Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (FS): Issues for the 110th Congress
Congressional research reportNov 13, 2008
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱǻǼȱȱȱȱ
ȱǻǼDZȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ
ȱǯȱ ȱ
ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ ¢ȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ ȱ
¢ȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
ȱ¡ȱ
ȱ¢ȱ
ȱŗřǰȱŘŖŖŞȱ
ȱȱȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
ǯǯȱ
řřŝşŘȱ
ȱȱȱ
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
¢ȱ
The 110th Congress, the Administration, and the courts are considering many issues related to the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) public lands and the Forest Service (FS) national forests.
Key issues include the following.
Energy Resources. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 has led to new regulations on the leasing
programs and application of environmental laws to certain agency actions. H.R. 6 was enacted as
P.L. 110-140 on December 19, 2007, without many of the federal lands provisions considered
earlier.
Hardrock Mining. The General Mining Law of 1872 allows prospecting for minerals in open
public domain lands, and staking a claim, developing the minerals, and applying for a patent to
obtain title to the land and minerals. The House passed H.R. 2262 on November 5, 2007, to
reform aspects of the General Mining Law.
National Landscape Conservation System. The BLM created the National Landscape
Conservation System in 2000 to enhance the focus on specially protected conservation areas.
Congress is considering measures to establish the 27 million acre system legislatively and
debating the adequacy of funds for the system.
Wilderness. Many agency recommendations for wilderness areas are pending. Questions persist
about wilderness review and managing wilderness study areas (WSAs). Nearly fifty wilderness
area bills have been introduced this Congress, several have been passed by at least one chamber,
and one has been enacted into law.
Wild Horses and Burros. Changes in 2004 to the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of
1971 removed the ban on selling certain animals for commercial products; the House passed H.R.
249 on April 26, 2007, to overturn these changes. The BLM continues to dispose of animals by
sale, adoption, and long-term holding.
Wildfire Protection. Various initiatives seek to protect communities from wildfires by expanding
fuel reduction, and bills have been offered to restore forest health. Concerns over high and rising
suppression costs have led to bills for separate wildfire suppression funding accounts.
FS NEPA Application. The FS has proposed altering its process for activity review under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and has added activities that can be
categorically excluded from such environmental and public reviews. Many of these changes and
proposals have been challenged in court.
Other issues discussed briefly include roadless areas in the National Forest System, national
forest planning, national forest county payments, BLM land sales, and grazing management.
ȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Background and Analysis ................................................................................................................ 1
History of the Bureau of Land Management............................................................................. 1
History of the Forest Service..................................................................................................... 2
Scope of Report......................................................................................................................... 2
Onshore Energy Resources (by (name r edacted)).................................................................... 3
Background......................................................................................................................... 3
Administrative Actions ....................................................................................................... 3
Legislative Activity............................................................................................................. 4
Hardrock Minerals (by (name redacted))................................................................................. 5
Background......................................................................................................................... 5
Administrative Actions ....................................................................................................... 5
Legislative Activity............................................................................................................. 6
National Landscape Conservation System (by (name redacted)) ...................................... 6
Background......................................................................................................................... 6
Administrative Actions ....................................................................................................... 6
Legislative Activity............................................................................................................. 7
Wilderness (by (n ame redacted)) ................................................................................................. 8
Background......................................................................................................................... 8
Legislative Activity............................................................................................................. 9
Wild Horses and Burros (by (name redacted)) ................................................................ 13
Background....................................................................................................................... 13
Administrative Actions ..................................................................................................... 13
Legislative Activity........................................................................................................... 14
Wildfire Protection (by (name redacted)) .................................................................................. 15
Background....................................................................................................................... 15
Administrative Actions ..................................................................................................... 15
Legislative Activity........................................................................................................... 16
FS NEPA Application and Categorical Exclusions (by (name redacted) and (name red
acted)).....................................................................................................................
....... 17
Background....................................................................................................................... 17
Administrative Action....................................................................................................... 17
Legislative Activity........................................................................................................... 18
Judicial Action .................................................................................................................. 18
Other Issues............................................................................................................................. 19
Roadless Areas in the National Forest System.................................................................. 19
National Forest Planning................................................................................................... 20
National Forest County Payments .................................................................................... 21
BLM Land Sales ............................................................................................................... 22
Grazing Management........................................................................................................ 22
Additional Reading: Current and Historical.................................................................................. 23
ȱ
Table 1. 110th Congress Bills to Designate Wilderness Areas ......................................................... 9
ȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 24
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
he 110th Congress is considering actions that affect the various uses and management of
federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.
These actions include legislation, administrative or regulatory proposals, and litigation and
judicial decisions. Issue areas include access to energy resources on federal lands; development of
hardrock minerals; designation of the National Landscape Conservation System; wilderness
designation; management of wild horses and burros; wildfire protection; Forest Service
implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and other issues. Many of
these issues have been of interest to Congress and the nation for decades.
T
ȱȱ¢ȱ
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Forest
Service (FS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) manage 449 million acres of land,
more than two-thirds of the land owned by the federal government and one-fifth of the total U.S.
land area. The BLM manages 255.8 million acres of land, predominantly in the West. The FS
administers 192.8 million acres of federal land, also concentrated in the West.
The BLM and FS have similar management responsibilities for their lands, and many key issues
affect both agencies’ lands. Thus, merging the two agencies often is proposed.1 By law, BLM and
FS lands are to be administered for multiple uses, although slightly different uses are specified for
each agency. In practice, the land uses considered by the agencies include recreation, range,
timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and conservation. BLM and FS lands also are
required to be managed for sustained yield—a high level of resource outputs in perpetuity—
without impairing the productivity of the lands. However, each agency also has unique emphases
and functions. For instance, most rangelands are managed by the BLM, and the BLM administers
mineral development on all federal lands. Most federal forests are managed by the FS, and only
the FS has a cooperative program to assist nonfederal forest landowners. Moreover, development
of the two agencies has differed, and historically they have focused on different issues.
Nonetheless, there are many parallels.
¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
For the BLM, many of the issues traditionally center on the agency’s responsibilities for land
disposal, range management (particularly grazing), and minerals development. The BLM
assumed these three key functions when it was created in 1946 by the merger of the General Land
Office (created in 1812) and the U.S. Grazing Service (created in 1934). The General Land Office
had helped convey land to settlers, issued leases, and administered mining claims on the public
lands, among other functions. The U.S. Grazing Service had been established to manage the
public lands best suited for livestock grazing under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 U.S.C. §§
315, et seq.).
Congress frequently has debated how to manage federal lands, and whether to retain or dispose of
the remaining public lands or to expand federal land ownership. Congress enacted the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701, et seq.), sometimes
1
See CRS Report RL34772, Proposals to Merge the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management: Issues and
Approaches, by (name redacted).
ȱȱȱ
ŗȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
called BLM’s Organic Act because it consolidated and articulated the agency’s responsibilities.
Among other provisions, the law establishes a general national policy that BLM-managed public
lands be retained in federal ownership, establishes management of the public lands based on the
principles of multiple use and sustained yield, and generally requires that the federal government
receive fair market value for the use of public lands and resources. BLM public land management
encompasses diverse uses, resources, and values, such as energy and mineral development, timber
harvesting, livestock grazing, recreation, wild horses and burros, fish and wildlife habitat, and
preservation of natural and cultural resources.
¢ȱȱȱȱȱ
The FS was created in 1905, when forest lands reserved by the President (beginning in 1891)
were transferred from DOI into the existing USDA Bureau of Forestry (initially an agency for
private forestry assistance and forestry research). Management direction for the national forests,
first enacted in 1897 and expanded in 1960, identifies the purposes for which the lands are to be
managed—including timber, grazing, recreation, wildlife and fish, and water—and directs
“harmonious and coordinated management” to provide for multiple uses and sustained yields of
the many resources found in the national forests.
Many issues concerning national forest management and use have focused on the appropriate
level and location of timber harvesting. In part to address these issues, Congress enacted the
National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600-1614, et al.) to revise
timber sale authorities and to elaborate on considerations and requirements in land and resource
management plans.
Wilderness protection also is a continuing issue for the FS. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act
of 1960 (16 U.S.C. § 528-531) authorizes wilderness as a use of national forest lands, and
possible national forest wilderness areas have been reviewed under the 1964 Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. §§ 1131-1136) as well as in the national forest planning process. Pressures persist to
protect the wilderness character of areas in pending wilderness recommendations and other
roadless areas.
