CRS Report: 95-599 - Major Federal Land Management Agencies: Management of Our Nation's Lands and Resources

Betsy A. Cody,
Coordinator
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division

SUMMARY

Of the nearly 2.3 billion acres of land in the United States, approximately 650 million acres, or 28 percent, are owned by the Federal Government. Four agencies administer 96 percent of this Federal land for conservation, preservation, and/or development of natural resources. These four agencies are the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service in the Department of the Interior. The majority of these lands are in the West, a result of early treaties and land settlement patterns. Early in the history of the United States, the Federal Government owned as much as 80 percent of the total land area, but has disposed of more than 1.1 billion acres to States and to the private sector.

Each of the four primary Federal land management agencies has its own unique mission and special responsibilities for the lands and resources under its jurisdiction. The National Park Service, although the smallest with 78 million acres, is probably the best known to the public for preserving, protecting and interpreting the natural, cultural, and historic lands and resources of the Nation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages 87.5 million acres for the conservation and protection of fish and wildlife, allowing economic developments that are compatible with the purposes for which conservation measures were established. Both the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service support a variety of uses on the lands which they administer, including recreation, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, fish and wildlife habitat, and wilderness. Most of the 266 million acres of BLM lands are rangelands, and more than half of the 191 million acres of Forest Service lands are forested.

This report provides a background of current Federal land and resource ownership, a sense of the historical development of the Nation's land and settlement laws, and a basic understanding of each of the natural resource agency's missions and management. For discussions of natural resources management issues, such as timber harvesting, grazing, mining, fisheries and wildlife management, threatened and endangered species, private property rights, wetlands, and coastal issues, see CRS Report 95-92 ENR, An Introduction to Major Natural Resource Issues in the 104th Congress. Each section of this report is followed by a list of references, which includes various CRS publications on issues related to Federal lands and management systems.

Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division
Betsy A. Cody, Coordinator
M. Lynne Corn
Ross W. Gorte
Marc Humphries
Sandra Johnson
David Whiteman

American Law Division
Pamela Baldwin

Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division
George Siehl

Production
David M. Bearden

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Agency Jurisdiction of Federally Owned Land in the U.S.
Figure 2. Percentage of Federally Owned Land by State
Figure 3. Annual Number of Units in the National Wildlife Refuge System from Fiscal Years 1980 to 1994
Figure 4. Acreage in the National Wildlife Refuge System from Fiscal Years 1980 to 1994

Major Federal Land Management Agencies: Management of Our Nation's Lands and Resources

INTRODUCTION

Federal civil and defense agencies administer approximately 650 million acres of land in the United States, or 28 percent of the total land base of 2.3 billion acres. (1) Four agencies administer about 622 million acres, 96 percent, of these Federal lands (see figure 1 on page 2). These four agencies are the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service in the Department of the Interior.

The lands administered by these four agencies are managed for a variety of uses, primarily relating to the conservation, preservation, and development of various natural resources. Although there are some similarities among the agencies, each agency has a distinct mission and special responsibilities for the lands under its jurisdiction, as described in this report. The majority of these Federal lands are in the West (see figure 2 on page 3 and Appendix A on pages 38 and 39), a result of early treaties and land settlement laws and patterns.

This report provides a general overview on how these lands and resources are managed, which agencies manage the various lands and protection systems, and the authorities under which these lands are managed. A brief historical review and general background on these Federal lands is in the first chapter. Each of the four agencies' organization, management responsibilities, and authorities are discussed in more detail in subsequent chapters. The report concludes with a chapter describing three major protection systems that are administered by more than one agency and hence cut across agency jurisdictions: the National Wilderness Preservation System, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and the National Trails System.

Almost 20 million of the 21 million acres of Federal land not managed by these four agencies is administered by the Department of Defense, making it the fifth largest Federal land manager. Because land management is not the primary mission of the DOD, these lands are not discussed in detail in this report. Nonetheless, these military lands are often noteworthy for their size, which can provide important open space and wildlife habitat attributes, and for the historic and cultural resources which they contain.

Contrary to popular opinion, military training and testing sites often have remained in a more natural condition than lands managed by the Federal resource agencies. Thus, military lands may provide the last remaining habitat for some endangered or threatened species which have been lost from nearby public or private lands. Several laws facilitate conservation practices on military lands: these include the Sikes Act which aids wildlife management and the Legacy Resource Management Program which funds numerous biological, cultural, and historical conservation studies and projects on DOD lands. (2)

BACKGROUND

Four Federal land management agencies administer more than a quarter of the entire land base of the United States. These four agencies are the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service in the Department of the Interior. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has jurisdiction over approximately 264.7 million acres or 41 percent of the Federal total. The Forest Service has jurisdiction over approximately 191.6 million acres or 29 percent of the total Federal acreage. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) administers approximately 91.6 million acres or 13 percent, and the National Park Service (NPS) administers nearly 78 million acres or 12 percent. Appendix B on pages 40 and 41 displays the acreage for each of these four agencies by State. In addition, the Forest Service, FWS, and NPS also manage lands in four U.S. Territories. (3)

The Federal lands have been vitally important in American history, adding to the strength and stature of the Federal Government, serving as an attraction and opportunity for settlement and economic development, and providing a source of revenue for schools, transportation, national defense, and other national, State, and local needs.

The cession of the lands between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River that belonged to the original colonies, together with the granting constitutional powers to new the Federal Government, including authority to regulate Federal property and to create new States, played a crucial role in transforming the weak central government under the Articles of Confederation into its current form. Prototypical land laws enacted by the Continental Congress -- the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 -- established the Federal system of rectangular land surveying for disposal and set up a system for developing territorial governments leading to statehood. Similar statutes were adopted by the new Congress, thereby establishing the basic approach to Federal land management that still exists today.

After cession to the new central government of the "western" lands of the original colonies, many issues and policy conflicts developed that have recurred throughout our history: To what purposes should the Federal lands be devoted? Should they be disposed of to State or private ownership, or retained for national purposes? Is it more suitable to view the lands and resources as belonging primarily to the new States created out of them, or as national lands that should produce national benefits?

Early Federal land laws seesawed between laws creating Federal land programs (such as national forests, national parks, and wildlife refuges) and laws disposing of the lands to raise money, encourage transportation development and settlement, or making grants to the States. From the earliest days of our history, these policy clashes took on East/West overtones, with easterners more likely to view the lands as national public property, and westerners more likely to view the lands as rightfully belonging to the States. Both factions, however, agreed on measures that promoted the settlement of the lands in order to strengthen the Nation, a trend that accelerated after the purchase of the Louisiana lands in 1803, the Oregon Compromise with England in 1846, and cession of lands by treaty after the Mexican war in 1848.

