Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas: In Brief

Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas: In Brief

Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study December 5, 2022
Areas: In Brief
Anne A. Riddle
Congress enacted the Wilderness Act (P.L. 88-577, 16 U.S.C. §§1131 et seq.) in 1964, creating
Analyst in Natural
the National Wilderness Preservation System and reserving to Congress the authority to
Resources Policy
designate wilderness areas—areas of federal land managed to preserve their natural conditions. In

1976, through the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA; P.L. 94-579, 43 U.S.C.
§§1701-1787), Congress required the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency within the

Department of the Interior (DOI), to study the lands it manages for wilderness potential and make
recommendations to Congress regarding their designation as wilderness. FLPMA also specified management criteria for the
studied lands. The lands that BLM studied pursuant to this process—and some others designated under other authorities but
managed similarly—are called wilderness study areas (WSAs). Congress has acted on many of BLM’s recommendations
regarding WSAs, either by designating lands as wilderness or by releasing lands from further wilderness consideration.
Questions persist over the protection and management of the areas on which Congress has not acted, which some believe
should be designated as wilderness and others believe should be available for development. Questions also persist about
BLM management of lands with wilderness characteristics that have not been designated as WSAs.
This report describes the Wilderness Act and the FLPMA provisions relating to protection of lands with wilderness
characteristics. The report then describes BLM’s wilderness study process and designation of WSAs as required by FLPMA.
It subsequently examines issues related to management and designation of BLM lands with wilderness characteristics that
have not been designated as WSAs. The report concludes with WSA statistics and a discussion of selected issues for
Congress.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 14 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 15 Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas: In Brief

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
The Wilderness Act ......................................................................................................................... 1
Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas ................................................................... 2
Section 603 ................................................................................................................................ 3
Sections 201 and 202 ................................................................................................................ 3
BLM Wilderness Review .......................................................................................................... 4
Can BLM Designate More WSAs? ........................................................................................... 5
The Wild Lands Policy ........................................................................................................ 6
30x30 .................................................................................................................................. 7
Protection of Section 603 Wilderness Study Areas ................................................................... 8
Designation and Release of Wilderness Study Areas ................................................................ 9
Wilderness Study Area Statistics ..................................................................................................... 9
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 10
Treatment of Existing Wilderness Study Areas ....................................................................... 10
Management of BLM Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ................................................. 11

Tables
Table 1. Wilderness Study Areas in 2020, by Authorization ........................................................... 9
Table 2. Wilderness Study Area Acreage, by State ........................................................................ 10

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 12

Congressional Research Service

link to page 5 Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas: In Brief

Introduction
Congress enacted the Wilderness Act in 1964,1 creating the National Wilderness Preservation
System and reserving to Congress the authority to designate wilderness areas—areas of federal
land managed to preserve their natural conditions. In 1976, through the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA),2 Congress required the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an
agency within the Department of the Interior (DOI), to study the lands it manages for wilderness
potential and make recommendations to Congress regarding these lands. FLPMA also specified
management criteria for the studied lands. These, along with a handful of other BLM lands
designated for the study and protection of wilderness characteristics and not yet acted on by
Congress, are known as wilderness study areas (WSAs; for more specific information on the
lands included in this term, see “Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas”).
Congress has acted on many of BLM’s recommendations, either by designating WSAs as
wilderness or by releasing them from further wilderness consideration. Questions persist over the
protection and management of the WSAs on which Congress has not acted, particularly those
areas that some people believe should be designated as wilderness and others contend should be
available for development. Questions also persist about BLM management of lands with
wilderness characteristics that have not been designated as WSAs.
This report describes the Wilderness Act and the FLPMA provisions relating to protection of
lands with wilderness characteristics. The report then describes BLM’s wilderness study process
and designation of WSAs as required by FLPMA, as well as issues related to management and
designation of other BLM lands with wilderness characteristics. The report concludes with WSA
statistics and a discussion of issues for Congress.
The Wilderness Act3
The Wilderness Act created the National Wilderness Preservation System. As of October 13,
2022, there were 803 wilderness areas in the system, totaling approximately 112 million acres, in
44 states and Puerto Rico.4 Four federal agencies—the BLM, National Park Service, and Fish and
Wildlife Service in DOI and the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture—manage
designated wilderness. Approximately 52% of designated wilderness is in Alaska. California, the
state with the second-largest amount of wilderness acreage, has approximately 14%. The
remaining states account for approximately 34% of wilderness acreage.5
The Wilderness Act defines wilderness as an area where “the earth and its community of life are
untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”6 The act goes on to
define wilderness as