ȱȱȱ
The missions of the BLM and FS are similar, and many issues, programs, and policies affect both
agencies. For these reasons, BLM and FS lands often are discussed together, as in this report. This
report focuses on several issues affecting the agencies’ lands that appear to be of interest to the
110th Congress, including onshore energy resources, hardrock mining, the National Landscape
Conservation System, wilderness, wild horses and burros, wildfire protection, and Forest Service
implementation of NEPA. It does not comprehensively cover general issues affecting
management of these and other federal lands. For background on federal land management
generally, see CRS Report RL32393, Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land
and Resources Management, by (name redacted) et al. For other information on the BLM,
FS, and natural resources issues and agencies generally, see the CRS website at
http://www.crs.gov/ and the CRS reports on related issues listed at the end of this report.
ȱȱȱ
Řȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ¢ȱŘȱǻ¢ȱȱ Ǽȱ
ȱ
A controversial issue is access to federal lands for energy and mineral development. Phase III of a
BLM-coordinated study (issued May 2008) found that 62% of the estimated oil and 41% of the
estimated natural gas on the 279 million acres of federal land inventoried are classified as
“inaccessible” or unavailable for drilling and development.3 The oil and gas industry contends
that entry into currently unavailable areas is necessary to ensure future domestic oil and gas
supplies. Opponents maintain that the restricted lands are unique or environmentally sensitive and
that the United States could realize equivalent energy gains through conservation and increased
exploration on current leases or elsewhere.4
Development of oil, gas, and coal on BLM and FS lands (and other federal lands) is governed
primarily by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. § 181). Leasing on BLM lands goes
through a multi-step approval process. If the minerals are located on FS lands, the FS must
perform a leasing analysis and approve leasing decisions for specific lands before the BLM may
lease minerals. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct, P.L. 109-58) made significant changes to
the laws governing federal energy resources, including the management of energy development
on BLM and FS lands. Implementation of these changes is discussed below.
ȱȱ
The Administration is responding to provisions of EPAct.5 A BLM report analyzed the respective
rights and responsibilities of owners of mineral leases, private surface owners, and the federal
government under existing law,6 and recommended administrative actions that allow for access to
oil and gas deposits while seeking to address surface owner concerns.
Pursuant to § 352 of EPAct, the BLM issued a final rule in March 2006 that allows ownership of
oil and gas leases covering greater acreages than previously allowed.7 The final regulation also
extended the lease reinstatement period under the petition process.
In January 2006, the BLM completed a final programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS)
for wind energy facilities on BLM lands.8 This document supports land management plan
2
This report does not cover offshore energy resources, such as oil and gas development in the Outer Continental Shelf,
or the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
3
DOI, USDA, and Dept. of Energy, Inventory of Onshore Federal Oil and Natural Gas Resources and Restrictions to
their Development (Phase III), May 2008, available on the BLM website at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/
oil_and_gas/EPCA_III.html.
4
See CRS Report RS22928, Oil Development on Federal Lands and the Outer Continental Shelf, by (name redacted)
and CRS Report RL33014, Leasing and Permitting for Oil and Gas Development on Federal Public Domain Lands, by
(name redacted) and (name redacted).
5
For additional information on BLM implementation of the EPAct, see the agency’s website at http://www.blm.gov/
wo/st/en/prog/energy/epca_chart.html.
6
DOI/BLM, Energy Policy Act of 2005—Section 1835 Split Estate, Federal Oil and Gas Leasing and Development
Practices, A Report to Congress (Dec. 2006), at http://www.blm.gov/bmp/Split_Estate.htm.
7
71 Fed. Reg. 14821 (Mar. 24, 2006).
8
71 Fed. Reg. 1768 (Jan. 11, 2006).
ȱȱȱ
řȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
amendments providing for wind energy development in the western states. The review was
undertaken in compliance with Executive Order 13212,9 and seeks to comply with congressional
directives in EPAct directing renewable energy development on public lands.
Under § 369 of EPAct, the BLM has completed environmental assessments and issued leases for
five oil shale research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects on federal lands in
Colorado and one in Utah; a BLM report highlights the progress of the pilot project.10 Also, the
BLM has begun a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) to support a commercial
tar sands and oil shale leasing program. The BLM completed its draft PEIS on December 20,
2007, and published its proposed regulations for commercial oil shale development on July 23,
2008. Final regulations are required by EPAct 2005 within six months of issuing the final PEIS.
However, language in the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161), which
included DOI funding, prohibited FY2008 expenditures to finalize regulations for a commercial
oil shale leasing program. The prohibition on using funds to issue final rules was omitted from
the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (CR, Division A, P.L. 110-329). The CR
provides appropriations to DOI agencies (among others) through March 6, 2009. The Interior
Department issued a statement indicating that the final rule for a commercial oil shale and tar
sands leasing program would likely be completed by the end of the 2008 calendar year. The BLM
completed its final environmental impact statement on September 4, 2008.
The BLM has issued its final rule for developing geothermal energy on federal lands, effective
June 1, 2007.11 EPAct, §§ 221-236, amended the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. §§
1001-1028) to change the leasing procedures to offer more competitive leasing and establish a
new royalty and rental rate framework. Much of the nation’s geothermal energy potential is
located on federal lands. The Administration has asserted that improving the efficiency of the
federal geothermal leasing process could increase geothermal energy production. The BLM
administers 423 geothermal leases, of which 55 are currently in production.
ȱ¢ȱ
The conflict between increased domestic energy production from public lands and environmental
concerns over development has continued in the 110th Congress. To address concerns with the
implementation of EPAct, legislation (H.R. 2337) to repeal or amend several of its provisions
related to oil and gas development on federal lands was introduced, then folded into a broader
energy proposal (H.R. 3221, Title VII). Portions of this and other bills were combined in the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (H.R. 6). H.R. 6 was enacted on December 19,
2007, as P.L. 110-140, but without the oil and gas provisions contained in Title VII of H.R.
3221.12 Several bills introduced in the House (e.g., H.R. 6566 and H.R. 6709) also would have
ended the spending prohibition on issuing final regulations for commercial-scale oil shale
development.
9
“Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects,” 66 Fed. Reg. 28357 (May 22, 2001).
DOI/BLM, Year Two Report: Section 365 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005—Pilot Project to Improve Federal
Permit Coordination (Feb. 2008).
11
72 Fed. Reg. 24358 (May 2, 2007).
12
On April 10, 2008, the Senate passed H.R. 3221, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, to provide needed
housing reform and for other (non-energy) purposes.
10
ȱȱȱ
Śȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱǻ¢ȱȱ Ǽȱ
ȱ
The General Mining Law of 1872 is one of the major statutes directing federal lands management
policy. The law grants free access to individuals and corporations to prospect for minerals in open
public domain lands, and allows them, upon making a discovery, to stake (or locate) a claim on
the deposit. A claim gives the holder the right to develop the minerals and apply for a patent to
obtain full title of the land and minerals. A continuing issue is whether this 136-year-old law
should be reformed, and if so, how to balance mineral development with competing land uses.13
The right to enter federal lands and freely prospect for and develop minerals is the feature of the
claim-patent system that draws the most vigorous support from the mining industry. Critics
consider the claim-patent system a giveaway of publicly owned resources because royalty
payments are not required and because of the small amounts paid to maintain a claim and to
obtain a patent. Congress has imposed a moratorium on mining claim patents through the annual
Interior appropriations laws since FY1995, but has not restricted the right to stake claims or
extract minerals. A BLM study in 2000 estimated that about 165 million acres of lands with
federally owned mineral rights14 (about 24% of all federal mineral acreage) have been withdrawn
from mineral entry, leasing, and sale, subject to valid existing rights. Mineral development on
another 182 million acres (26% of all federal mineral acreage) is subject to the approval of the
surface management agency15 and must not be in conflict with land designations and plans.
The lack of direct statutory authority for environmental protection under the Mining Law of 1872
is another major issue that has spurred reform proposals. Many Mining Law supporters contend
that other current laws provide adequate environmental protection. Critics, however, assert that
these general environmental requirements are not adequate to assure reclamation of mined areas
and that the only effective approach to protecting lands from the adverse impacts of mining under
the current system is to withdraw them from development under the Mining Law. Further, critics
charge that federal land managers lack regulatory authority over patented mining claims and that
clear legal authority to assure adequate reclamation of mining sites is needed.