These major land acquisitions gave rise to a distinction in the laws between "public domain" lands, which are basically those acquired from a foreign sovereign, and "acquired" lands, which are those acquired from a State or individual. Many laws were passed that related only to the vast new public domain lands, and even though the distinction has lost most of its underlying significance today, different laws still may apply depending on the original nature of the lands involved. The lessening of the historical significance of land designations was recognized in the Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976 which defined "public lands" as those managed by BLM, regardless of whether they were derived from the public domain or were acquired lands. (4)

Many Federal laws encouraged and accelerated the settlement of the West by establishing Federal systems of disposal. Examples include the Homestead Act of 1862 and the Desert Lands Entry Act of 1877. Certain other Federal laws were "catch up" laws designed to legitimize certain uses that were already occurring on the Federal lands while Congress debated land laws. These laws typically gave much more flexibility for local variations -- for example, the Mining Act of 1872 recognized mineral claims on the public domain lands in accordance with local laws and customs, and provided for the conveyance of title to such lands. In addition, early land disposal laws allowed the water rights of settlers to be determined by State law. The Federal Government could, however, also reserve or create Federal water rights for its own properties and purposes.

Other laws in the late 1800s reflected the growing concern that rapid development threatened some of the scenic treasures of the Nation, as well as resources that would be needed for future use. Concern began to increase about ensuring that certain lands and resources be left untouched or reserved for future use. For example, Yellowstone National Park was established in 1872 to preserve its resources in a natural condition, and to dedicate recreation opportunities for the public; and in 1891, concern over the effects of timber harvests on water supplies and the future supply of timber initiated the establishment of forest reserves, administered by the General Land Office in the Department of the Interior.

These two actions laid the foundation for the current organization of Federal agencies with primary purposes of administering natural resources on Federal lands. In 1905, administration of the forest reserves was moved to the Department of Agriculture. These reserves later were renamed "National Forests", to be managed by the newly created Forest Service. The first national wildlife refuge was designated in 1903 (although it was not until 1966 that the refuges were coalesced into the National Wildlife Refuge System). The National Park Service was created in 1916 to manage the growing number of public parks established by Congress and monuments preordained by the President. The Grazing Service (first known as the Grazing Division) was established in 1934 to administer public rangeland. It was combined with the General Land Office in 1946 to form the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

The 20th Century saw a shift in the emphasis of most Federal land laws from disposal and conveyance of title to private citizens to a policy of retaining the remaining lands in Federal ownership, with the revenues from various uses shared with the States in which the lands are located. Examples of these laws include the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, which provides for the leased development of certain Federal minerals, and the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, which provides for permitted grazing on the Federal rangelands with a portion of revenues returned to the States. Although the debates on the Taylor Grazing Act indicate that the western Members of Congress recognized the poor prospects that the Federal lands would someday be relinquished to the States, it was not until the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976 that Congress expressly declared as policy that the remaining public domain lands would be retained in Federal ownership. (5) This declaration of policy was a significant factor in what is known as the "sagebrush rebellion", an effort to take local control of Federal land management decisions.

Recent controversies over Federal land management decisions, involving grazing, mining, timber harvesting, and implementation of the Endangered Species Act, have fueled a resurgence in calls to privatize many Federal lands and to reduce the Federal presence and control of land in the western States.

One of the unique features of the Federal natural resources agencies is that they are among the few Federal agencies that generate receipts for the U.S. Treasury. Receipts are derived from the use or sale of the land and its various resources. The gross amounts received in fiscal year 1993 by these four agencies are shown in table 1 on the following page. Major sources include timber harvesting and the sale of forest products, grazing of private livestock on Federal lands, leasing of onshore energy and mineral resources, and recreation fees. However, none of the four agencies consistently collects more money than it expends. (6)

Table 1. Gross Federal Government Receipts from Sale and Use of Agency Land and Resources for Fiscal Year 1993 (a) (in thousands of dollars)

Resource	BLM	FWS	NPS	USFS
Mineral leases and permits	13, 735 (b)	1,601	0.00	223,847
Sales of timber and forest products	149,884	2,203	248.00	425,105
Grazing leases, licenses, and permits	18,816	701.00	(c)	10,518
Recreation fees	2,276	1,788	57,417	49,396
Other	104,277	2,066	10,344	19,458
Total	288,988	8,359	78,009	728,324

a. Excludes deposits to trust funds and special accounts that are permanently appropriated to the agencies for specified purposes, such as FWS duck stamps and FS deposits to the Knutson-Vandenberg (K-V) Fund.

b. Includes sale of public lands and materials; excludes receipts paid to the Minerals Management Service.

Sources: 1) Report of the Forest Service, Fiscal Year 1993.
2) U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Budget Justifications, FY 1996: Bureau of Land Management.
3) Personal communication with Kathleen Graham, Fish and Wildlife Service Budget Office, Washington, D.C.: Dec. 13, 1994.

4) U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Budget Justifications, FY 1995: National Park Service.

Most of these receipts, however, are not fully retained for Federal use. Because Federal property is generally exempt from State and local taxation, Congress has enacted a variety of mechanisms that provide for sharing of Federal land-related revenues and receipts with the State or local governments. Depending upon the type of activity generating the revenues and origin of Federal ownership, percentages shared with State and local entities range from 5 percent to 90 percent of gross program receipts, as specified in individual statutes. For example, each of the lower 48 States directly receives 50 percent of all mineral leasing revenues from public or public domain lands within its boundaries and an additional 40 percent through the Reclamation Fund; the State of Alaska receives 90 percent directly. Limits on the uses to which the State's share can be applied vary. Some programs require that the funds be used by the recipient jurisdiction for specific purposes such as schools, roads, or land and resource improvements, while others allow the States more discretion. Revenues from mineral leasing on acquired lands are distributed in the same manner as other revenues of the agency administering the surface lands. (30 U.S.C. §355.)

In addition to revenue-sharing programs, there are also agency-specific programs that provide local governments with payments in lieu of taxes. These payment programs use varying combinations of valuation, tax rate, or fixed rate formulas to determine the amount of funds that a jurisdiction will receive. For example, the Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands, administered by BLM in Oregon, provide the two counties in which they are located with payments that are equivalent to, and in lieu of, property taxes, up to a maximum of 75 percent of the revenue generated by the property.

The most comprehensive Federal land payment program is the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act (PILT, 31 U.S.C. §1601-1607; see CRS Rept. 95-259 ENR, PILT: Somewhat Simplified.), as amended by P.L. No. 103-397. Lands eligible to receive these payments are primarily those in the National Forest System, the National Park System, those administered by BLM, the lands reserved from the public domain in the National Wildlife Refuge System, and a few other categories of Federal lands. The recent amendments authorize increases in the PILT formula through FY 1999. By 1999, the law provides for county payments under one of two formulas:

The county is eligible to receive whichever of the above calculations is greater. The amendments also provide for indexing of the authorized payment levels to the Consumer Price Index to make the payments (under the two scenarios above and the population ceiling) keep pace with inflation, and raise the authorized ceiling payments based on population. Because the amendments only raised the authorization, there will likely be debate in future budget cycles about appropriating funds up to the newly authorized levels.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is the primary source of Federal money to pay for the acquisition of new recreation lands administered by the Federal land managing agencies. It also funds a matching grant program to the States for acquisition and development of recreation areas and facilities.

The original authority (P.L. No. 88-578) has been amended frequently by Congress, most notably to increase the authorized level of the fund, and to mandate that oil and gas leasing revenues earned on the Outer Continental Shelf should make good the annual shortfall from other authorized financing sources of the LWCF. These other sources included proceeds from sale of an entrance pass to all Federal recreation areas, other Federal recreation user fees, motor boat fuel taxes, and the sale of government surplus real property.