1 Wilderness Act, P.L. 88-577, 16 U.S.C. §§1131 et seq.
2 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), P.L. 94-579, 43 U.S.C. §§1701-1787.
3 For more information about the Wilderness Act, see CRS Report RL31447, Wilderness: Overview, Management, and
Statistics, by Anne A. Riddle and Katie Hoover.
4 Wilderness.net, Wilderness Statistics Reports: Acreage by State, 2022, at https://www.wilderness.net/NWPS, as of
October 13, 2022.
5 Ibid.
6 Wilderness Act §2, 16 U.S.C. §1131(c).
Congressional Research Service
1

Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas: In Brief

an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without
permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to
preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected
primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially
unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined
type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to
make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also
contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or
historical value.7
This description of wilderness is frequently considered to define wilderness character or
wilderness characteristics—the essential attributes of wilderness that are the focus of wilderness
management under the Wilderness Act.8 Some key words from this definition, such as
“untrammeled,” “undeveloped,” and others, have been formalized within wilderness management
direction adopted by the federal land management agencies.9 Wilderness characteristics have been
an important component of reviews for potential wilderness designation. These attributes can
serve as guidelines for determining which areas should or should not be designated wilderness,
but they do not limit what areas of federal land Congress may designate.
Agencies manage wilderness to preserve its wilderness character.10 The Wilderness Act generally
prohibits motorized and mechanized access, commercial activity, roads, structures, and
installations in wilderness areas.11 The act provides numerous exceptions to prohibited activities,
and subsequent wilderness statutes have included exceptions to the general prohibitions or
allowed nonconforming uses to continue. Thus, wilderness areas vary in size, character, permitted
activities, and management, among other aspects.
Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study
Areas
Almost all WSAs have been designated by BLM under varying provisions of FLPMA, which
authorized BLM to study the lands it manages for potential wilderness designation. 12 The specific

7 Wilderness Act §2, 16 U.S.C. §1131(c).
8 Multiple sections of the Wilderness Act specify that wilderness is to be managed to preserve “wilderness character”
(e.g., 16 U.S.C. §1131(a), 16 U.S.C. §1133(b)), among other management criteria (16 U.S.C. §1133(c)). However, the
Wilderness Act does not define wilderness character. Agencies that manage wilderness have relied on the description
of wilderness at 16 U.S.C. §1131(c) to define wilderness character, though some agencies have included other criteria
or have not clearly defined in writing their interpretation of what constitutes wilderness character. For agency
definitions, see Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Manual 6340, Management of Designated Wilderness Areas;
National Park Service (NPS) Management Policy 6, “Wilderness Preservation and Management;” and Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) Policy 610, “Wilderness Stewardship.” CRS was not able to locate a definition of wilderness
character in Forest Service (FS) policy or regulation. For more information on wilderness character, see CRS Report
RL31447, Wilderness: Overview, Management, and Statistics, by Anne A. Riddle and Katie Hoover.
9 See description and agency-specific direction at Wilderness.net, “Wilderness Characteristics Toolbox,” at
https://wilderness.net/practitioners/toolboxes/wilderness-character/default.php.
10 Wilderness Act §2, 16 U.S.C. §1131(c); Wilderness Act §4, 16 U.S.C. §1133(b).
11 Wilderness Act §4, 16 U.S.C. §1133(c-d).
12 Congress also directed the FWS, FS, and NPS to study specified agency lands for wilderness potential through the
Wilderness Act. 16 U.S.C. §1132(b-c). Congress has designated some lands as “wilderness study areas” on lands
managed by agencies other than BLM. These wilderness study areas have no relationship to FLPMA or BLM WSAs
designated pursuant to FLPMA. For more information, contact the author.
Congressional Research Service
2

link to page 6 link to page 11 Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas: In Brief

