 shows the combined payments to states under PILT and FS payments to states.

Forest Service Payments to States

Counties with national forest lands and with certain BLM lands have historically received a percentage of agency revenues, primarily from timber sales. However, starting in the 1990s, timber sales declined substantially—by more than 90% in some areas from peak harvest levels in the 1980s. Thus, Congress enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS)⁹⁹ as a temporary, optional program of payments based in part on historic rather than current revenues.¹⁰⁰ For the FY2013 payment, counties had the option of receiving either a revenue-sharing payment or an SRS payment. The payments are made to states and then passed on to the counties or eligible local government units.¹⁰¹

The total FY2013 payment was $312.5 million. The vast majority of the counties opted to receive an SRS payment, which was $295.3 million or 94.5% of the total payment. However, some counties elected to receive their portion of the $17.2 million revenue-sharing payment. Oregon received the highest payment in FY2013—$97.1 million—including a $36.3 million SRS payment for the O&C lands managed by the BLM. California ($32.7 million) and Idaho ($25.2 million) received the next highest payments. Several factors influence the amount of the SRS payment, including amount of land, historical revenue level, and per capita income, while the revenue-sharing payment is set at 25% of the revenue generated on the national forest lands within the specified county. Table 18 shows each state's total payment and the portions that were from revenue sharing and SRS. Figure 10 shows the combined payments to states under PILT and FS Payments to States.

Figure 10. PILT and Forest Service Payments to States, FY2013

Source: Prepared by CRS from data reported in Table 17 and Table 18. See sources listed for those tables. Notes: The Forest Service Payments to States include the revenue-sharing payment, FS SRS Title I and Title III payments, and BLM SRS Title I and Title III payments.

Office of Natural Resources Revenue

The DOI Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) is responsible for public revenue derived from a variety of energy and mineral projects on federal lands. On a nationwide basis, ONRR reports collecting the following payments:

• bonuses to secure a lease;¹⁰²
• rents to maintain access to leased tracts;¹⁰³ and
• royalties based on extraction volumes, among other values.¹⁰⁴

The ONRR mission differs significantly from those of the federal land management agencies featured in this report. With a workforce comprised of approximately 600 accountants, auditors, computer specialists, and others, this agency is engaged in revenue management with no involvement in leasing, permitting, development, conservation, or other land management decisions.¹⁰⁵

This section focuses on ONRR reported revenue for FY2013 for federal onshore areas in all states. For FY2013, ONRR reported a total of $4,296.9 million. These revenues were derived from federal lands located in 37 of the 50 states, as shown in Table 19. Revenues were derived from many energy and mineral commodities, including coal, gas, hardrock minerals, oil, phosphate, sodium, and sulfur.

Neither ONNR nor BLM—which issues and administers the leases on federal lands—breaks out the total reported revenue based on the agency administering the lands. Instead, agency records are organized by type of revenue, commodity, product, and other categories. Thus, statistics are not readily available on the portion of the revenues, if any, derived on lands managed by BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS, as well as other federal agencies.¹⁰⁶

Federal energy and mineral revenue tend to vary widely from state to state (as well as from year to year). While there can be several reasons, a chief factor in state-to-state variations is the extent of federal acreage within a state and, of that acreage, the extent containing recoverable energy and mineral resources. For instance, as shown in Table 19 and Figure 11, two states with relatively large federal acreage available for mineral exploration made up more than two-thirds (70.7%) of the total revenue reported for the nation. Each of these states—Wyoming and New Mexico—reported over a billion dollars in energy and mineral revenue from federal lands ($1,998.9 million and $1,040.8 million, respectively).

On the low end of the range of statistics considered, ONRR data show less than $1.0 million in onshore revenue for about half the states. These states had little or no mineral leasing activity during FY2013. In general, these states are among those with less extensive federal acreage and limited potential for energy and mineral development. Of the states in this category, there were no onshore receipts from 13 states: Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin.¹⁰⁷ Further, several states had revenues less than $50,000,¹⁰⁸ with the lowest being North Carolina ($474), South Carolina ($4,440), and New York ($5,149).

In addition to the extent of federal acreage and related resource potential, other variables that could affect energy and mineral revenues are weather conditions (e.g., flooding, drought, or hurricane) and other special circumstances (e.g., forest fire or oil spill). Unplanned events, perhaps occurring over a prolonged period, could be a determinant of public revenue.¹⁰⁹ In the period considered, some states reported a variety of conditions contributing to changes in natural resource development.

Figure 11. Office of Natural Resources Reported Revenue by State, FY2013 (in millions of dollars)

Source: Prepared by CRS with data from the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Statistical Information, at http://statistics.onrr.gov.

Federal Acreage in Each State Administered by the Four Major Federal Land Management Agencies, 2013

Figure A-1. Federal Lands by Agency: BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS

Source: Map boundaries and information generated by CRS using federal lands GIS data from the National Atlas, 2005, and ESRI USA Base Map. Note: Inset maps are not to scale of the coterminous United States.