Although $900 million is credited to the LWCF account annually, balances in the account cannot be spent until Congress appropriates the funds. Congress has never appropriated the full $900 million authorized in the LWCF; in recent years, appropriations have been a little over $200 million. (7) Thus, LWCF has an accumulated, unappropriated (and increasing) balance of approximately $10 billion. Since its inception, about $3 billion has gone to the States to help fund almost 35,000 projects, and nearly $4 billion has funded the acquisition of 4.2 million acres of new Federal recreation lands. Over 80 percent of the LWCF money has come from oil and gas leasing revenues from the Outer Continental Shelf.

The LWCF was reauthorized in 1988 for another 25 years until September 30, 2016; its authorization level remains at $900 million (P.L. No. 100-203).

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act: Act of Sept. 3, 1964; P.L. No. 88-578, 78 Stat. 897. 16 U.S.C. §1, et seq.

Payments in Lieu of Taxes: Act of Oct. 20, 1976; 31 U.S.C. §6901-6907. et seq.

Federal Sales of Natural Resources: Allocation and Pricing Systems. [by Ross W. Gorte.] CRS Report 93-1035 ENR. Washington, DC: Dec. 16, 1993. 6 p.

Fish and Wildlife Service: Compensation to Local Governments. [by M. Lynne Corn.] CRS Report 90-192 ENR. Washington, DC: March 6, 1990. 39 p.

The Forest Service Budget: Trust Funds and Special Accounts. [by Ross W. Gorte and M. Lynne Corn.] CRS Report 89-75 ENR. Washington, DC: January 27, 1989. 50 p.

THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

In 1891, Congress granted the President the authority (now repealed) to establish forest reserves from the public domain. Six years later, in 1897, Congress stated that the forest reserves were:

... to improve and protect the forest within the reservation, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of the citizens of the United States.

Initially, the administration of the forest reserves lay with the Division of Forestry in the General Land Office of the U.S. Department of the Interior. In 1905, this division was combined with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Bureau of Forestry, renamed the Forest Service, and the administration of the 56 million acres of forest reserves (later renamed "national forests") was transferred to the new agency. (8) In 1906 and 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt more than doubled the acreage of the forest reserves. As a result, Congress at various times limited the authority of the President to add to the system. However, in 1911 Congress passed the Weeks Act, authorizing additions to the National Forest System through the purchase of private lands. Under this authority and other specific Acts, the National Forest System has continued to grow slowly, from 154 million acres in 1919 to 192 million acres in 1993. This growth has resulted from purchases and donations of private land and from land transfers primarily from the BLM. Management of the system is one of the four principal programs of the Forest Service. (9)

The management goals for the National Forest System were further articulated in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, which states:

It is the policy of the Congress that the national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. The purposes of this Act are declared to be supplemental to, but not in derogation of, the purposes for which the national forests were established as set forth in the Act of June 4, 1897... The establishment and maintenance of areas as wilderness are consistent with the purposes and provisions of this Act.

The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act directs resource management of the national forests for the combination of uses that best meets the needs of the American people. Management of the resources was to be coordinated for "multiple use"--considering the relative values of the various resources, though not necessarily maximizing dollar returns, nor requiring that any one particular area be managed for all or even most uses. The Act also calls for "sustained yield"--a high level of resource outputs maintained in perpetuity but without impairing the productivity of the land.

The National Forest System includes 155 national forests with 187 million acres (97.7 percent of the system), 20 national grasslands with 4 million acres (2.0 percent), and 103 other units, such as land utilization projects, purchase units, and research and experimental areas, with 474,315 acres (0.2 percent). (10) The National Forest System lands are clearly concentrated in the West, but, the Forest Service manages more Federal land in the East than all other Federal agencies combined. The National Forest System units are arranged into 9 administrative regions. The 9 Regional Foresters report to the Deputy Chief for National Forest System, who (along with Deputy Chiefs for other branches) reports to the Chief of the Forest Service. In contrast to most other Federal agencies, the Chief has traditionally been a career employee of the agency, rather than a political appointee.

The Forest Service regions are often referred to by number, rather than by name. Table 2, on the following page, identifies the number and the acreage for each of the Forest Service regions. (11) The "non-Federal" land shown in the table is land inside the designated boundaries of the national forests (and other units of the National Forest System) which is not owned by the Federal Government; these State and private lands within forest boundaries are commonly known as "inholdings." Inholdings may pose difficulties for Forest Service land management, because the Forest Service does not entirely control the development and use of the inholdings as it does of the Federal lands. This is a particularly acute problem in the Southern and Eastern Regions, since nearly half of the land within the boundaries of these National Forest System units is not Federal land.

Forest Service Region		National Forest System Acreage
Region Name	Region Number	Federal	Non-Federal
Northern	1	25,351,896	2,825,677
Rocky Mountain	2	22,073,573	2,399,906
Southwestern	3	20,695,835	1,686,070
Intermountain	4	31,892,085	2,364,790
Pacific Southwest	5	20,020,250	3,719,644
Pacific Northwest	6	24,624,686	2,727,822
Southern	8	12,850,515	12,031,236
Eastern	9	11,920,227	10,013,606
Alaska	10	22,124,288	2,230,847
National Forest System Total		191,553,355	39,999,658

Source: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. Land Areas of the National Forest System, as of September 1993. Washington, DC: Feb. 1994. (FS-383). pp. 1-3.

Planning for and management of the National Forest System is guided by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976. Together, these laws encourage foresight in the use of the Nation's forest resources, and establish a long-range planning process for the management of the National Forest System. RPA focuses on the national, long-range direction for forest and range conservation and sustainability, while NFMA provides guidance on integrating the national direction with the planning and management for the National Forest System units.

RPA requires the preparation of four documents: an Assessment to inventory and monitor the Nation's overall natural resource situation; a Program to guide Forest Service policies; a Presidential Statement of Policy to guide budget formulation; and an Annual Report to evaluate implementation of the Program. (12) The planning horizon generally covers 50 years, with 10-year cycles for updating the Assessment and 5-year cycles for updating the Program and Statement of Policy. The Assessment is a comprehensive examination of the renewable resources on all public and private forests and rangelands, encompassing about two-thirds of the U.S. land area. The Program, based on the findings of the Assessment, prescribes the role of the Forest Service in forest conservation and research, including management of the National Forest System. The Program is transmitted to Congress with a Presidential Statement of Policy. Together, the Program and Statement of Policy are intended to serve both the Administration and the Congress in shaping Forest Service budgets and policies for the subsequent five years. The Annual Report, also transmitted to Congress, is intended to report on activities and accomplishments and to report on progress in implementing the program.

NFMA further directs the Forest Service to prepare comprehensive land and resources management plans that are coordinated with the national RPA planning process for all national forests. (13) NFMA requires an interdisciplinary approach to planning, including economic analysis and the identification of costs and benefits of all resource uses. NFMA established October 1, 1985, as the target for completing the first generation of forest management plans, with subsequent plan updates at least every 15 years (a 10-year cycle is the goal targeted in the regulations). (14) Some forests which completed their plans in the early 1980s are now beginning the process of revising their plans.