provision of FLPMA authorizing the designation affects the management of the designated land.
The pertinent FLPMA provisions are described below.
Section 603
Most WSAs were designated under FLPMA Section 603. In FLPMA Section 603, Congress
directed the Secretary of the Interior to review roadless areas spanning over 5,000 acres on which
BLM identified wilderness characteristics through statutorily required land and resource
inventories (see “Sections 201 and 202”). FLPMA required the Secretary to report to the
President on the suitability or “nonsuitability” of the reviewed areas for designation as
wilderness. The report was due by no later than 15 years after the October 21, 1976, enactment of
FLPMA (i.e., by October 21, 1991).13 Section 603 also required the President to make a
recommendation to Congress regarding wilderness designation of each area within two years of
receiving BLM’s review (i.e., by October 21, 1993).14 All BLM areas studied under the Section
603 review are designated as WSAs, referred to in this report as Section 603 WSAs.
Section 603 of FLPMA provided certain protections for Section 603 WSAs until Congress acted
on the President’s recommendations.15 Specifically, during “the period of review and ... until
Congress has determined otherwise,” FLPMA required the Secretary of the Interior to manage
Section 603 WSAs “in a manner so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation
as wilderness.”16 FLPMA required the Secretary to take any action required to prevent
“unnecessary or undue degradation” of the lands and their resources or to protect the environment
in the reviewed areas. This provision, often called the non-impairment standard, continues to
govern Section 603 WSA management (see “Protection of Section 603 Wilderness Study Areas”).
The purpose of the non-impairment standard was to preserve Congress’s prerogative to designate
an area as wilderness, if desired. BLM must protect Section 603 WSAs under the non-impairment
standard unless Congress enacts legislation that releases BLM from that responsibility, either by
designating the areas as wilderness or by releasing them from study. BLM must manage all lands
designated as Section 603 WSAs (i.e., all lands studied for their potential wilderness suitability)
under the non-impairment standard, whether BLM recommended these lands for wilderness
designation or not.
WSAs also have been designated by other means, including under FLPMA Sections 201 and 202,
described below.
Sections 201 and 202
FLPMA Sections 201 and 202 provide general direction for BLM land and resource inventory
and planning.17 Specifically, Section 201 required BLM to inventory all public lands and their
resources and values on a continuing basis.18 Section 202 required BLM to develop, maintain, and
revise land use plans for public lands; these plans set the framework for management, use, and

13 FLPMA §603, 43 U.S.C. §1782(a).
14 FLPMA §603, 43 U.S.C. §1782(b).
15 FLPMA §603, 43 U.S.C. §1782(c).
16 FLPMA §603, 43 U.S.C. §1782(c).
17 FLPMA §201-202, 43 U.S.C. §§1711-1712.
18 FLPMA §201, 43 U.S.C. §1711.
Congressional Research Service
3

link to page 4 link to page 4 Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas: In Brief

protection of the plan area.19 BLM may issue management decisions to implement land use plans,
and such decisions may include limiting or excluding one or more of the major uses of BLM
lands. Management decisions can be changed or terminated.20
BLM has interpreted FLPMA Sections 201 and 202 as authorizing inventories and protective
management of areas with wilderness characteristics by restricting certain uses within those
areas.21 As such, BLM has used Section 202 to designate Section 202 WSAs, although whether
such a use is authorized currently is disputed, as discussed below under “Can BLM Designate
More WSAs?” Inventories conducted under Section 201 also served as the basis for the
wilderness studies required under Section 603 of FLPMA (see “Section 603”).
BLM Wilderness Review
Most WSAs—both Section 603 and Section 202 WSAs—were designated as part of the
wilderness review conducted in accordance with Section 603 of FLPMA (hereinafter referred to
as the Section 603 review).
To conduct the Section 603 review,
Other Ways to Designate a Wilderness Study
BLM used the Section 201 inventory
Area
of public lands to identify roadless
Although the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) designated most
areas of at least 5,000 acres with
wilderness study areas (WSAs) through the inventory and review
wilderness characteristics. The
process required by Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and
agency used the description in the
Management Act (FLPMA; P.L. 94-579, 43 U.S.C. §§1701-1787),
WSAs have been designated in other ways. Examples include the
Wilderness Act (see “The
following:
Wilderness Act”) to define
Instant Study Areas. Prior to the passage of FLPMA in 1976,
wilderness characteristics—for
BLM had designated some lands as natural or primitive under other
example, areas that were
laws. FLPMA required that BLM report its recommendations
undeveloped, were natural, or
regarding wilderness designation of these areas to the President no
contained opportunities for solitude
later than July 1, 1980. BLM referred to these 55 areas as instant
study areas. These areas are considered WSAs and are managed
and primitive or unconfined
according to the non-impairment standard.
recreation.22 BLM’s Section 603
Legislative WSAs. A few WSAs have been designated through
review excluded Alaska, though a
legislation. These WSAs are managed according to any provisions
wilderness review was later
specified in the designating legislation.
conducted there under the Alaska
ANILCA. Much like FLPMA, the Alaska National Interest Lands
National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA; P.L. 96–487 §1004, 16 U.S.C. §3144)
Conservation Act (ANILCA).23 The
required BLM to review the suitability or nonsuitability of BLM
Section 603 review also excluded
lands in Alaska for wilderness designation and to manage the
studied lands so as to protect their wilderness potential.
certain lands in western Oregon that
were revested to the United States
upon violation of grant terms, called the O&C lands.24 The Section 603 review included areas