ȱȱ
Since the late 1990s, administrative efforts have focused on new surface management regulations,
with attention centering on mine reclamation efforts. New mining claim location and annual
claim maintenance fees were increased in 2005 to $30 and $125 per claim, respectively (from $25
and $100).
13
For more information on the General Mining Law and recent reform efforts, see CRS Report RL33908, Mining on
Federal Lands: Hardrock Minerals, by (name redacted).
14
There are approximately 700 million acres of federal mineral rights, including FS and BLM lands as well as lands
administered by the NPS, FWS, and Department of Defense and federal mineral rights underlying private lands.
15
The BLM administers mineral resources under all federal lands, regardless of which agency has responsibility for
administering the surface.
ȱȱȱ
śȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ¢ȱ
Broad-based legislation to reform the General Mining Law of 1872 (H.R. 2262) was introduced
on May 10, 2007—the 135-year anniversary of the original law’s signing. The bill would, among
other provisions, establish an 8% “net smelter return” (NSR) royalty (also known as “gross
income” royalty defined in § 613 (c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) on hardrock
mineral production (e.g., gold, copper, silver) from new mines and mine expansions on public
domain lands, and a 4% NSR royalty on existing mines. H.R. 2262 would create an abandoned
hardrock mine reclamation fund, require a reclamation plan by mineral producers, and impose
new environmental standards. Hearings were held on H.R. 2262 by the House Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. The Committee reported the bill on October 29,
2007 (H.Rept. 110-412), and the House passed the bill on November 1, 2007. No further action
has occurred.
Two oversight hearings on mining law reform have been held by the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee in the 110th Congress—one on hardrock mining on federal land (September
27, 2007) and a second on reform of the General Mining Law of 1872 (January 24, 2008). The
committee held a third hearing to address abandoned hardrock mine lands and uranium mining
(March 12, 2008). In addition, a Senate bill (S. 2750, the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of
2008) would address cleaning up abandoned hardrock mines throughout the United States by
establishing an Abandoned Mine Cleanup Fund and imposing various fees on hardrock mining
operations on federal land, including a 4% “gross income” royalty that would apply to existing
hardrock mineral producers on federal land. A second Senate bill (S. 2287) aimed at the hardrock
mining industry would eliminate the percentage depletion allowance for certain hardrock
minerals and establish an Abandoned Mine Reclamation Trust Fund.
ȱȱȱ¢ȱǻ¢ȱȱ ¢ȱǼȱ
ȱ
The BLM created the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) in 2000 to focus
management and public attention on its specially protected conservation areas. According to the
BLM, the mission of the system is to conserve, protect, and restore for present and future
generations the nationally significant landscapes that have been recognized for their outstanding
archaeological, geological, cultural, ecological, wilderness, recreation, and scientific values.16 The
system consists today of about 27 million acres of land, with more than 850 federally recognized
units. These units include national monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness areas, and
wilderness study areas as well as thousands of miles of national historic and national scenic trails
and wild and scenic rivers. Current issues for Congress include whether to establish the system
legislatively, and the adequacy of funds for the system.
ȱȱ
Over the past several years, the BLM has given priority to developing new or updated land
management plans for areas within the NLCS. Currently, most of these plans are completed. The
16
DOI/BLM, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2009, p. I-78.
ȱȱȱ
Ŝȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Administration has testified in favor of establishing the NLCS legislatively and is seeking
reduced funds for the system for FY2009. (See below.)
ȱ¢ȱ
Legislation has been introduced (H.R. 2016, S. 1139, S. 2180, and S. 3213) to establish the NLCS
legislatively without intending to alter the way the areas are currently managed. The measures
seek to “conserve, protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes” that have outstanding
values for the benefit of current and future generations. S. 2180 has been indefinitely postponed
by the Senate, while the other three bills are on the Senate calendar.17
At hearings on the bills, the Administration (and other witnesses) testified in favor of establishing
the system legislatively. For instance, at a hearing on S. 1139, the Acting Director of the BLM
testified that DOI supported the bill as a way to provide legislative support and direction to the
BLM and to formalize and strengthen its conservation system within the context of the agency’s
multiple-use mission.18 Other witnesses expressed opposition to the legislation, for instance, on
the assertion that it could have the effect of establishing new, standardized requirements for
disparate areas in the system.19
On April 9, 2008, the House passed H.R. 2016 with several amendments. Some of the
amendments sought to clarify the effect of establishing the system on the management of its units.
For instance, the House agreed to amendments specifying that the bill would not affect existing
grazing rights or operations; additionally hinder or restrict energy development; or limit access
for hunting, fishing, trapping, or recreational shooting or infringe on the rights of states to manage
these activities. The House narrowly rejected a motion to recommit the bill with instructions to
report back promptly with an amendment stating that the bill shall not affect the right to bear
arms within the NLCS. The amendment was supported as essential to protect the right to bear
arms under the Second Amendment to the Constitution, but opposed on the grounds that the
legislation already affirmed the rights of gun owners and hunters. On April 10, 2008, H.R. 2016
was placed on the Senate calendar.
On June 28, 2007, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported S. 1139 with
an amendment seeking to clarify the description of the components of the system, but without
making substantive changes to the bill as introduced (S.Rept. 110-116, p. 3). The bill was placed
on the Senate calendar on the same date. Similar provisions to establish the NLCS were included
in broader natural resources legislation: S. 2180, which was indefinitely postponed by the Senate
on June 11, 2008, and S. 3213, which was placed on the Senate calendar on June 27, 2008.
P.L. 110-229 (S. 2739) established two Outstanding Natural Areas and provided for their
management as part of the NLCS. Specifically, the law established the Piedras Blancas Historic
Light Station Outstanding Natural Area (CA) and the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding
17
In addition, provisions of S.Amdt. 5662 would establish the NLCS legislatively, and make federal land designations
and add them to the NLCS. The amendment was submitted to H.R. 5151on September 26, 2008. H.R. 5151 has not
been considered by the Senate; it is on the Senate calendar.
18
U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Hearing to Receive
Testimony on Current Legislation (May 3, 2007).
19
Mr. Orie Williams, “Testimony,” Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2016, U.S. House Natural Resources Subcommittee
on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands (June 7, 2007).
ȱȱȱ
ŝȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Natural Area (FL). Other House and Senate bills also would make federal land designations (e.g.,
wilderness and national monument) and add the BLM areas to the NLCS.
Questions about the adequacy of funds for the NLCS have been recurring. Some questions have
centered on whether recent funding for management and law enforcement have been sufficient to
address vandalism and other damage to cultural resources in the system. These questions are
likely to continue in light of a proposed reduction in funding for the NLCS in FY2009.
Specifically, the Administration requested $49.9 million for the NLCS in FY2009, a $4.4 million
decrease from the FY2008 enacted level of $54.2 million. Funding for the NLCS has not been
determined for FY2009; Interior agencies are operating under a continuing appropriations
resolution through March 6, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329).
ȱǻ¢ȱȱǯȱ Ǽȱ
ȱ
The 1964 Wilderness Act established the National Wilderness Preservation System and directed
that only Congress can designate federal lands as part of the national system. Designations often
are controversial because commercial activities, motorized access, and roads, structures, and
facilities generally are restricted in wilderness areas.20 Similarly, agency wilderness studies often
are controversial, because many uses also are restricted in the study areas to preserve wilderness
characteristics while Congress considers possible designations.
Some observers believe that the Clinton rule protecting national forest roadless areas (see below)
was prompted by a belief that Congress had lagged in designating areas as wilderness.21 Others
assert that the Bush Administration—in promulgating new guidance to preclude additional,
formal BLM wilderness study areas and in eliminating the nationwide national forest roadless
area protections of the Clinton Administration—is attempting to open areas with wilderness
attributes to roads, energy and mineral exploration, and development, thereby making them
ineligible to be added to the wilderness system.
One significant issue is when (and whether) the agencies must review the wilderness potential of
their lands. The Wilderness Act directed the review of administratively designated national forest
primitive areas and of National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System lands. Release
language, in statutes designating national forest wilderness areas, and FS planning regulations (36
C.F.R. § 219.7(a)(5)(ii)) provide for periodic review of potential national forest wilderness areas
in the FS planning process. For BLM lands, § 603 of FLPMA required the agency to review
potential wilderness, to present recommendations to the President, and to not impair the
wilderness character of wilderness study areas (WSAs) “until Congress has determined
otherwise.”