Congress has provided further management direction within the National Forest System by creating special designations for certain areas. Some of the special designations, such as statutory wilderness areas, are part of larger management systems affecting several Federal land management agencies; these special systems are described in a later section of this report. In addition to these systems, the National Forest System includes several other types of congressionally enacted land designations. Congress has established 13 national recreation areas within the National Forest System, permitting limited resource development and use; management of these areas is similar to that of national recreation areas within the National Park System, as will be described further below. Two national monuments have been established within national forests in Alaska, and national volcanic monuments have been established in Washington and Oregon; resource development and use is generally more restricted in national monuments, and specific guidance is typically provided with each designation. Congress and the President have also designated 15 wildlife preserves or game refuges totalling 1.2 million acres in whole or in part within the National Forest System. (15) Finally, Congress has identified numerous other sites, with unique titles and with additional management guidance for the protection of scenic, recreational, or wildlife values.

Organic Administration Act of 1897: Act of June 4, 1897; ch. 2, 30 stat. 11. 16 U.S.C. §473, et seq.

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960: Act of June 12, 1960; P.L. No. 86-517, 75 Stat. 215. 16 U.S.C. §528, et seq.

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974: Act of August 17, 1974; P.L. No. 93-378, 88 Stat. 476. 16 U.S.C. §1600, et seq.

National Forest Management Act of 1976: Act of October 22, 1976; P.L. No. 94-588, 90 Stat. 2949.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978: Act of June 30, 1978; P.L. No. 95-307, 92 Stat. 353. 16 U.S.C. §1641, et seq.

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978: Act of July 1, 1978; P.L. No. 95-313, 92 Stat. 365. 16 U.S.C. §2101, et seq.

U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Committee Print. Multiple Use and Sustained Yield: Changing Philosophies for Federal Land Management? The Proceedings and Summary of a Workshop Convened on March 5-6, 1992, Washington D.C., by the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service. December 1992.

Forest Health: Overview. [by Ross W. Gorte.] CRS Report 95-548 ENR. Washington, DC: April 28, 1995. 5 pp.

Forest Service Land and Resource Planning: A Chronology of Laws. [by Adela Backiel.] CRS Report 86-896 ENR. Washington, DC: Nov. 6, 1986. 10 pp.

Forest Service Budget: Trust Funds and Special Accounts. [by Ross W. Gorte and M. Lynne Corn.] CRS Report 89-75 ENR. Washington, DC: Jan. 27, 1989. 50 pp.

Appeals of Federal Land Management Plans and Activities: A Report on a CRS Workshop. [by Pamela Baldwin.] CRS Report 90-104 A. Washington, DC: Feb. 20, 1990. 35 pp. plus appendices.

Special Management Areas in the National Forest System. [by Ross W. Gorte.] CRS Report 88-571 ENR. Washington, DC: Aug. 22, 1988. 33 pp.

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was formed in 1946 as a result of the merger of two agencies in the Department of the Interior--the General Land Office and the U.S. Grazing Service. The General Land Office, dating back to early public lands history, helped convey lands to the pioneers who first began to settle the western lands. In 1800, Congress established the first land offices in Ohio, followed by the General Land Office in 1812. The U.S. Grazing Service was formed in 1934 to manage the public lands best suited for livestock grazing (as opposed to other uses, such as farm settlements) under the authority of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, which had been passed to remedy the deteriorating condition of the public rangelands due to overuse and the drought and depression of the 1920s and early 1930s.

Although the Taylor Grazing Act focused on grazing management, it also expressly recognized that the public lands would be administered "pending [their] final disposal," thereby continuing the presumption that these public lands might at some time be transferred to private or State ownership, and that the Federal Government was only serving as custodian until that time. However, patenting these lands had slowed, and there was growing concern about the condition of resources on these lands. These factors and a changing general attitude towards the public lands moved increasingly toward their ultimate retention by the Federal Government.

Numerous management authorities regarding the use of the public lands and their resources accumulated from the early 1800s to the mid-1900s. These authorities often resulted in fragmented resource management and inefficient and sometimes inconsistent direction for land management. These laws applied not only to grazing and land disposal, but also to mineral leasing and mining, timber harvesting, homesteading, and other subjects. For decades Congress debated the future of Federal land disposal policies and management of the remaining public lands. A comprehensive public land law was finally enacted in 1976 after many studies throughout the 1960s, culminating in the 1970 report of the Public Land Law Review Commission, One-Third of the Nation's Land, and deliberations in three successive Congresses. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 established the national policy that:

This retention policy may have contributed to a "revolt" among many westerners who still hoped that the substantial Federal presence might be reduced through Federal land transfers to private or State ownership. The resultant "Sagebrush Rebellion" -- objecting to Federal management decisions and in some cases to the Federal presence itself -- was primarily directed toward the BLM. Several bills to transfer BLM lands (and sometimes the national forests) to the States were introduced between 1977 and 1982; however, none was reported by an authorizing committee. The question of Federal land ownership is again being raised throughout the West, and discussions continue in the 104th Congress regarding transferring some or all of the Federal lands to the States.

Over the years, 1.14 billion acres of Federal (or public domain) land have been transferred to citizens, States, and businesses under various Federal land laws, such as the homesteading and settlement laws and Statehood acts. The last large transfer of BLM land occurred in 1980 with passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) which transferred large amounts of land from management by BLM to the other land managing agencies. BLM continues to transfer land to the State of Alaska and the Alaska Native Corporations under provisions of the Alaska Statehood and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Acts.

FLPMA is called the BLM Organic Act because it consolidated and articulated the management responsibilities of the BLM. Many land and resource management authorities were established, amended, or repealed by FLPMA, including provisions on Federal land withdrawals, land acquisitions and exchanges, rights-of-way, advisory groups, range management, general organization and administration of BLM and the public lands. FLPMA also established the BLM as a multiple-use agency and provides that:

BLM manages approximately 268 million acres, predominately in the western States. About one-third of these lands (89 million acres) are in Alaska. BLM headquarters in Washington, D.C., is headed by the Director, a political appointee, who reports to the Secretary of the Interior through the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management. There are 12 State offices, each headed by a State Director with line authority to the Director's Office. Each State office administers a geographic area that generally conforms to the State's boundary, except for the Eastern States Office which administers all of BLM lands and resources in the East.

At the local level, 59 district offices operate under the State offices. Each district office is headed by a district manager who manages multiple-use programs and operations and supervises area managers. Area managers are responsible for "on-the-ground implementation" of BLM programs and policies within a total of 139 resource areas. There are also five bureauwide "support centers": the National Interagency Fire Center (Boise, Idaho); the National Training Center (Phoenix, Arizona); the National Applied Resource Sciences Center (Denver, Colorado); the National Human Resources Management Center (Denver); and the National Business Systems Center (Denver). Each Center reports to one of four Assistant Directors.

Although the public lands are managed for a variety of uses, BLM lands fall generally into two categories: 1) "reserved" lands, which are dedicated or set aside, and thus managed, for a specific public purpose or program and which are generally not available for other purposes; or 2) multiple use lands, which are not reserved, appropriated or set aside for a specific or designated purpose. The multiple use lands are more numerous, accounting for about 93 percent of the total. Excluding Alaska, the lands managed by BLM also are divided between those that are within grazing districts (135 million acres) and outside grazing districts (115 million acres), as authorized by sections 3 and 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act, respectively

The BLM land and resource management program can be outlined under two major headings as well: 1) resource assessment and planning, and 2) resource use and protection. The BLM develops resource management plans (RMPs) in accordance with FLPMA's planning requirements for resource areas where conflicting uses demand a systematic review of uses and resource allocations and public participation. (17) Unlike NFMA direction for national forest management plans, FLPMA did not set a target date for completion of the plans, and not all BLM lands are covered by a resource management plan. A description of the major uses of BLM lands follows.