19 FLPMA §202; 43 U.S.C. §1712.
20 FLPMA §202, 43 U.S.C. §1712(e)(1).
21 BLM, “Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review,” 44 Federal Register
72014-72034, December 12, 1979.
22 BLM’s policies and procedures for this inventory were described in the BLM wilderness inventory handbook,
published in 1978. BLM, Wilderness Inventory Handbook: Policy, Direction, Procedures, and Guidance for
Conducting Wilderness Inventory on the Public Lands, 1978. Hereinafter, BLM Wilderness Inventory Handbook 1978.
23 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, P.L. 96–487 §1004, 16 U.S.C. §3144.
24 Alaska was excluded from FLPMA Section 603 (see 43 U.S.C. §1784). Also, BLM’s inventory under Section 603
Congressional Research Service
4

link to page 6 Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas: In Brief

BLM proposed to protect under the authorities of Section 202. Often—but not always—these
were areas that did not fit the criteria identified in Section 603, such as areas that were smaller
than the 5,000 acres required by Section 603 and were adjacent to Section 603 areas.25
Following the initial inventory of lands, BLM designated some of the inventoried areas as WSAs
to study for suitability or nonsuitability for wilderness designation. BLM completed this process
in 1980, identifying 919 WSAs comprising 23 million acres.26 BLM subsequently reviewed those
WSAs to determine which were suitable for wilderness designation. The agency analyzed the
WSAs’ values, resources, and uses and compared the benefits of wilderness and nonwilderness
management for the areas. BLM developed preliminary wilderness suitability and nonsuitability
recommendations and published the results in state-specific wilderness study reports.27
In 1991, then-Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan recommended to President George H. W. Bush that
9.6 million acres of WSAs—about 42% of total WSA acres—be designated as wilderness.28
Presidents George H. W. Bush and William Clinton subsequently submitted wilderness
recommendations to Congress.29 BLM also sent Section 202 WSAs designated in the wilderness
study reports directly to Congress. The Section 202 and 603 areas transmitted to Congress in
1993 included, but were not limited to, almost all WSAs in existence today.
Can BLM Designate More WSAs?
The Section 603 authority directed BLM to conduct a specific wilderness review, under specified
time constraints (see “Section 603”). In contrast, the Section 201 and 202 authorities have no time
component. Thus, some have questioned whether BLM can designate more WSAs, particularly
under the Section 202 authority. Some aspects of this question have been addressed by the actions
of past presidential Administrations and subsequent legal action; others remain unresolved.
In 1996, under the Clinton Administration, BLM used the inventory authority in FLPMA Section
201 to inventory 5.7 million acres in Utah, ultimately finding that 2.6 million acres had
wilderness characteristics.30 Although BLM did not designate the inventoried lands as a WSA, the
agency managed the area under the non-impairment standard.31 In 2003, the George W. Bush

excluded the Oregon and California Grant Lands (O&C Lands). For more information on O&C lands, see CRS Report
R42951, The Oregon and California Railroad Lands (O&C Lands): Issues for Congress, by Katie Hoover.
25 Agency documentation does not always specify why particular areas were studied under Section 202 rather than
Section 603, even if the areas were eligible under Section 603. For example, in BLM, Colorado Wilderness Areas
Study Report, vol. 1, BLM specified that the Platte River Contiguous WSA, Ant Hills WSA, Chew Winter Camp WSA,
Peterson Draw WSA, and Vale of Tears WSA were studied under FLPMA Section 202. However, Peterson Draw and
Vale of Tears were over 5,000 acres in size, making it somewhat unclear why they were inventoried under Section 202
rather than Section 603.
26 BLM, “Wilderness Inventory Results for Public Lands Under Administration of the Bureau of Land Management in
the Contiguous United States,” 45 Federal Register 75, 574-75, 608, November 14, 1980.
27 BLM wilderness study reports are available at https://www.blm.gov/learn/blm-library/agency-publications/select-
state-publications/state-wilderness-documents.
28 As examples, for Utah, see transmittal letter enclosed in BLM, Utah Statewide Wilderness Study Report, vol. 1,
October 1991. For California, see Letter from Manuel Lujan, Secretary of the Interior, to President George H.W. Bush,
President, June 21, 1991, included in House Document 102-121.
29 FLPMA required that the President submit recommendations to Congress by October 21, 1993.
30 BLM, Utah Wilderness Inventory 1999, 1999. Relatedly, proposals in the 103rd Congress sought to designate varying
amounts of existing BLM WSAs as wilderness. For instance, the 5.7 million acres BLM inventoried in Utah were
proposed for wilderness designation in H.R. 1500.
31 See BLM, Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review, H-85501-1, July 5, 1995; and Utah v.
Congressional Research Service
5

Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas: In Brief

Administration settled litigation with the State of Utah, in which the state alleged that the
inventory violated FLPMA Section 603.32 In the settlement, BLM acknowledged that the Section
603 authority to inventory, study, and recommend WSAs to Congress expired on October 21,
1993, and that, as a result, “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” (emphasis added).33 BLM further specified that the agency would not
designate any new WSAs or manage any additional lands under the non-impairment standard.34
However, according to BLM, FLPMA land use plan decisions may “accord special management
protection for special values” through the land use planning process.35
However, the settlement agreement did not affect BLM’s authority to include wilderness
characteristics in its Section 201 inventories, nor did it prohibit the agency from protecting lands
with wilderness characteristics under Section 202’s land use planning process.36 Thus, BLM may
inventory and protect lands with wilderness characteristics by using standards and means other
than the Section 603 authority. For example, following the settlement, BLM policy gave several
options for protecting lands with wilderness characteristics through land use plan decisions, such
as designating lands as open, closed, or limited to off-highway vehicles or adding protective
terms to permits, leases, and other land use authorizations.37
BLM policy today specifies that, when lands with wilderness characteristics are present, BLM
will examine options for managing these lands and determine the most appropriate land use
allocations for them. Under FLPMA, BLM has full discretion in how to manage such lands. Thus,
considering wilderness characteristics in the land use planning process may result in a range of
outcomes, including not protecting wilderness characteristics, minimizing impacts to wilderness
characteristics through management restrictions, and others.
The Wild Lands Policy
BLM’s policies for protecting lands with wilderness characteristics after the settlement with Utah
primarily contemplated plan-level actions. However, BLM also attempted to use the Section 201
and 202 authorities to systematically protect lands with wilderness characteristics on a national
scale. The resulting policy, known as the Wild Lands Policy, was controversial and was not
implemented due to political pressure, including congressional action.
On December 22, 2010, then-DOI Secretary Ken Salazar issued Order No. 3310, known as the
Wild Lands Policy, which addressed how BLM would manage lands with wilderness
characteristics.38 The order specified that, under the authority of FLPMA Section 201, BLM
would maintain an inventory of lands with wilderness characteristics outside WSAs and
wildernesses. The order directed BLM to protect the wilderness characteristics of inventoried

Norton, No 96-CV-870 (D. Utah Order approving settlement April 14, 2003).
32 See Utah v. Norton, No 96-CV-870 (D. Utah Order approving settlement April 14, 2003).
33 BLM, BLM Implementation of the Settlement of Utah v. Norton Regarding Wilderness Study, Instruction
Memorandum 2003-274, September 29, 2003. Hereinafter, BLM IM 2003-274.
34 BLM, Consideration of Wilderness Characteristics in Land Use Plans (Excluding Alaska), Instruction Memorandum
2003-275, October 23, 2003. Hereinafter, BLM IM 2003-275.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid.
38 Secretary of the Interior, Order No. 3310, Protecting Wilderness Characteristics on Lands Managed by the Bureau of
Land Management, December 22, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
6

Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas: In Brief

lands when undertaking land use planning and when making project-level decisions by “avoiding
impairment of such wilderness characteristics,” unless BLM justified the impairment. If BLM
determined that protecting wilderness characteristics was appropriate, the lands would be
designated wild lands through land use planning.
The Wild Lands Policy was controversial. Some groups claimed the policy threatened economic
development and harmed rural communities in affected states.39 Some Members of Congress also
criticized the policy, claiming it authorized administrative designation of wild lands as de facto
wilderness, assuming a role otherwise reserved for Congress.40 Further, appropriations legislation
enacted for FY2011 included a provision to prevent FY2011 funds from being used to implement
the order.41 Appropriations laws enacted for subsequent fiscal years also barred funds from being
used to implement the order.42
Citing the funding limitation, Secretary Salazar rescinded the order and stated that BLM would
not designate any wild lands.43 The Secretary specified that BLM would continue to account for
wilderness values in Section 201 inventories, land use planning, and project-level decisions.
30x30
The Biden Administration’s 30x30 policy piqued interest in the use of Section 202 to protect
BLM lands. Specifically, Section 216 of E.O. 14008 specified that the Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with other relevant agencies, must submit a report to the National Climate Task
Force recommending steps the United States should take to achieve the goal of conserving at least
30% of “our nation’s lands and waters” by 2030 (leading to the colloquial term 30x30 for the
policy).44 Some stakeholders, including Members of Congress, conservation groups, tribal
governments, and others, have called on the Biden Administration to use the authority of FLPMA
Section 202 to protect more BLM lands.45 These calls to action vary: for example, some
encourage BLM to use Section 202 to protect lands as part of specific local planning efforts or
projects, while others encourage BLM to adopt broader, regional- or national-scale policies.46
Some calls to action are nonspecific as to their mode of action—calling for “protection” in broad