In 1996, then-DOI Secretary Bruce Babbitt used the general BLM authority to inventory lands
and resources (FLPMA § 201; 43 U.S.C. § 1711) to identify an additional 2.6 million acres in
20
See CRS Report RL33827, Wilderness Laws: Permitted and Prohibited Uses, by (name redacted).
The federal District Court for Wyoming found that the Clinton roadless rule violated the Wilderness Act’s mandate
that only Congress had the authority to designate wilderness areas. Wyoming v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 570 F.Supp.
2d 1309 (D. Wyo. 2008).
21
ȱȱȱ
Şȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Utah as having wilderness qualities. The State of Utah challenged the inventory as violating the
review required by § 603, and in September 2003, the DOI settled the case and issued new
wilderness guidance (IM Nos. 2003-274 and 2003-275) prohibiting further reviews and limiting
the nonimpairment standard to previously designated § 603 WSAs.22
ȱ¢ȱ
As of October 2008, 46 bills23 to designate new wilderness areas or expand existing ones in 16
states have been introduced in the 110th Congress. (See Error! Reference source not found.) One,
the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (S. 2739), has been enacted into law (P.L. 110229). Six other bills have passed the House, with four of those reported by the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee. The Senate committee has reported 12 other bills. In addition,
many hearings have been held on numerous bills. Some bills that include provisions to release
specific BLM WSAs have been introduced. Bills to prohibit broad future BLM wilderness
reviews and to release all WSAs after a specified period had been introduced in the 106th-108th
Congresses, but to date have not been introduced in the 110th Congress.
One bill, H.R. 6917, has been introduced to amend the Wilderness Act. It would add a provision
granting the right for qualified recreation organizations to cross existing wilderness areas on
established trails without restriction, but limit them to 10 such crossings annually. Qualified
organizations must have 10 years of “demonstrated compliance and consistency” with one of
three specified purposes: “(i) to promote the development and preservation of trails throughout
Federal lands; (ii) to promote and encourage education of the public about the fragile nature of
mountain and forest ecology and the necessity for its protection and preservation; or (iii) to gather
and disseminate information regarding the use and enjoyment of wilderness areas and other
Federal land ...”
Table 1. 110th Congress Bills to Designate Wilderness Areas
Bill Title
Acreage
State
Bill No.
Most Recent
Action
Alaska Rainforest
Convservation Act
Alpine Lakes
Wilderness
Additions and Wild
Pratt River Act of
2007
3,233,800
AKa
H.R. 3757
Introduced 10/4/07
22,100
WA
H.R. 4113
Introduced 11/8/07
America’s Red
Rock Wilderness
Act of 2007
9,425,840
9,208,840
UT
H.R. 1919
S. 1170
H.R. 1919
introduced 4/18/07
S. 1170 introduced
4/19/07
Beaver Basin
Wilderness Act
11,740
MI
S. 3017
Reported 9/16/08
22
See CRS Report RS21917, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wilderness Review Issues, by (name redacted) and
(name redacted).
23
This figure excludes omnibus bills that contain the text of other free-standing wilderness bills.
ȱȱȱ
şȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Bill Title
Acreage
State
Bill No.
Most Recent
Action
Browns Canyon
Wilderness Act
20,025
CO
S. 3066
Introduced 5/22/08
153,339b
CA
H.R. 3682
S. 2109
H.R. 3682 reported
by S. ENR 9/16/08
S. 2109 hearing
4/15/08
2,088,766
CA
H.R. 860
S. 493
Both introduced
2/6/07
23,000
OR
S. 2379
Reported 6/16/08
318,765
ID
H.R. 222
Introduced 1/4/07
8,448
GA
H.R. 707
Introduced 1/29/07
1,637,846c
CO
H.R. 3756
Introduced 10/4/07
106,000
WA
S. 2739
13,700
OR
H.R. 3513
S. 2034
CO
H.R. 6162
S. 3065
H.R. 6162
introduced 5/22/08
S. 3065 reported
9/16/08
H.R. 6156 hearing
9/11/08
S. 3069 reported
9/16/08
Introduced 9/26/08
California Desert
and Mountain
Heritage Act
California Wild
Heritage Act of
2007
Cascade-Siskiyou
National
Monument
Voluntary and
Equitable Grazing
Conflict Resolution
Act
Central Idaho
Economic
Development and
Recreation Act
Chattahoochee
National Forest
Act of 2007
Colorado
Wilderness Act of
2007
Consolidated
Natural Resources
Act of 2008d
Copper Salmon
Wilderness Act
DominguezEscalante National
Conservation Area
and Dominguez
Canyon
Wilderness Area
Act
66,280
Eastern Sierra and
Northern San
Gabriel Wild
Heritage Act
473,806
CA
H.R. 6156
S. 3069
Gold Butte
National
Conservation Area
and Wilderness
Designation Act
220,336
NV
H.R. 7132
ȱȱȱ
Signed into law on
5/8/08 as P.L. 110229
H.R. 3513 passed
House 4/22/08
S. 2034 reported
4/10/08
ŗŖȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Bill Title
Izembek and
Alaska Peninsula
Refuge and
Wilderness
Enhancement Act
of 2007 (S. 1680);
... and King Cove
Safe Access Act
(H.R. 2801)
Lewis and Clark
Mount Hood
Wilderness Act of
2007 (S. 647); ... of
2008 (H.R. 6290)
Northern Rockies
Ecosystem
Protection Act
Omnibus Public
Land Management
Act of 2008f
Oregon Badlands
Wilderness Act of
2008
Owyhee Initiative
Implementation
Act of 2007
Owyhee Public
Land Management
Act of 2008
Protecting
America’s Wild
Places Act of 2008g
Rocky Mountain
National Park
Wilderness and
Indian Peaks
Wilderness
Expansion Act
Sabinoso
Wilderness Act of
2007
State
Bill No.
Most Recent
Action
AK
H.R. 2801
S. 1680
H.R. 2801 ordered
reported 4/23/08
S. 1680 reported
9/16/08
128,660e
OR
H.R. 6290
S. 647
H.R. 6290 hearing
9/11/08
S. 647 reported
9/17/07
24,322,915
ID, MT, OR, WA,
WY
H.R. 1975
Hearing 10/18/07
985,375
CO, ID, OR, VA,
WV
S. 3213
Senate calendar
6/27/08
29,837
OR
S. 3088
Reported 9/16/08
517,196
ID
S. 802
Introduced 3/7/07
517,128
ID
S. 2833
Reported 6/16/08
482,835
AZ, CA, NM, OR,
WV
H.R. 5610
Introduced 3/13/08
253,534
CO
H.R. 2334
S. 1380
H.R. 2334 hearing
11/13/07
S. 1380 reported
6/16/08
19,880
NM
H.R. 2632
Reported 9/16/08
H.R. 3022 reported
by S. ENR 9/16/08
S. 1774 hearing
6/17/08
Reported 9/16/08
Acreage
45,493
Sequoia-Kings
Canyon National
Park Wilderness
Act of 2007
114,686
CA
H.R. 3022
S. 1774
Spring Basin
Wilderness Act of
2008
8,661
OR
S. 3089
ȱȱȱ
ŗŗȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Bill Title
Tumacacori
Highlands
Wilderness Act of
2007
Udall-Eisenhower
Arctic Wilderness
Act (H.R. 39); no
short title to S.
2316
Virginia Ridge and
Valley Act of 2007
Acreage
State
Bill No.