The BLM administers the mineral resources of the onshore Federal estate available for development, regardless of surface and subsurface management jurisdiction. The entire surface and subsurface Federal estate subject to mineral development totals 732 million acres. (18) Some minerals are available for development under the mining laws; others are developed through a leasing system. Authorities for disposition of mineral lands and resources are primarily found in the General Mining Law of 1872, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, and the Materials Disposal Act of 1947. Activities governed by these laws include the location and patenting of mining claims for hard rock minerals, competitive and noncompetitive leasing of lands for leaseable minerals (oil, gas, coal, potash, geothermal energy, and certain other minerals), and the sale or free disposal of common mineral materials not subject to the mining or leasing laws. Authorities for mining, leasing, and royalties may differ for public domain and acquired lands.

Where the surface estate is managed by another agency, BLM consults with the agency responsible for managing the surface estate before finalizing lease sales. For example, if an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required, the surface-managing agency typically prepares the EIS and analyzes the impacts, but BLM issues and supervises the lease. In some instances, the surface management agency may have to consent to leasing (e.g., in the context of oil and gas or coal leasing).

At one time, BLM also had responsibility for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing. In 1982, a Department of the Interior reorganization placed the Minerals Management Service (MMS) in charge of all OCS leasing. Now, BLM is responsible for administering all onshore energy and mineral resources, while MMS is responsible for all OCS leasing and also management of revenues derived from onshore and OCS leasing.

About 167 million acres of the lands under the jurisdiction of BLM are classified as rangelands. The forage grazed on these lands and the 95 million acres of rangeland managed by the Forest Service represents approximately two percent of the total feed consumed by beef cattle and seven percent of the total feed consumed in the contiguous 48 States, supporting 10 percent of the livestock producers in the 16 western States. (19) The BLM grazing and range management programs are authorized and guided by the Taylor Grazing Act, FLPMA, and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (PRIA). Wild horses and burros are provided specific protection and management guidelines in the Wild, Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, as amended by FLPMA.

While FLPMA set out the overall public land management and policy objectives, PRLA expressed continuing concern over the condition and productivity of public rangelands and established more specific range management guidelines for BLM, with certain provisions to be applied also to the Forest Service. These guidelines included a grazing fee formula to be used by both agencies through 1985, which has been continued administratively through Executive Order 12548 of February 14, 1986, but with a minimum fee level. The fee is based on a combination of factors, including livestock market and forage price factors. The 1995 grazing fee is $1.61 per animal unit month (AUM) -- the amount of forage it takes to feed one cow and calf, one horse, or five sheep for one month. The grazing fee has been controversial since its inception. Private livestock producers using Federal lands generally argue to keep fees at their current rate. Others argue for higher, market-based fees or the elimination of grazing on Federal land altogether because of environmental and recreational concerns. (See Grazing Fees: A Fact Sheet, CRS Report 95-1 ENR.)

Livestock grazing is managed through groupings of land called allotments. Grazing permits are issued for up to 10 years on each allotment and authorize the annual grazing use by approximately 16,000 operators on BLM lands. (20) An allotment management plan is developed in consultation with the permittees to guide management of livestock operations on the public lands, including types and numbers of livestock and range improvements needed. Management of BLM grazing allotments is increasingly controversial, especially in cases where the agency has recommended a reduction in the authorized size of the herd.

Approximately 8 million acres of BLM land is commercial forest. BLM manages 2.6 million acres of the country's most commercially valuable timberlands: the Oregon and California (O&C) railroad grant lands and the Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands. These lands were once in private ownership but returned to Federal ownership in 1916. Of the $25 million total receipts from BLM timber products in 1991, western Oregon accounted for $17 million. (21)

Recreation and wilderness management are also part of BLM's multiple use mandate for the public lands. Most BLM lands are open for recreation use, although it is concentrated in 521 areas involving about 10 percent of the total BLM land. As required by FLPMA, all BLM lands (excluding Alaska) have been reviewed for wilderness potential. FLPMA set a deadline of 1991 for completion of the BLM wilderness review and submission of BLM recommendations to the President to forward recommendations to Congress for possible wilderness designations. There are currently 26 million BLM acres pending in wilderness study area status, nearly 10 million of which have been recommended to Congress as suitable for wilderness designation. (See CRS Report 94-9 ENR, Wilderness Overview and Statistics.)

Through the FLPMA planning process, BLM also identifies Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) where special management is needed to protect lands, resources, or natural systems. There are currently 589 ACECs covering more than 9.5 million acres.

In addition, BLM manages 99 sites as research natural areas, eight national conservation areas that have been designated by Congress, and BLM cooperates with the National Park Service in managing 43 national natural landmarks. BLM is also mandated in FLPMA to inventory the cultural resources on the public lands; more than 10 million acres have been inventoried to date.

Because BLM lands are composed predominantly of the lands remaining after disposition of land grants in the early history of our country, the pattern of ownership of BLM lands is often complex and intermingled with other Federal and/or private lands. These lands are often referred to as "checkerboard," reflecting a mixed ownership grid pattern. The passage of FLPMA consolidated procedures and clarified responsibilities with respect to some of the problems that arise because of this ownership pattern, including rights-of-way for certain uses of public lands including roads, trails, pipelines, powerlines, canals, and reservoirs. FLPMA provided for land exchanges, acquisitions, disposals, and remedies to title problems. The Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of 1988 (P.L. No. 100-409) amended FLPMA and the NFMA to "streamline...and expedite" exchanges; however, issues related to land valuation, cultural and archaeological resources inventories, and other costs associated with exchanges continue to make them time consuming and costly.

FLPMA also mandated review of public land withdrawals in 11 western States to determine whether, and for how long, existing withdrawals should be continued. (A withdrawal is an action that restricts the use or disposition of public lands.) The amount of land withdrawn from particular entry or development, especially for locatable minerals and mineral leasing, has long been controversial and the subject of many law suits. As mentioned earlier, the policy of retaining lands in Federal ownership under FLPMA has also been controversial in areas where Federal lands are intermingled with private lands.

Mining Act of 1872: R.S. 2319, derived from Act of May 10, 1872; ch. 152, 17 Stat. 91. 30 U.S.C. §22, et seq.

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920: Act of February 25, 1920; ch. 85, 41 Stat. 437. 30 U.S.C. §181, et seq.

Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Land: Act of August 7, 1947; ch. 513, 61 Stat. 913; 30 U.S.C. §351-359.

Taylor Grazing Act of 1934: Act of June 28, 1934; ch. 865, 48 Stat. 1269. 43 U.S.C. §315, et seq.

Materials Disposal Act: Act of July 31, 1947; ch. 406, 61 Stat. 681. 30 U.S.C. §601, et seq.