39 For example, see MSNBC News, “‘Wild Lands’ Policy Reversed After GOP Pressure,” June 1, 2011.
40 For example, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Impact of the Administration’s Wild Lands
Order on Jobs and Economic Growth, 112th Cong., 1st sess., March 1, 2011.
41 Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, P.L. 112-10, Division B, §1769.
42 For example, see FY2012: P.L. 112-74, §125; FY2014: P.L. 113-76, Division G, Title I, §124; FY2015: P.L. 113-
235, Division F, Title I, §115; and FY2016: P.L. 114-113 Division G, Title I, §112.
43 Memorandum from Secretary, Department of the Interior, to Director, Bureau of Land Management, Wilderness
Policy, June 1, 2011.
44 The concept referred to as 30x30 derives from a peer-reviewed scientific journal article that advocated for protecting
30% of lands and waters by 2030 to “avoid catastrophic climate change, conserve species, and secure essential
ecosystem services.” Eric Dinerstein et al., “A Global Deal for Nature: Guiding Principles, Milestones, and Targets,”
Science Advances, vol. 5, no. 4 (April 2019).
45 For example, see letter from Richard Durbin, Senator, et al. to Debra Haaland, Secretary of the Interior, January 21,
2022; The Wilderness Society, “Now Is the Time for Bold Conservation Action by the Bureau of Land Management,”
September 19, 2022; Ángel Peña, “Land, Latinos, and FLPMA: We Demand Protections for Wilderness Study Areas,”
GreenLatinos, May 11, 2021; and Resolution of the Navajo Utah Commission of the Navajo Nation Council,
Supporting Wilderness Study Designations Pursuant to Federal Land Policy and Management Act §202 to Comply
with President Biden’s Climate Crisis Executive Order, NUCMAY-849-21, May 11, 2021.
46 For example, see Letter from Diana DeGette, Representative, to Greg Larson, Bureau of Land Management—Upper
Colorado River District, August 10, 2022; and Letter from Alex Padilla, Senator, and Jared Huffman, Representative,
to Dereck Wilson, District Manager, Bureau of Land Management Northern California District, June 29, 2022.
Congressional Research Service
7

Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas: In Brief

terms—whereas others are specific, such as those requesting the Biden Administration use
Section 202 to designate more WSAs.
The 30x30 policy is controversial. Some opponents claim the policy will inhibit economic
development or infringe on private property rights.47 It is unclear if the Biden Administration
plans to use FLPMA Section 202 to protect lands with wilderness characteristics.
Protection of Section 603 Wilderness Study Areas
BLM manages Section 603 WSAs to not impair their suitability for preservation as wilderness—
the non-impairment standard. BLM is required to maintain WSAs’ suitability for preservation as
wilderness pending congressional action on those areas. This requirement applies to all WSAs,
regardless of whether the WSA was recommended as suitable for permanent protection as
wilderness. BLM policy specifies that BLM will protect the wilderness characteristics of all
WSAs in the same or better condition than they were on October 21, 1976, until Congress
determines whether to designate the areas as wilderness.48 If wilderness characteristics have
improved since 1976 for a particular WSA, BLM will not allow activities that would deteriorate
the improved conditions.
BLM uses the following detailed criteria to determine if a proposed new use or facility meets the
non-impairment standard.49 A use or facility in a WSA must fulfill both criteria.
 Temporary: The use or facility is needed for a defined period and would be
terminated and removed prior to or upon wilderness designation. Repeated short-
term use does not fulfill this definition.
 No New Surface Disturbances: The use or facility does not create any new
disruptions of the area’s rock, soil, or vegetation that would necessitate
restoration for the site to appear and function as it did prior to the disturbance.
Although they may cause surface disturbances, certain activities allowed in
designated wilderness, such as hiking and grazing, are acceptable in WSAs.
Management to the non-impairment standard does not mean the lands will be managed as though
they had already been designated as wilderness.50 In particular, some uses that could not take
place in wilderness may be permitted in WSAs. For example, motorized vehicles are prohibited in
wilderness, but in many cases, motorized vehicles may be used on established “primitive” routes
in WSAs. However, establishing a new route for motorized vehicles in a WSA likely would not
be permissible, as it would be surface disturbing and may not be temporary.
FLPMA Section 603 prescribed limited exceptions to the non-impairment standard by authorizing
some grandfathered uses, such certain mining and grazing uses.51 FLPMA directed BLM to
regulate those uses on WSAs to avoid “unnecessary or undue degradation” of lands and
resources. In addition, BLM has specified some exceptions to the non-impairment standard in

