Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 114^th Congress

The 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 the 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 introduced in the 114^th Congress may follow this pattern, especially as to how those prohibited activities affect law enforcement in wilderness areas along U.S. national borders.

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 114^th Congress to designate new wilderness or release wilderness study areas. Tables of legislation from the 113^th Congress are provided in Appendix A of 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 more than one hundred subsequent laws have designated wilderness areas. As of January 1, 2015, the National Wilderness Preservation System totaled 762 areas, with nearly 110 million acres.³ The 113^th Congress added approximately 279,907 acres to the system by either adding new wilderness areas or expanding existing areas.⁴ 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 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.⁵

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.⁶

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.⁷ 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.

Debate Surrounding 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 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,⁸ 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 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 111^th Congress.⁹ 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 individual wilderness bills in the 110^th and 111^th Congresses) designating 2,050,964 acres of wilderness in various locales, as well as including numerous land, water, and other provisions. The 112^th 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.¹⁰ In the 113^th Congress, more than 30 wilderness bills were introduced, several of which were included in P.L. 113-291, designating approximately 247,152 acres in new or expanded wilderness areas in five western states. Congress also enacted one stand-alone bill designating 32,500 acres of wilderness in Michigan. See Appendix A for an alphabetical list of legislation introduced and those bills enacted into law.

So far in the 114^th Congress, more than 20 bills have been introduced to expand U.S. wilderness holdings and one has been enacted: P.L. 114-46. See Table 1 for an alphabetical list of legislation introduced and the most recent action (as of the 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.

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, 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.¹¹ 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.¹² 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. Based on the activities of earlier Congresses, the 114^th Congress may look at how wilderness areas are managed for hunting and fishing. Legislation introduced in the 114^th Congress would alter management of wilderness areas for those activities.

• H.R. 528, the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act, would change wilderness administration by changing the standard by which land management agencies determine when lands should be closed to certain activities. H.R. 528 would prohibit the land management agency from closing lands except where closure is supported by the best scientific evidence and through a transparent public process, a different standard than required by the Wilderness Act.¹³
• S. 556, the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015, specifies that wilderness areas managed by FS and BLM shall be open to recreational fishing, hunting, and recreational shooting, unless a land management agency acts to close the land to the activity. The agencies may close an area if determined to be necessary and supported by facts and evidence for specified purposes, which include for the protection of resources, public safety, and private property rights, among others. Further, the effect of the bill on the use of motorized vehicles in wilderness areas is uncertain.¹⁴

Similar bills were introduced in the 112^th and 113^th Congresses. Additionally, three of the wilderness areas designated or expanded by P.L. 113-291 authorize periods when or zones where the wilderness may be closed to hunting, fishing, and trapping for safety and administrative reasons.¹⁵ This or similar language has been included in several previous wilderness designations and also is authorized under the Wilderness Act in general, which directs agencies to preserve the wilderness character of the areas, leaving them unimpaired for future generations.

Nonconforming 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 nonconforming uses or conditions. Existing wilderness statutes have directed immediate termination of nonconforming 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 nonconforming conditions or infrastructure. Alternatively, many nonconforming 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 could be 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 113^th 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 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.

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 nonconforming activities can occur up to the wilderness boundary, and that the ability to see or hear a nonconforming 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, based on the Supreme Court decision of that name, 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 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 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

Bills were introduced in the 112^th and 113^th Congresses to reduce the potential restrictions of the Wilderness Act and other federal statutes on border security activities, such as by waiving the Wilderness Act to allow construction activities such as roads and structures; however, none of the bills were enacted. See Appendix B for a discussion of those bills. To date, similar legislation has not been introduced in the 114^th Congress.

Wilderness Study Areas and Reviews for Wilderness Potential

DOI and FS have different requirements to assess the wilderness characteristics and potential of the lands they manage. The 114^th Congress may consider when and whether the agencies can and must review the wilderness potential of their lands, and how those lands are managed. Some believe that these wilderness study areas and roadless areas are improperly managed as wilderness, restricting development opportunities, despite lacking congressional designation as wilderness. Others note that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)²⁷ and regulations dictate that certain areas must be managed to preserve their wilderness potential.

A controversial DOI order from December 2010, perceived by some as expanding wilderness protection by BLM to non-designated lands, stimulated debate in the 112^th Congress.²⁸ The order directed BLM to protect wilderness characteristics through land use planning. Funding for the policy was removed in the FY2011, FY2012, FY2014, and FY2015 annual appropriations acts,²⁹ despite the order being formally revoked by the Secretary of the Interior in June 2011.³⁰

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.³¹ 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 1979.³² However, a successful judicial challenge to those recommendations by the state of California³³ 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 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 1990.³⁴

Review of potential wilderness is now part of the forest planning process; however, management of Forest Service inventoried roadless areas has been controversial.³⁵ The Clinton and George W. 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 2012.³⁶ Release language is no longer significant for national forest wilderness legislation, although some bills do include release provisions. For example, S. 1967 (113^th Congress) would have released 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 FLPMA³⁸ 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

Starting in 1977 through1979, 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 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.