Most Recent
Action
83,300
AZ
H.R. 3287
Hearing 11/13/07
AKh
H.R. 39
S. 2316
H.R. 39 introduced
1/4/07
S. 2316 introduced
11/7/07
VA
H.R. 1011
S. 570
H.R. 1011 S. ENR
hearing 4/15/08
S. 570 reported
6/16/08
1,559,538
39,161i
Washington
County Growth
264,394
UT
S. 2834
Hearing 4/22/08
and Conservation
Act of 2008
Wild Monongahela
H.R. 5151 reported
Act: A National
H.R. 5151
by S. ENR 6/16/08
Legacy for West
47,128
WV
S. 2581
S. 2581 hearing
Virginia’s Special
4/15/08
Places
Wild Sky
Included in S. 2739,
H.R. 886
Wilderness Act of
106,000
WA
enacted as P.L. 110S. 520
2007
229 on 5/8/08
Note: Information in this table generally reflects legislation as introduced, except that the most recent legislative
action is included.
a. Affects the Tongass National Forest.
b. Also designates 41,100 acres of “potential wilderness,” to be added when current non-conforming uses
have ceased and sufficient inholdings have been acquired to make a manageable unit.
c. Also designates 36,522 acres of “potential wilderness,” to be added when current non-conforming uses
have ceased.
d. Essentially includes Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2007 (S. 520) and many other non-wilderness provisions.
e. Also designates 2,770 acres of “potential wilderness,” to be added when conditions are compatible or land
is acquired through a land exchange.
f. Essentially includes several previously-introduced wilderness bills (plus other provisions): Cascade-Siskiyou
National Monument Voluntary and Equitable Grazing Conflict Resolution Act (S. 2379), Copper Salmon
Wilderness Act (S. 2034), Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007 (S. 647), Owyhee Public
Land Management Act of 2008 (S. 2833), Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks
Wilderness Expansion Act (S. 1380), Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007 (S. 570), and Wild Monongahela
Act: A National Legacy for West Virginia’s Wild Places (S. 2581).
g. Essentially includes several previously-introduced wilderness bills: California Desert and Mountain Heritage
Act (H.R. 3682), Copper Salmon Wilderness Act (H.R. 3513), Sabinoso Wilderness Act of 2007 (H.R.
2632), Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park Wilderness Act of 2007 (H.R. 3022), Tumacacori Highlands
Wilderness Act of 2007 (H.R. 3287), and Wild Monongahela Act: A National Legacy for West Virginia’s
Special Places (H.R. 5151).
h. Affects the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
ȱȱȱ
ŗŘȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
i.
Also designates 349 acres of “potential wilderness,” to be added when current incompatible conditions are
removed or in five years, whichever is first.
ȱ ȱȱȱǻ¢ȱȱ ¢ȱǼȱ
ȱ
The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1331, et seq.) seeks to
protect wild horses and burros on federal land and places them under the jurisdiction of the BLM
and FS. For years, management of wild horses and burros has generated controversy and lawsuits.
Controversies include the method of determining the appropriate management levels (AMLs) for
herd sizes, as the statute requires; whether and how to remove animals from the range to achieve
AMLs; methods—other than adoption—for reducing animals on the range, particularly fertility
control and holding animals in long-term facilities; whether appropriations for managing wild
horses and burros are adequate; and the slaughter, or potential for slaughter, of horses.24
Adoption has been the primary method of disposal of healthy animals, with 221,714 adopted from
FY1972 to FY2007. The 108th Congress enacted controversial changes to wild horse and burro
management on federal lands (P.L. 108-447, § 142) to provide for the sale of wild horses and
burros. Specifically, the first change directed the agencies to sell, “without limitation,” excess
animals (or their remains) that essentially are deemed too old (more than 10 years old) or
otherwise unable to be adopted (offered unsuccessfully at least three times). Proceeds are to be
used for the adoption program. A second change removed the ban on the sale of wild horses and
burros or their remains for processing into commercial products. A third change removed criminal
penalties for processing into commercial products the remains of a wild horse or burro, if sold
under the new authority. These changes have been supported as providing a cost-effective way to
help the agencies achieve AMLs, to improve the health of the animals, to protect range resources,
and to restore a natural ecological balance on federal lands. They have been opposed as
potentially leading to the slaughter of healthy animals. As of October 14, 2008, the BLM had sold
nearly 2,900 animals.
As of February 29, 2008, there were an estimated 33,000 wild horses and burros on BLM lands.
National maximum AMLs are set at 27,512, which some critics assert is set low in favor of
livestock. There were another 3,180 wild horses and burros on FS lands as of September 30, 2006
(most recent year available). Further, 29,772 wild horses and burros were being held in
facilities—preparation, maintenance, and long-term facilities—as of April 1, 2007, and the BLM
continues to be responsible for these animals.
ȱȱ
The BLM has been pursuing a multi-year effort to achieve AMLs and in FY2007 had been closer
to AMLs than at any time since the early 1970s. To achieve AMLs, the BLM has continued to
remove wild horses and burros from the range, and dispose of them through adoption and sale as
well as through placement in long-term holding facilities. However, the BLM estimates removal
of 5,200 animals in FY2008 and 3,300 in FY2009, sizeable reductions from the number removed
in each of the past several years. These reductions will contribute to higher populations on the
24
Fore more information, see CRS Report RL34690, Wild Horse and Burro Issues, by (name redacted).
ȱȱȱ
ŗřȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
range. For instance, the BLM projects a total of 33,444 wild horse and burros on the range in
FY2009. Although adoptions have been declining over the past several years, they have continued
to outpace sales of animals. The BLM has determined that there is very little demand for the
estimated 8,000 older animals available through the sales program.
In addition, the BLM is reportedly considering whether to euthanize healthy wild horses and
burros, under current authorities, to bolster efforts to reach AML. The possibility of euthanizing
wild horses and burros has been controversial. Authority to destroy excess animals is provided for
under the 1971 law. Specifically, the Secretary of the Interior, for BLM lands, and the Secretary
of Agriculture, for FS lands, are to remove animals exceeding the range’s carrying capacity to
restore a natural ecological balance and protect the range from deterioration associated with an
overpopulation of wild horses and burros. First, they are to destroy old, sick, or lame animals by
the most humane means available. Second, they are to remove healthy animals for private
adoption. Third, if adoption demand is insufficient, “the Secretary shall cause additional excess
wild free-roaming horses and burros ... to be destroyed in the most humane and cost efficient
manner possible.”25 The agencies have not used this authority since January 1982.
For FY2008, the BLM requested $32.1 million for management of wild horses and burros, a 12%
decrease from the FY2006 and FY2007 level of $36.4 million. The agency expected that the
funding reduction would be achieved by reducing efforts to gather and remove animals from the
range, at the time anticipating the removal of 830 animals in FY2008. Congress did not support
the requested decrease, instead appropriating $36.2 million for FY2008. For FY2009, the
Administration requested $37.0 million. Funding for wild horse and burro management has not
been determined for FY2009; BLM is operating under a continuing appropriations resolution
through March 6, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329).
The level of funding that would be sufficient to care for wild horses and burros, achieve AML,
and reduce long-term budgetary needs has been a matter of debate. A particular concern has been
the cost of holding animals in facilities, in part in light of declining rates of adoption over the past
several years. BLM estimates that the cost of holding animals in all facilities in FY2008 will be
nearly three-quarters of its appropriation for wild horse and burro management. The BLM
currently needs additional space in long-term holding facilities and has been soliciting bids for
new facilities. Most recently, in June 2008, the agency solicited bids for contracts for one or more
new pasture facilities. Each facility must be able to provide care for between 500 and 2,500
animals.
ȱ¢ȱ
On April 26, 2007, the House passed H.R. 249 to overturn the changes enacted in the 108th
Congress. Specifically, the bill would repeal the authority to sell wild horses and burros, reimpose
a ban on the sale of wild horses and burros and their remains for processing into commercial
products, and reinstate criminal penalties for processing the remains into commercial products.26
As with the 108th Congress legislation, the debate centered on whether the sale authority would
result in the slaughter of healthy animals or whether it is needed as a tool to manage the number
of wild horses and burros on the range. There has been no further action on H.R. 249.
25
16 U.S.C. §1333(b). Other provisions provide for the sale of excess animals.
For information on horse slaughter legislation generally, see CRS Report RS21842, Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills
and Issues, by (name redacted).
26
ȱȱȱ
ŗŚȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
In October 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on BLM
management of wild horses and burros.27 GAO examined a number of issues including BLM’s
progress towards setting and meeting AML; use of adoptions, sales, and holding facilities for
managing wild horses and burros off the range; controls to ensure humane treatment of animals;
and challenges in program management. Among other findings, GAO determined that if the costs
of holding animals in facilities are not controlled, they will overwhelm the program. GAO also
concluded that BLM’s options for dealing with unadoptable animals are limited, and that because
BLM is not destroying animals or selling them without limitation, it is not in compliance with
1971 law. Among its recommendations for executive action, GAO recommended that the
Secretary of the Interior direct BLM to discuss with Congress and other interests how best to
comply with the 1971 law or to amend it so that BLM would be able to comply.