47 For example, see Office of Governor of Nebraska Pete Ricketts, “Taking Action to Stop 30x30,” August 2, 2021; and
Office of Senator Kevin Cramer, “Speaking Against Biden Administration’s 30x30 Land Grab Agenda at Lincoln
Summit,” press release, April 22, 2022. In the 117th Congress, several bills have been introduced in opposition to
Section 216 of E.O. 14008, including S. 1682 and H.R. 3014.
48 BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas, p.1-6. Hereinafter, BLM Manual 6330.
49 BLM Manual 6330, p.1-10.
50 Ibid.
51 43 U.S.C. §1782(c). For more information on the term “appropriation” as it relates to uses of federal resources, see
Congressional Research Service
8

link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 13 Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas: In Brief

WSA management policies, such as emergency and reclamation activities, activities to enhance
wilderness values, and activities to ensure public safety.52
Designation and Release of Wilderness Study Areas
Congress frequently considers legislation pertaining to WSAs. Some measures seek to designate
WSAs as wilderness or other federal land designations.53 Other measures seek to release WSAs—
to specify that a WSA has been adequately studied and is no longer subject to the requirements of
FLPMA Section 603.54 Management of released WSAs is determined by the relevant land use
plan in effect for the area. Most frequently, legislation pertaining to WSAs is limited in scale to a
geographic region (i.e., a county or state). Occasionally, Congress has considered legislation
addressing WSAs more broadly. For example, the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of
2011 would have released certain BLM WSAs—those that Congress did not designate as
wilderness and those that BLM identified as not suitable for wilderness designation—from the
non-impairment requirement of FLPMA Section 603, among other purposes.55
Wilderness Study Area Statistics
As of 2020, there were 491 WSAs totaling approximately 11.6 million acres (see Table 1). The
majority (83%) of WSAs were designated through the Section 603 process, with most of the
remainder designated through BLM’s planning process (Section 202). In 2020, there were two
WSAs created by Congress, and one WSA designated under ANILCA.
Table 1. Wilderness Study Areas in 2020, by Authorization
Authority
Number
Total Acres
FLPMA Section 603
409
10,778,786
FLPMA Section 202
79
557,846
Public Lawa
2
20,000
ANILCA
1
260,000
Total
491
11,616,632
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), from Bureau of Land Management (BLM), “National Landscape
Conservation System: Wilderness Study Areas,” accessed September 13, 2022, current as of September 2020.
Notes: ANILCA = Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (P.L. 96–487 §1004, 16 U.S.C. §3144);
FLPMA = Federal Land Policy and Management Act (P.L. 94-579, 43 U.S.C. §§1701-1787).
a. These two wilderness study areas were designated by P.L. 103-433 §105 and P.L. 100-225 §501(b).
BLM lands are concentrated in the West. WSAs exist in 12 western states: Alaska, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming (see Table 2). Nevada, Oregon, and Utah have the greatest WSA acreage, with over 2.5
million acres each. Washington has the least, at 5,554 acres.

52 BLM Manual 6330.
53 For more information, see CRS Report R41610, Wilderness: Issues and Legislation, by Anne A. Riddle, Katie
Hoover, and Sandra L. Johnson.
54 For example, S. 1750 in the 117th Congress would designate specified WSA acres in Wyoming as wilderness, a
motorized recreation area, and a National Conservation Area and would release other specified WSA acres.
55 Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011, H.R. 1581/S. 1087, 112th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
9

link to page 13 Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas: In Brief