DOI Wilderness Policy Changes

DOI has changed its policy regarding how it administers areas with wilderness potential with each administration. In September 2003, then-DOI Secretary Gale Norton settled litigation challenging a 1996 policy identifying large amounts of wilderness-suitable lands.⁴³ Following the settlement, the BLM Assistant Director issued guidance prohibiting further reviews and limiting the term "wilderness study areas" and the nonimpairment standard to areas already designated for the original Section 603 reviews of the 1970s and 1980s.⁴⁴ The guidance advised in part 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."⁴⁵

On December 22, 2010, DOI Secretary Ken Salazar issued Order No. 3310, known as the "Wild Lands Policy," addressing how BLM would manage wilderness.⁴⁶ 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.

Legislative Action

So far in the 114^th Congress, one bill has been enacted and several introduced to 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 the publication of this report). See Appendix A, Table A-2, for an alphabetical list of wilderness release legislation of the 113^th Congress.

Previous Congresses have considered legislation to more broadly release WSAs. The Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011 (H.R. 1581/S. 1087, 112^th Congress) 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 George W. Bush Forest Service roadless area rules. A similar bill in the 113^th Congress—S. 1967, the Inventoried Roadless Area Management Act—would have terminated the Clinton roadless area rule on national forests in Wyoming.

The release of the WSA is only to the extent that the lands within that area were not included in the bill's wilderness designation.

113^th Congress Wilderness Legislation

The 113^th Congress added 279,709 acres to the wilderness system by either adding new wilderness areas or expanding existing areas.

Border Security Bills Affecting Wilderness

113^th Congress

The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744), as introduced in the 113^th Congress, would have affected wilderness area management along the U.S. border with Mexico. The bill would have authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive all laws in order to expedite construction activities along the border, including roads and barriers.⁴⁷ 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, addressed 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 would have required 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.⁴⁸

112^th Congress

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

Acknowledgments

Ross Gorte, retired CRS Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, made important contributions to earlier versions of this report.

Footnotes

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, by [author name scrubbed].
2.	Art. IV, §3, cl. 2.
3.	See CRS Report RL31447, Wilderness: Overview and Statistics, by [author name scrubbed].
4.	See P.L. 113-87 (Sleeping Bear Dunes, MI), and P.L. 113-291, §§3060-3062, 3064-3066 (Alpine Lakes Wilderness, WA; Columbine-Hondo Wilderness, NM; Wheeler Peak Wilderness, NM; Hermosa Creek Wilderness, CO; Pine Forest Range Wilderness, NV; Bob Marshall Wilderness, MT; Scapegoat Wilderness, MT; Wovoka Wilderness; NV.) The acreage is approximate, as the statute does not contain precise acreage for each area.
5.	16 U.S.C. §1133(c).
6.	For more information, see CRS Report R41649, Wilderness Laws: Statutory Provisions and Prohibited and Permitted Uses, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
7.	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).
8.	16 U.S.C. §1132(c).
9.	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, coordinated by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
10.	Although 41 bills to designate wilderness were introduced in the 112th Congress, 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 the Quileute Indian Tribe.
11.	16 U.S.C. §1133(c).
12.	16 U.S.C. §1133(b).
13.	H.R. 528§4(a)(3).
14.	For more information on this bill, see CRS Report R44102, Hunting and Fishing: Analysis of S. 556 and S. 659, by [author name scrubbed].
15.	The wilderness areas are the Columbine-Hondo, Pine Forest Range, and Wovoka wilderness areas. P.L. 113-291 §3061(g); §3064(e); and §3066(d), respectively.
16.	For a discussion on uses in wilderness statutes, see CRS Report R41649, Wilderness Laws: Statutory Provisions and Prohibited and Permitted Uses, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
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).
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 [author name scrubbed], for a discussion of federal reserved water rights in similarly protected areas.
22.	For more information, see also CRS Report R41649, Wilderness Laws: Statutory Provisions and Prohibited and Permitted Uses, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
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.
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.	P.L. 94-579, 43 U.S.C. §§1701 et seq.
28.	DOI Secretary Order No. 3310 (Dec. 22, 2010).
29.	FY2011: P.L. 112-10, §1769; FY2012: P.L. 112-74, §125; FY2014: P.L. 113-76, Division G, Title I, §124; P.L. 113-235, Division F, Title I, §115.
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.	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.
32.	Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II. 2000.
33.	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).
34.	See, for example, P.L. 98-321 (Wisconsin).
35.	For more information, see CRS Report RL30647, National Forest System (NFS) Roadless Area Initiatives, by [author name scrubbed].
36.	Wyoming v. Department of Agriculture, 133 S.Ct. 417 (2012).
37.	43 U.S.C. §1782(a).
38.	P.L. 94-579; 43 U.S.C. §§1701-1787.
39.	542 U.S. 55 (2004).
40.	See, for example, 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.	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. See Utah v. Norton, No 96-CV-870 (D. Utah Order approving settlement April 14, 2003).
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 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. These memoranda rescinded the Wilderness Inventory and Study Procedures Handbook.
45.	Instruction Memorandum 2003-274.
46.	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.
47.	S. 744, §3(d).
48.	See, for example, Wilderness Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 629 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2010).