Wild Horses and Burros Act of 1971: Act of December 15, 1971; P.L. No. 92-195, 85 Stat. 649. 16 U.S.C. §1331, et seq.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976: Act of October 21, 1976; P.L. No. 94-579, 90 Stat. 2744. 43 U.S.C. §1701, et seq.

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978: Act of October 25, 1978; P.L 95-514, 92 Stat. 1803.

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980: Act of December 2, 1980; P.L. No. 96-487, 94 Stat. 2371. 16 U.S.C. §3101, et seq.

U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Committee Print. Multiple Use and Sustained Yield: Changing Philosophies for Federal Land Management? A Proceedings and Summary of a Workshop Convened on March 5-6, 1992, Washington, D.C., by the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service. December 1992.

Bureau of Land Management Authorization. [by Betsy Cody and Pam Baldwin.] CRS Report 95-429. Washington, DC: March 27, 1995. pp. 6.

Federal Grazing Fees on Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service: A History of Legislative and Administrative Policies. [by Adela Backiel and Lee Rogge.] CRS Report 85-592 ENR. Washington, DC: Feb. 25, 1985. 39 pp.

Grazing Fees: A Fact Sheet. [by Betsy Cody.] CRS Report 95-1 ENR. Washington, DC: Revised December 23, 1994. 6 pp.

Natural Resource "Subsidy" Issues. [Ross Gorte, Coordinator.] CRS Issue Brief 95022. Washington, DC: Updated regularly.

The Oil and Gas Leasing System on Federal Lands. [by Marc Humphries.] CRS Report 91-577. Washington, DC: Aug. 10, 1991. 9 pp.

THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM

The first national wildlife refuge was established at Pelican Island, Florida, by Executive order of President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903. The number of refuges continued to grow, and in 1966, legislation was enacted to establish the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) under the management of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of the Department of the Interior.

In total, FWS manages 91.6 million acres of land. As of September 30, 1993, the NWRS included 494 refuges totalling 89.1 million acres in 50 States, the Pacific Territories, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. There has been an increase in the number of units in the system over the last few years. (22) (See figure 3 on the following page.) By far the largest increase in acreage occurred with the addition of 53 million acres of refuge land under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. (See figure 4 on the following page.) Currently, over 76 million acres of refuge lands (83 percent) are in Alaska.

In approximately 1.5 million acres of the NWRS, FWS has secondary jurisdiction: the lands are managed by FWS, but owned by some other agency or person. Other units within NWRS include the 174 waterfowl production areas (operated under agreements with the farmers and ranchers who own the land) and the 51 wildlife coordination units. These bring the NWRS to 719 units in 91.5 million acres. (The 23 research centers, 37 administrative sites, and 84 fish hatcheries also administered by FWS are not part of the System, but at 24,035 acres, they are small in comparison to the NWRS.)

There are also 81 designated wilderness areas within 64 refuges. These areas range from two acres at Green Bay NWR in Wisconsin to eight million acres at Arctic NWR in Alaska.

The refuge system is dedicated primarily to the conservation of animals and plants. Other uses, whether hunting, fishing, recreation, timber harvest, grazing, etc., are permitted only to the extent that they are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was dedicated. (23) Thus, while some have characterized the NWRS as intermediate in resource protection between the BLM and Forest Service lands on the one hand, and National Park Service lands on the other, this is not entirely accurate. (24) In some ways, the System resembles the Forest Service or BLM lands, but in certain cases, uses (such as access) can be substantially more restrictive than National Park Service lands.

Growth of the NWRS may come about in a number of ways. The Congress may authorize the establishment of new units of the System through reservation from the public domain or acquisition of private lands. Lands and interests in lands may also be acquired from another agency, accepted as donations, or purchased as leases or easements. Units also have been created by Executive Order. The NWRS is one of the few instances of Federal land systems increasing its land holdings over the years, albeit slowly. In general, new acquisitions do not usually result from land exchanges, and certainly not with other lands in the refuge system. Either they are lands transferred from the public domain or lands purchased outright (occasionally via condemnation) from other owners. But these acquisitions are rarely substantial.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended, states the purpose for establishing the Wildlife Refuge System as consolidation of the several authorities of the Secretary of the Interior over lands administered for the conservation and protection of fish and wildlife. The refuges provide habitat for various plant and animal species, particularly emphasizing habitat for migratory waterfowl and for endangered species. Research on wildlife conservation is a related function carried out by FWS both on refuges and at research areas administered by the FWS as well as other areas. (Some parts of this function were administratively transferred to the National Biological Service when it was created in 1993.) Mining and mineral leasing activities are permitted in certain refuges and under certain circumstances; BLM administers mineral rights. Hunting, fishing, and other recreational uses are frequently permitted in the refuges, but only to the extent that these activities are compatible with the major purposes for which a particular area was established. In refuges set aside for migratory birds, waterfowl hunting is limited to 40 percent of the refuge area unless the Secretary determines hunting in a greater area is beneficial.

The purchase of refuge lands is primarily accomplished through two funding sources: the Migratory Bird Conservation Account (MBCA) and the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), described above. The emphasis of the MBCA has been the acquisition of wetlands essential to migratory waterfowl. The MBCA has been funded from three sources (amounts in parentheses are fiscal year 1994 receipts into the MBCA):

The projected total for FY1994 is $40,928,000. All sources of money for the MBCA are permanently appropriated in the original enabling legislation. The predictability of the amount makes the MBCA assume unusual importance in the agency's budget.

The Wildlife Refuge System consists of three tiers: the 719 individual units of the System under 7 regional offices (one of which covers Alaska), and the national office in Washington, D.C. Each of the seven regional offices is administered by a Regional Director who has a considerable degree of autonomy in operating the refuges within the region.

The FWS Washington office is headed by a Director and a management staff consisting of a Deputy Director and six Assistant Directors. These Assistant Directors head programs for Policy, Budget and Administration; External Affairs; Refuges and Wildlife; Ecological Services; Fisheries; and International Affairs. It is the directorate for Refuges and Wildlife which is directly responsible for management of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

There are three principal types of management areas in the National Wildlife Refuge System: the refuges themselves, waterfowl production areas, and wildlife coordination areas. Conservation of wildlife is the primary emphasis in all of the types of areas in the NWRS, but the options for alternative resource use within the areas vary.

Waterfowl production areas are managed primarily to provide breeding habitat for migratory waterfowl. (25) Waterfowl production areas are primarily the potholes and interior wetlands of the North Central States, an area sometimes called "North America's Duck Factory." On these areas, there is considerably less conflicting resource use, in part because the areas managed under lease are not subject to the Federal mining and mineral leasing laws, and because the size of individual tracts is relatively small. However, the leased lands may be less secure as permanent wildlife habitat because they may be converted to agricultural use by the private owners. These areas total 2,076,909 acres, of which more than 1.4 million acres is managed under leases, easements, or agreements with private landowners.

The wildlife coordination areas, only 318,065 acres, are managed, not by FWS, but by State wildlife agencies under cooperative agreements with FWS.