ȱȱǻ¢ȱȱǯȱ Ǽȱ
ȱ
Recent fire seasons seem to have been getting more severe, with more acres burned and
presumably more damage to property and resources than in previous years. Despite early
concerns about, and evacuations from, wildfires in California, the 2008 fire season has been
relatively mild—40% fewer acres burned through October 15 than on average in the previous five
years. In contrast, in 2005, 2006, and 2007, more area burned than in any other years since
record-keeping began in 1960. Many assert that the threat of severe wildfires and the cost of
suppressing fires have grown, because many forests have unnaturally high fuel loads (e.g., dense
undergrowth and dead trees) and increasing numbers of structures are in and near the forests (the
wildland-urban interface28).
ȱȱ
In August 2002, President Bush proposed the Healthy Forests Initiative to improve wildfire
protection by expediting projects to reduce hazardous fuels on federal lands. The Healthy Forests
Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA; 16 U.S.C. §§ 6501 et al.) included many of these proposals as
well as other provisions. Title I authorized a new, alternative process for reducing fuels on FS or
BLM lands in many areas; five other titles indirectly relate to fire protection.29
In addition, the Administration made several regulatory changes reportedly to facilitate fire
protection activities. First, additional categories of actions—including fuel reduction and post-fire
rehabilitation activities30—could be excluded from analysis and documentation under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347). (See “FS NEPA
Application and Categorical Exclusions (by (name redacted) and (name redacted))” below.)
27
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Bureau of Land Management: Effective Long-Term Options Needed to
Manage Unadoptable Wild Horses, GAO-09-77, (Washington, DC: GPO, October 2008). Available on the GAO
website at http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/locate?searched=1&o=0&order_by=rel&old_keyword=GAO-08196&ft=&search_type=publications&add_topic=&remove_topic=&add_type=&remove_type=&add_fed_type=&remo
ve_fed_type=&add_fed_desc=&remove_fed_desc=&add_year=&remove_type=&keyword=GAO-09-77.
28
CRS Report RS21880, Wildfire Protection in the Wildland-Urban Interface, by (name redacted).
29
See CRS Report RS22024, Wildfire Protection in the 108th Congress, by (name redacted).
30
68 Fed. Reg. 33814 (June 5, 2003).
ȱȱȱ
ŗśȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Second, the administrative review processes were revised to clarify that some emergency actions
may be implemented immediately, and others may be implemented after complying with public
notice requirements. Other changes to the administrative review process expanded “emergencies”
to include those “that would result in substantial loss of economic value to the Government if
implementation of the proposed action were delayed.”31
Other regulatory changes, such as new NEPA categorical exclusions for small timber harvesting
projects and new regulations for FS planning, could affect fuel reduction, public involvement, and
environmental impacts. The total impact of the regulatory changes seems likely to be greater
discretion for FS action.
ȱ¢ȱ
The 110th Congress has held hearings on aspects of wildfire protection, particularly on wildfire
preparedness, cost containment, and the effects of global climate change on wildfires. Several
bills on forest health restoration to reduce wildfire threats have been introduced. Companion bills
(H.R. 5263 and S. 2593), titled the Forest Landscape Restoration Act, would provide a
collaborative (diverse, multi-party) process for geographically dispersed, long-term (10-year),
large-scale (at least 50,000-acre) strategies to restore forests, reduce wildfire threats, and utilize
the available biomass. The authorization for the fund is $40 million annually for ten years, and
the bills require multi-party monitoring of and reporting on activities. This language also has been
included in Title IV of S. 3213, the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2008. The Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported S. 2593 on June 16, 2008; the House
Committee on Natural Resources held hearings on H.R. 5263 on July 10, 2008. Another bill,
Saving American Lives and Investing in Protecting Land and Nature (H.R. 4245), would
categorically exclude fuel reduction projects from NEPA analysis if they are consistent with forest
plans and “extraordinary circumstances” regulations, covered in a community wildfire protection
plan, and within 1½ miles of nonfederal land in the wildland-urban interface and conditions pose
a threat to those lands. Other bills are geographically limited, and commonly respond to insect
epidemics that threaten to exacerbate wildfire threats. Additional pending legislation would
expand or support programs to utilize biomass fuels for electricity, heat, or transportation fuel
production.
The 110th Congress also is considering wildfire funding issues.32 For FY2008, the National Fire
Plan was funded at $4.46 billion, including $1.71 billion in three emergency supplemental
appropriations. For FY2009, the Administration requested $2.83 billion, $1.63 billion (37%) less
than the FY2008 funding. The request included a 17% increase for FS and BLM fire suppression,
a 12% decrease for FS fire preparedness, a 9% decrease in other FS wildfire operations, and no
emergency funds. Funding for wildland fire management has not yet been determined for
FY2009. The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329), generally
extended funding through March 6, 2009, at the amounts provided in the FY2008 regular
appropriations act ($2.75 billion).
Because wildfire funding now constitutes nearly half the FS budget and the FS and BLM may use
other unobligated funds after wildfire appropriations are exhausted, some are concerned that
wildfire control efforts are delaying or preventing other agency activities, including land
31
32
FS at 68 Fed. Reg. 33582 (June 4, 2003); BLM at 68 Fed. Reg. 33794 (June 5, 2003).
See CRS Report RL33990, Wildfire Funding, by (name redacted).
ȱȱȱ
ŗŜȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
management and cooperative assistance. Two bills have been introduced in the House and two in
the Senate to establish a separate fund for major wildfire suppression efforts. The Federal Land
Assistance, Management and Enhancement (FLAME) Act (H.R. 5541/S. 3256) establishes a
separate fund for severe wildfires of at least 300 acres that threaten lives, property, or critical
resources. H.R. 5541 was passed by the House on July 9, 2008. The bills express the intent that
the annual appropriations to the fund are at the five-year average of emergency fire suppression
expenditures, with transfers from the Treasury and any unused fire suppression appropriations.
The Emergency Wildland Fire Response Act of 2008 (H.R. 5648) would amend the Cooperative
Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2111) to establish a fund from
appropriations, emergency appropriations, other transferred funds, and earned interest. The fund
may be used for declared emergency incidents for wildfires where a cooperative agreement exists
and that either are 300 acres with potential for extreme fire behavior or could cause life, property,
or other losses. The bill also provides assistance to “fire-ready communities” and authorizes
“good neighbor partnerships” for states to implement HRFA projects on federal lands. The House
Committee on Natural Resources held hearings on the bill (as well as on H.R. 5541) on April 10,
2008. In the Senate, the Stable Fire Funding Act (S. 1770) would establish separate funds for the
BLM and FS to pay 80% of suppression costs that exceed annual appropriations, authorized at
$200 million for the BLM and $600 million for the FS for FY2008.
ȱȱȱȱȱ¡ȱǻ¢ȱȱǯȱ ȱ
ȱ ȱ¡Ǽȱ
ȱ
The FS historically has identified certain activities as not having significant environmental
impacts, and has exempted them from analysis and associated public participation under NEPA,
except in extraordinary circumstances. Proponents see such categorical exclusions (CEs) as a
way to expedite actions and reduce agency costs. Opponents charge that some of the excluded
actions could have significant impacts, especially if extraordinary circumstances are present, and
should be examined and subject to public involvement.
ȱȱ
In 2008, the FS shifted many of its NEPA policies from the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) to
the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.).33 As part of the rulemaking to make the switch, some
regulations were modified. For example, the NEPA process would incorporate “incremental
alternative development,” to allow FS decision-making to change while developing alternatives
without issuing versions for notice and comment.34 The rule also allows the FS to consider only
one alternative when preparing an environmental assessment (EA), if there are no unresolved
conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.35 Further, the rule limits
33
73 Fed. Reg. 43084 (July 24, 2008).
36 C.F.R. § 220.5(e).
35
36 C.F.R. § 220.7(b)(2).
34
ȱȱȱ
ŗŝȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
consideration of cumulative impacts to only those past actions found to be “relevant and
useful.”36
Since 2003, the FS has expanded the types of activities that can be conducted without
environmental review, increasing the number of types from 18 to 27.37 Some of the nine newer
CEs include biomass fuel reduction projects, “small” timber sales, and forest plans.38
Additionally, the FS has modified its application of extraordinary circumstances.39 Previously, the
rules appeared to preclude automatic use of a CE in the presence of extraordinary circumstances
(e.g., roadless areas or endangered species habitat). The new rule gives the responsible official
discretion to determine whether extraordinary circumstances warrant NEPA analysis and public
involvement in otherwise exempt projects. Finally, the FS issued new regulations, in 36 C.F.R.