Table 2. Wilderness Study Area Acreage, by State
State
Number of WSAs
Total Acres
AK
1
260,000
AZ
2
63,930
CA
59
503,539
CO
53
546,969
ID
40
544,619
MT
35
435,084
NM
48
725,006
NV
60
2,516,855
OR
87
2,645,103
UT
77
2,795,574
WA
1
5,554
WY
42
574,401
Total
491a
11,616,634
Source: CRS, from BLM, “National Landscape Conservation System: Wilderness Study Areas,” accessed
September 13, 2022, current as of September 2020.
a. Wilderness study areas (WSAs) located in more than one state are included in the number of WSAs for
each state but are counted once for the total number of WSAs. Thus, the column total is less than the sum
of the column figures.
Issues for Congress
Stakeholders continue to debate several issues regarding management of BLM lands with
wilderness characteristics. The appropriate treatment of the Section 603 WSAs—whether and
where they should be designated as wilderness, and at what scale—continues to be a point of
contention. In recent decades, debate regarding BLM management of lands with wilderness
characteristics other than WSAs has emerged and has been a focus of congressional, media, and
other stakeholder attention.
Treatment of Existing Wilderness Study Areas
FLPMA Section 603 was intended to preserve WSAs’ characteristics until Congress could
exercise its prerogative to designate the areas as wilderness, if desired. Congress has acted to
designate some Section 603 WSAs as wilderness or to release them from study, but decisions on
many WSAs remain pending. Each Congress typically acts legislatively on some WSAs, either to
release them or to protect them under other designations (e.g., as wilderness, among others).
Congressional debates regarding such legislation typically revolve around the location, current
and proposed uses, and other characteristics of the WSAs in question.
An issue for Congress is whether to undertake action on Section 603 WSAs as a whole. Some
assert that it was not Congress’s intention to protect these lands in perpetuity and that WSAs’ de
Congressional Research Service
10

Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas: In Brief

facto status as wilderness has inappropriately restricted other land uses.56 Others contend that
WSAs should be permanently protected, although the means of that protection is not always
specified.57 Should Congress seek to act systematically on Section 603 WSAs, options include the
following:
 Treat All Section 603 WSAs the Same Way. For example, Congress could
designate all Section 603 WSAs as wilderness (or another designation) or release
all WSAs into multiple-use management.
 Develop Criteria to Release or Designate WSAs. Congress could develop
criteria to designate and/or release lands, such as designating as wilderness
and/or releasing lands in accordance with BLM’s initial wilderness
recommendations.
 Address Management of WSAs. Congress could address prohibited or
permitted management actions in WSAs or funding for management of activities
in WSAs.
The impacts of any congressional action on all WSA lands and resources would depend on what
specific designation or management Congress chose.
Management of BLM Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
Another potential issue for Congress is BLM’s broader management of lands that have wilderness
characteristics but are not currently designated as WSAs. BLM currently has “full discretion” to
manage lands with wilderness characteristics, including not protecting those characteristics, and
generally makes such management decisions at the scale of individual projects or land use plans.
The generality of the authorities of FLPMA Sections 201 and 202 also may allow BLM to
approach management of such lands differently in the future, as was contemplated under the Wild
Lands policy. Should Congress seek to more directly control management of BLM lands with
wilderness characteristics, options include the following:
 Introduce Legislation Regarding the Inventory, Management, and/or
Designation of BLM Lands with Wilderness Characteristics. For example,
Congress could specify prohibited or permitted management actions in lands with
wilderness characteristics. Congress also could designate lands as any federal
land designation desired, specify what branch of government may designate
lands, and/or create designation criteria. Congress could do so by introducing
new legislation, amend existing legislation, or providing direction to the agency
(e.g., through report language).
 Address BLM’s Authority to Manage Lands with Wilderness
Characteristics. The legislative options discussed above would not supersede
BLM’s broad authority to manage its lands and resources, for example, by
issuing policies regarding areas not covered by any enacted legislation. Congress
could enact legislation specifying BLM’s authorities to issue regulations or
policies related to lands with wilderness characteristics (e.g., by amending

56 For example, see Jen Sieve-Hicks, “Bill Would Resolve Management Practices for Lands Stuck in Limbo,” Buffalo
Bulletin, July 7, 2021; and Office of Congresswoman Liz Cheney, “Congresswoman Cheney Introduces Bill to
Implement County Commissioners’ Requests and Release Wilderness Study Areas in Big Horn, Lincoln, and
Sweetwater Counties,” press release, September 27, 2018.
57 For example, see Scott Braden, “Wilderness Study Areas Need Fierce Advocates to Stay Wild,” Daily Sentinel, April
1, 2018; or Wild Montana, “Poll: Huge Majority Wants to Protect Public Lands,” May 3, 2022.
Congressional Research Service
11

Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas: In Brief

 existing authorities such as FLPMA). The effects of such legislation could impact
BLM’s ability to manage other lands and resources.
 Address Other Issues. Congress could address related issues, including funding
for activities in lands with wilderness characteristics or administration of BLM
policies, for example.
 Conduct Oversight. For example, Congress could direct BLM to report on the
extent, condition, and/or management of WSAs or lands with wilderness
characteristics.

Author Information

Anne A. Riddle

Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47322 · VERSION 1 · NEW
12