In recent years, a controversy has developed over the propriety of hunting (and, to a lesser extent, fishing) on Refuge lands. The pro-hunting position is based largely on 2 arguments: (1) the purchase of migratory duck stamps by hunters has paid for a substantial portion of refuge land, mainly in areas suitable for waterfowl habitat; and (2) the animal population is the unit of conservation, and removal of individual animals for human use is not harmful, and may be beneficial as long as the population growth rate is maintained. The anti-hunting argument holds that no place can be a "refuge" if its major wildlife residents are regularly killed. Many activists further argue that relatively few people now pursue hunting, and the enjoyment of this sport hinders use of the land by others. Various bills have been introduced to eliminate or restrict hunting, but none have reached the floor of the House or Senate.

More generally, there has been a controversy over conflicting uses of National Wildlife Refuges. On many refuges, FWS has been criticized as being either too restrictive or too lenient in its judgment about the compatibility of grazing, energy extraction, power boat recreation, and other activities with the purposes for which refuges were designated. (26) (There is a separate issue of access for pre-existing rights such as mineral deposits.) In the 103rd Congress, S. 823 was introduced to address some of these issues. It was criticized as likely to disrupt public access to the refuges, and to hamper long-established access of local citizens. There was also fear in some western States that the bill would have created a reserved water right. The bill was reported from Committee but was not considered by the full Senate.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966: Act of October 15, 1966; P.L. No. 90-404, 80 Stat. 927. 16 U.S.C. §668dd-668ee.

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980: Act of December 2, 1980; P.L. No. 96-487, 94 Stat. 2371. 16 U.S.C. §3101, et seq.

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956: Act of August 8, 1956; ch. 1036, 70 Stat. 1120. 16 U.S.C. §742a, et seq.

San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (1972): Act of June 30, 1972; P.L. No. 92-330, 86 Stat. 399. This Act is a typical statute establishing a refuge by law. 16 U.S.C. §668dd note.

Fish and Wildlife Service: Compensation to Local Governments. [by M. Lynne Corn.] CRS Report 90-120 ENR. Washington, DC: March 6, 1990. 39 pp.

A Guide to the Trust Funds, Special Accounts, and Foundation in the Fish and Wildlife Service Budget. [by M. Lynne Corn.] CRS Report 86-722 ENR. Washington, DC: May 30, 1986. 29 pp.

THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

Perhaps the Federal land category best known to the public is the National Park System, which consists of 368 units totaling approximately 80 million acres. As with the NWRS, passage of ANILCA in 1980 roughly doubled the acreage of the system. The acreage has been relatively stable in recent years, as new authorizations and land acquisition have been modest. In the fall of 1994, the California Desert Protection Act (P.L. No. 103-433) transferred about 3 million acres from the BLM to the National Park Service (NPS). NPS, also in the Department of the Interior, is the agency responsible for managing the parks system.

The National Park System has the most diverse categories for its units, with 22 different types of designations, including national parks, national monuments, national recreation areas, national seashores, national lakeshores, national historic sites, and national battlefields. Of the 368 units in the system, 56 are National Parks.

The basic mission of the National Park Service is to conserve, preserve, protect, and interpret the natural, cultural, and historic resources of the Nation for the public. To a considerable extent, the Service also contributes to meeting the public demand for certain types of outdoor recreation opportunities. Scientific research is another activity encouraged by the Service in units of the National Park System. These missions are spelled out in the authorizing legislation for individual units of the system (such as Yellowstone National Park in 1872) as they are established, and in the general park management statutes, such as the 1916 Act establishing the National Park Service.

The dual, and sometimes contradictory, components of the National Park Service mission to protect and interpret park resources for the public date to the 1872 law authorizing Yellowstone National Park. That law required that the area should be "dedicated and set apart as a public park and pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of people," thus setting out the public use and recreation mission. The law also required regulations to "provide for the preservation, from injury or spoliation, of all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities, or wonders within said park, and their retention in their natural condition," thus setting a clear requirement for a preservation mission, as well.

For many years, the National Park System consisted of the individual units of the System arranged in 10 regional offices, and the national office in Washington, DC. The individual units are overseen by a park superintendent with a staff generally commensurate in size with the area, public use, and significance of the unit. The newer park units in Alaska provide an exception to this, with relatively few personnel in comparison with the large size of the holdings.

The NPS has begun the implementation of a congressionally sanctioned (spring 1995) reorganization plan designed to eliminate three of the ten traditional regional offices and create a new system of sixteen clusters of parks. The new system involves sixteen new support offices to back the clusters. The reorganization plan, a part of the Administration's "reinvention" of government that involves downsizing and streamlining, is primarily designed to shift resources and personnel from central offices to field units.

The regional offices, each headed by a Regional Director, have provided certain administrative functions and specialized staff services and expertise which it would not be practicable to have available in each park unit. This shared assistance is particularly important to the smaller units. The new cluster support offices are designed to provide similar specialized services. The Director of the National Park Service, headquartered in Washington, D.C., is the chief administrative officer of the Service, with an immediate staff of a Deputy Director and several Associate Directors.

Expansion of the System comes about largely through congressional action to authorize the addition of new units. The President may also designate certain federally owned lands to be added to the System under the provisions of the Antiquities Act of 1906.

In those cases where Congress has authorized the acquisition of privately owned lands, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is typically used as the source of funding. The LWCF may also be used to acquire recreation lands for the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service. (See page 9 for further explanation of LWCF.)

As previously noted, the National Park System is managed with the dual, and sometimes contradictory, missions of preserving and protecting resources while allowing for their use in public recreation. Added to this basic challenge is the fact that the System units vary from historical structures, such as Ford's Theatre Historic Site, to large and complex natural, cultural, and historical areas, such as Yellowstone National Park. Also, in authorizing certain additions to the System, Congress has specified that certain natural resource uses, such as oil and gas development or hunting, may--or shall--be permitted in specific units. Examples are found in the case of national preserves such as Big Cypress, or national recreation areas such as Glen Canyon.

In general, activities which harvest or remove the resources within units of the System are usually not allowed. Mining, for instance, is generally prohibited, although the authorizing legislation for six national parks and monuments allowed for this activity, as modified by the Mining in the Parks Act of 1976. Other non-park uses are dealt with in specific enactments such as the 1911 law dealing with rights-of-way through park system units. Detailed guidance on management practices is found in the National Park Service publication, Management Policies, most recently updated in 1988.

Preservation of American Antiquities: Act of June 8, 1906; ch. 3060, 34 Stat. 225. 16 U.S.C. §431-433.

Rights-of-Way Through Parks and Reservations: Act of March 4, 1911; ch. 238, 36 Stat. 1253, 16 U.S.C. §5.

The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916: Act of August 25, 1916; ch. 408, 39 Stat. 535. 16 U.S.C. §1-4.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act: Act of Sept. 3, 1964; P.L. No. 88-578, 78 Stat. 897. 16 U.S.C. §1, et seq.

Concession Policy of the National Park Service: Act of October 9, 1965; P.L. No. 89-249, 79 Stat. 969. 16 U.S.C. §20-20g.

Mining in National Parks: Act of September 28, 1976; P.L. No. 94-429, 90 Stat. 1342. 16 U.S.C. §1901-1912.

Listed below are several laws that establish selected specific units of the National Park System. Those listed were chosen to exemplify laws which create the major different types of units.

Yellowstone National Park Act: R.S. 2474, derived from Act of March 1, 1872; ch.24, 17 Stat. 32. 16 U.S.C. §21, et seq.