Part 215, changing its notice, comment, and appeals procedures for land management planning,
particularly including a change that a decision to use a CE could not be administratively
appealed.40
ȱ¢ȱ
Little legislation has been introduced addressing CEs, and none addressing CEs generally. Two
bills (H.R. 2057 and H.R. 2337) would repeal the authority to use CEs for certain energy leases,
enacted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). Another bill (H.R. 4245) would authorize
use of CEs for certain wildfire protection projects.
ȱȱ
The new CE appeals regulation (at 36 C.F.R. Part 215) was challenged. In 2005, a California
federal court ruled that the regulation violated the Forest Service Decision Making and Appeals
Reform Act (ARA; P.L. 102-381, § 322; 16 U.S.C. § 1612, note) by excluding decisions from the
public comment and appeals process and for other reasons.41 On appeal, the Ninth Circuit
reversed the lower court, holding that the challenges to the regulations in Part 215 were
premature, except for § 215.12(f).42 That section—which provided that CE projects could not be
appealed—had been applied by the FS, and therefore was ripe for review. The court held that the
rule violated the ARA. The action was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard
arguments on the issue in early October 2008.
Five of the new CE types, including those for fire management activities and limited timber
harvesting, were challenged in the U.S. District Court for Alabama.43 In January 2007, the court
36
36 C.F.R. § 220.4(f).
Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, ch. 30, §§ 30.12, 31.2. Under the rule, the CEs are found at 36 C.F.R. §
220.6.
38
68 Fed. Reg. 33814 (June 5, 2003); 68 Fed. Reg. 44598 (July 29, 2003); and 70 Fed. Reg. 1023 (Jan. 5, 2005)
respectively.
39
67 Fed. Reg. 54622 (Aug. 23, 2002).
40
68 Fed. Reg. 33581 (June 4, 2003); 36 CFR part 215.
41
Earth Island Institute v. Pengilly, 376 F. Supp. 2d 994 (E.D. Cal. 2005).
42
Earth Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck, 459 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2007).
43
The challenged regulations are found at FSH 1909.15, ch. 30, §§ 31.2(10) through (14).
37
ȱȱȱ
ŗŞȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
upheld the regulations, finding that the FS complied with NEPA in adopting the CEs.44 The court
also considered the regulations under Part 215. It did not expressly consider § 215.12(f), which
had been invalidated in August 2006 by the Ninth Circuit, although it refers to the Ninth Circuit
decision. The Alabama court held that the issuance of the Part 215 rule followed NEPA. It refused
to consider ARA challenges to the Appeal Rule, finding they were not ripe for review because the
rule had not been applied yet.
Despite the Alabama District Court’s holding, the hazardous fuels reduction CE is not in effect. In
December 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the CE violated NEPA.45 The court
found that the FS had failed to consider the environmental consequences of such a broad
program. Thus, after all the relevant court decisions, the new appeals regulations in Part 215
remain in place, except for § 215.12(f)—that is, invoking a CE is not exempt from administrative
appeal—and the FS cannot use the hazardous fuels reduction CE.
ȱ ȱ
Other federal lands topics are of interest to the 110th Congress. They include national forest
roadless areas, national forest planning, national forest county payments, BLM land sales, and
grazing management.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ
(by (name redacted) and (name redacted)) 46 Potential wilderness areas in the National Forest
System were examined in the 1970s and early 1980s; 60 million acres of roadless areas were
inventoried in the process. Some believe that the remaining roadless areas (that have not been
designated as wilderness by Congress) should be protected from development, while others
contend that the areas should be available for development-type uses.
The principal Clinton Administration rule affecting roadless areas, issued in 2001, resulted in a
nationwide approach that curtailed most road building and timber cutting in roadless areas.47 The
Bush Administration issued a final rule in 2005 to replace the Clinton rule, allowing governors 18
months to petition the FS for a special rule for roadless areas in all or part of their state.48 Until
such a new regulation was finalized or until each forest plan was amended or revised, the FS was
to manage roadless areas in accordance with interim directives that place most decisions with the
regional forester or the Chief. Even though the Bush rule was enjoined and the 18-month period
has expired, the Administration has stated that under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
§§ 701, et seq.) states can still petition for a special rule. A final rule for Idaho was published on
October 16, 2008.49
44
Wildlaw v. U.S. Forest Service, 471 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1242-43 (M.D. Ala. 2007).
Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 510 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2007).
46
For more detailed information, see CRS Report RL30647, National Forest System Roadless Area Initiatives, by
(name redacted) and (name redacted).
47
66 Fed. Reg. 3244 (Jan. 12, 2001).
48
70 Fed. Reg. 25654 (May 13, 2005).
49
73 Fed. Reg. 61456-61496 (Oct. 16, 2008).
45
ȱȱȱ
ŗşȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Numerous lawsuits have tracked the roadless rules’ course. In April 2001, the Clinton roadless
rule was enjoined by the U.S. District Court for Idaho,50 but that decision was overturned by the
Ninth Circuit.51 In July 2003, the U.S. District Court for Wyoming stopped application of the
Clinton roadless rule—the second injunction, after the first was overturned.52 In September 2006,
the U.S. District Court for Northern California found that the Bush roadless rule violated NEPA
and the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1540). The court set aside the Bush
roadless rule and reinstated the Clinton rule.53 The FS filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit,
challenging the September 2006 decision. After a new suit was filed, the U.S. District Court for
Wyoming found the Clinton roadless rule had violated NEPA and the Wilderness Act, and
enjoined it.54 The Wyoming court said it had the authority to do this despite the California court’s
order because it (the Wyoming court) was the only court to consider the legality of the Clinton
roadless rule, and so there was no conflict between the court decisions. Because of these
conflicting court rulings, it is not clear what rules currently govern roadless area management and
protection.
Two bills have been introduced in the 110th Congress addressing roadless area management. H.R.
2516 would direct implementation of the Clinton roadless rule. S. 1478 would have a similar
effect, but would largely enact the provisions of the Clinton rule rather than directing that the rule
be implemented. Both bills were introduced on May 24, 2007; no further action has been taken.
Two additional bills, H.R. 1975 (the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act) and H.R. 7090
(the Act to Save America’s Forests), would require identification and protection of roadless areas
as part of broader legislation. Hearings were held on H.R. 1975 on October 18, 2007; H.R. 7090
was introduced on September 25, 2008.
ȱȱȱ
(by (name redacted) and (name redacted)) The FS is required to prepare comprehensive,
integrated land and resource management plans for the national forests.55 The plans are to be
developed and revised with public involvement (16 U.S.C. § 1604(d)), must provide for the
multiple use and sustained yield of goods and services (§ 1604(e)), and must be prepared in
accordance with NEPA (§ 1604(g)(1)). Regulations to implement forest planning were adopted in
1979 and substantially revised in 1982.56
The Clinton Administration finalized new rules (to be phased in over three years) that emphasized
planning for the biological sustainability of the national forests.57 The Bush Administration
delayed the effective date of the Clinton rules three times, then replaced them before they went
into effect.
50
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Idaho 2001).
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2002).
52
Wyoming v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 277 F. Supp. 2d 197 (D. Wyo. 2003).
53
California v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 459 F. Supp. 2d 874 (N.D. Cal. 2006).
54
Wyoming v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 570 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (D. Wyo. 2008).
55
The requirement is in the Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended (16 U.S.C.
§§ 1600-1614). Substantial detail on the considerations and analysis to be included in the plans was added in the
National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA). Hence, forest planning is also often called NFMA planning.
56
47 Fed. Reg. 43037 (Sept. 30, 1982).
57
65 Fed. Reg. 67514 (Nov. 9, 2000).
51
ȱȱȱ
ŘŖȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
The Bush Administration promulgated final rules in 2005 to balance biological and
socioeconomic sustainability, to make fewer decisions at the national level by reducing regulatory
guidelines, and to alter public input in the planning process. The rules also would have exempted
plans from NEPA and ESA, because the Administration views plans as guides to decision-making
that would not include site-specific decisions.58 The Bush planning rules were challenged, with
plaintiffs asserting that the rules reduced environmental protection without adequate opportunities
for public comment and consideration of the effects on endangered species. On March 30, 2007,
the U.S. District Court for Northern California remanded the Bush rules to the agency because the
rules violated NEPA, ESA, and APA.59 The Administration appealed the decision, but later
withdrew the appeal. The FS reissued the 2005 rule as a proposed rule to meet the court’s
requirement to provide notice.60 To comply with the court’s other mandates, the FS issued a draft
environmental impact statement (DEIS) and consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service under
the ESA. The final planning rules were issued in April 2008.61 Two lawsuits have been filed
challenging the rules, again alleging that the rules reduced environmental protection without
adequate opportunities for public comment and consideration of the effects on endangered
species.
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
(by (name redacted)) The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000
(SRS; 16 U.S.C. § 500, note)62 provided an alternative to two major programs that compensate
counties for the tax-exempt status of certain federal lands.63 Payments under SRS expired at the
end of FY2006, but the FY2007 emergency supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 110-28)64
extended the payments for one year ($525 million). Bills to extend the SRS payments have been
introduced, but legislation that creates new or extends existing mandatory spending (like SRS
payments) generally must be offset by new revenues or other changes in mandatory spending
programs. A four-year extension (FY2008-FY2011), with complex modifications to shift more of
the payments toward counties with large federal landholdings but low historic revenues from
those lands, was enacted in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-343, in
Title VI of Division C). The enacted provision also provides five years (FY2008-FY2012) of
mandatory spending for the Payments-In-Lieu-of Taxes (PILT) program.
58
70 Fed. Reg. 1022 (Jan. 5, 2005).
59
Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
60
72 Fed. Reg. 48513 (Aug. 23, 2007).
61
73 Fed. Reg. 21467 (Apr. 21, 2008).
62
See CRS Report RL33822, The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000: Forest
Service Payments to Counties, by (name redacted).
63
FS and some BLM payments have traditionally been based on revenues—25% of FS gross revenues returned to the
states for use on roads and schools in the counties where the FS lands are located; and 50% of BLM revenues from the
Oregon & California (O&C) grant lands returned to the counties containing the O&C lands. FS and BLM revenues
declined precipitously in the early 1990s due to declining timber sales to protect northern spotted owls, water quality,
and other resources.
64
The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007.
ȱȱȱ
Řŗȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ
(by (name redacted)) The President’s FY2009 budget request included a proposal to extend
and amend BLM’s authority to sell or exchange land under the Federal Land Transaction
Facilitation Act (FLTFA, 43 U.S.C. § 2301). The law currently provides for the sale or exchange
of land identified for disposal under BLM’s land use plans “as in effect” at enactment. That
authority will expire on July 24, 2010. Proceeds from the sale or exchange of public land are to be
deposited into a separate Treasury account. Funds in the account are available to both the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire inholdings and other
nonfederal lands (or interests therein) that are adjacent to federal lands and contain exceptional
resources. The law’s purposes included allowing for the reconfiguration of land ownership
patterns to better facilitate resource management, improving administrative efficiency, and
increasing the effectiveness of the allocation of fiscal and human resources.
The President’s proposal would extend FLTFA until January 1, 2018. It would direct using
updated land management plans for determining which lands to sell or exchange. Further, the
proposal would change the distribution of the proceeds to allow 70% of the net proceeds to be
deposited in the general fund of the Treasury, with “a portion” available to the BLM for
restoration projects. It would cap receipts retained by Interior at $60 million annually. The
Administration had estimated that these changes would generate $193 million in total revenue for
the Treasury from FY2008 through FY2012. The Administration made a similar proposal in its
FY2007 and FY2008 budgets. The changes were promoted to reduce the federal deficit, to ensure
that the public will benefit from land sales, and to reduce the amount of money not subject to
oversight during the appropriations process. Legislation would be needed to effect these changes,
and no such legislation has been introduced in Congress to date.
On February 5, 2008, the Government Accountability Office released a report on land sales and
acquisitions under FLTFA.65 The agency was asked to determine the amount of money raised by
sales/exchanges under the act and the amount spent on subsequent acquisitions. The agency also
was asked to identify challenges to future land sales and acquisitions. The agency concluded that
BLM faces several challenges to conducting land sales, including insufficient realty staff and
little emphasis on selling land identified as available for disposal. GAO also concluded that there
are several challenges to completing land acquisitions. They include the requirement of FLTFA
that most revenues raised through land sales/exchanges be used for acquisitions in the same state,
and the lack of an effective mechanism for determining which lands to acquire.
£ȱȱ
(by (name redacted) and (name redacted)
) The BLM issued new grazing regulations,
66
effective August 11, 2006. The U.S. District Court for Idaho enjoined all the 2006 regulations
from taking effect.67 The court found that the BLM had violated three laws in promulgating the
65
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Land Management: Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act
Restrictions and Management Weaknesses Limit Future Sales and Acquisitions, GAO-08-196, (Washington, DC: GPO,
February 5, 2008). Available on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/
locate?searched=1&o=0&order_by=
rel&search_type=publications&keyword=GAO-08-196&Submit=Search.
66
The new grazing regulations, and related information about the reform effort, are available at http://www.blm.gov/
wo/st/en/prog/grazing.1.html.
67
Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 538 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (D. Idaho 2008).
ȱȱȱ
ŘŘȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
regulations—NEPA, ESA, and FLPMA. In particular, the court criticized the 2006 regulations’
reduction of public input into BLM day-to-day decisions such as allotment boundaries and
temporary permits. It also found that the BLM should have consulted with the Fish and Wildlife
Service regarding the changes, as it had done for the 1995 changes to grazing regulations.
Further, the court criticized the BLM for eliminating comments by DOI scientists from a NEPA
document. Before the regulations could be reinstated, the BLM would have to satisfy the court
that it had examined the environmental impacts under NEPA, performed a § 7 consultation under
ESA, and restored the FLPMA public comments provisions. The court did not require the BLM to
use the 1995 grazing regulations, leaving that decision to the BLM. The BLM currently is
operating under those regulations, which were in effect before the 2006 changes. However, the
provisions on conservation use permits that were enjoined in 1996 are not in effect.68
The BLM had revised its grazing regulations (in 2006) on the grounds that changes were needed
to comply with court decisions, increase flexibility for managers and permittees, improve
administrative procedures and business practices, and promote conservation. While lauded by
some, the reform effort had been criticized by others as unnecessary or harmful. Some of the
regulatory changes would (1) allow title to range improvements to be shared by the BLM and
permittees, (2) allow permittees to acquire water rights for grazing if consistent with state law, (3)
change the definition of grazing preference to include an amount of forage, (4) eliminate
conservation use grazing permits, (5) extend the time to remedy rangeland health problems, and
(6) reduce occasions where the BLM is required to consult with the public. The BLM did not
address some controversial issues, such as revising the grazing fee. The BLM had expected to
return to the consideration of related grazing policy changes once the new regulations were in
effect.
ȱDZȱȱȱ ȱ
CRS Report RL33872, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): New Directions in the 110th
Congress, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
CRS Report RL34273, Federal Land Ownership: Current Acquisition and Disposal Authorities,
by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
CRS Report RL30755, Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL32244, Grazing Regulations: Changes by the Bureau of Land Management, by
(name redacted).
CRS Report RL34461, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations, by
(name redacted) et al.
CRS Report RS21967, Land Exchanges: Bureau of Land Management Process and Issues, by
(name redacted).
68
See the BLM instruction memorandum on the agency’s website, at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/
Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2007/im_2007-137__0.html.
ȱȱȱ
Řřȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
CRS Report RL33014, Leasing and Permitting for Oil and Gas Development on Federal Public
Domain Lands, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
CRS Report RL33908, Mining on Federal Lands: Hardrock Minerals, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL30647, National Forest System Roadless Area Initiatives, by (name redacted)
and (name redacted).
CRS Report RL33806, Natural Resources Policy: Management, Institutions, and Issues, by (name
redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
CRS Report RS22928, Oil Development on Federal Lands and the Outer Continental Shelf, by
(name redacted).
CRS Report RL34772, Proposals to Merge the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management: Issues and Approaches, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL33525, Recreation on Federal Lands, by Kori Calvert et al.
CRS Report RL33822, The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of
2000: Forest Service Payments to Counties, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL34690, Wild Horse and Burro Issues, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL33827, Wilderness Laws: Permitted and Prohibited Uses, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL31447, Wilderness: Overview and Statistics, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL34517, Wildfire Damages to Homes and Resources: Understanding Causes and
Reducing Losses, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL33990, Wildfire Funding, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RS21880, Wildfire Protection in the Wildland-Urban Interface, by (name redacted).
ȱȱ ȱ
(name redacted)
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Analyst in Energy Policy
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Legislative Attorney
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
ȱȱȱ
ŘŚȱ
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
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 permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
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' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.