North Cascades National Park: Act of October 2, 1968; P.L. No. 90-544, 82 Stat. 926. 16 U.S.C. §90-9Oe-3.

Canyonlands National Park: Act of September 12, 1964; P.L. No. 88-590, 78 Stat. 934. 16 U.S.C. §271-271g.

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: Act of October 27, 1972; P.L. No. 92-593, 86 Stat. 1311. 16 U.S.C. §460dd-460dd-9.

Assateague Island National Seashore: Act of September 21, 1965; P.L. No. 89-195, 79 Stat. 824. 16 U.S.C. §459f-459f-11.

Big Cypress National Preserve: Act of October 11, 1974; P.L. No. 93-440, 88 Stat. 1258. 16 U.S.C. §698f-698m.

Voyageurs National Park: Act of January 8, 1971; P.L. No. 91-661, 84 Stat. 1970. 16 U.S.C. §160-160k.

Establishment of New National Park System Units: A Brief Review of Procedures, Criteria, and Alternatives. [by George H. Siehl] CRS Report 91-153 ENR. Washington, DC: Feb. 7, 1991. 16 pp.

A Legislative History of Outdoor Recreation User Fees. [by LaTonya L. Brown.] CRS Report 92-645 ENR. Washington, DC: Aug. 14, 1992. 23 pp.

Scenic Landscape Protection. [by George H. Siehl.] CRS Report 90-525 ENR. Washington, DC: Nov. 13, 1990. 40 pp.

National Recreation Areas. [by George H. Siehl.] CRS Report 88-644 ENR. Washington, DC: Oct. 3, 1988. 52 pp.

SPECIAL SYSTEMS ON FEDERAL LANDS

There are currently three special management systems that include lands from more than one Federal land management agency: the National Wilderness Preservation System, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and the National Trails System. These systems were created by Congress to protect special features or characteristics which occur on lands managed by the various agencies. Rather than establish new agencies for these systems, Congress chose to have the existing agencies administer certain lands within parameters set by Congress. In general, Congress reserved the right to define the extent of the systems, although State-designated rivers and streams or recreational trails can, under certain circumstances, be added to the appropriate system without congressional action.

The National Wilderness Preservation System was established by the Wilderness Act in 1964. (P.L. No. 88-577, 78 Stat. 890, 16 U.S.C. §1131, et seq.) The Act defines wilderness as Federal land which is primarily affected by the forces of nature, relatively untouched by human activity, where solitude and primitive recreation are the dominant values. Wilderness areas eligible for inclusion in the system are generally limited to areas of more than 5,000 acres or those that can be managed to maintain their pristine character.

The 1964 Act designated 9.1 million acres of National Forest System lands as wilderness. Additional areas to be designated only by Acts of Congress, but the Act directed reviews of the wilderness potential of certain national forest lands and lands in the National Park. Congress began expanding the System in 1968, establishing four new wilderness areas in the National Forest System and the first wilderness area in the National Wildlife Refuge System; the first National Park System wilderness areas were established two years later, while the initial BLM wilderness designations did not occur until 1978. The most significant expansion of the system was included in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980, which established 35 new wilderness areas in Alaska with more than 56 million acres. This enactment more than tripled the National Wilderness Preservation System.

The Forest Service reviewed all national forest roadless areas and presented its wilderness recommendation in 1979. Passage of many national forest wilderness bills was held up temporarily in the early 1980s. A compromise over "release language" (27) in May 1984 broke a legislative stalemate, leading to the passage of 21 wilderness bills designating 8.6 million acres of predominately national forest wilderness in 21 States. The 103rd Congress also substantially expanded the system, with national forest wilderness areas in Colorado and BLM and National Park Service wilderness areas in southern California. Today, the National Wilderness Preservation System contains nearly 104 million acres in 44 States, as shown in Appendix C on pages 42 and 43.

Congress continues to consider further expansion of the National Wilderness Preservation System. More than 29 million acres, substantially in the National Park System in Alaska, have been recommended by the agencies to Congress for inclusion in the system. In addition to these recommendations, numerous areas are still being reviewed for their wilderness potential by each of the major Federal land managing agencies.

Wilderness designations are often controversial because wilderness areas have strict management and use limitations. Wilderness is "undeveloped Federal land ... without permanent improvements," and is to be managed to protect and preserve the natural conditions. Permanent improvements, such as roads and buildings, and activities which alter existing natural conditions, such as timber harvesting, are prohibited in wilderness areas. The Wilderness Act provided one temporary exception to the management restrictions: mineral exploration and leasing was allowed in wilderness areas for 20 years, until December 31, 1983. In addition, Congress specifically directed that livestock grazing be continued and that valid existing mineral rights be pursued under reasonable regulations to permit development while preserving wilderness characteristics. Congress also occasionally includes exceptions to the management limitations for specific wilderness areas, generally to allow the continuance of existing non-conforming uses, such as motorboats on lakes or the use of airstrips.

Another controversial issue is the effect of wilderness designations on Federal water rights. Federal water rights have not been particularly important in national forest wilderness designations, because to date these areas mostly have been headwaters, without upstream users. However, the issue will be important for BLM wilderness, because BLM lands are often downstream from other users and wilderness water rights might affect such users.

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was established by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968 (P.L. No. 90-542;16 U.S.C. Sec.1271 et. seq.). The Act established a policy of preserving selected free-flowing rivers for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future Americans. Three classes of rivers were established.

Rivers may be added to the system either by an Act of Congress, usually following a study by a Federal agency, or by nomination by a State with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. Fewer than 10 percent of the Federal wild and scenic river designations have been made by the Secretary.

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was established in 1968 when Congress designated 789 miles in eight rivers. Congress began expanding the system in 1972, and made substantial additions in 1976 and in 1978 (413 miles in three rivers, and 688 miles in eight rivers, respectively). As with the wilderness system, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was more than doubled by Alaska designations in ANILCA. In January 1981, Interior Secretary Cecil Andrus approved five rivers designated by the State of California, increasing the system by another 20 percent. The first additions under the Reagan Administration were enacted into law in 1984, with five rivers including more than 300 miles being added to the system. And in 1988, over 40 river segments in Oregon were designated, which added 1,400 additional miles to the system. The system now includes 150 rivers with 10,734 miles in 34 States. (See Appendix D on pages 44 and 45.)

Congress has identified numerous rivers as potential additions to the system. The Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture are required to report on the suitability of these rivers for wild and scenic designation to the President, who in turn submits recommendations to Congress.

The areas along rivers designated by Congress are generally managed by one of the four Federal land agencies (although one area is managed by the Army Corps of Engineers), or one or more States. The boundaries of the areas along wild and scenic rivers are identified by the appropriate Secretary, but the area included cannot exceed an average of 320 acres per mile of river designated (640 acres per mile in Alaska) -- an average of 1/4 mile on each side of the river. Where wild and scenic river corridor boundaries include State, county or other public land, or private land, Federal agencies have limited authority to purchase, condemn, exchange, or accept donations of State and private lands within the boundaries of National Wild and Scenic Rivers. Additionally, Federal agencies are directed to cooperate with State and local governments in developing corridor management plans. Some recent designations have included language calling for creation of citizen advisory boards or other mechanisms to ensure local participation in the development of management plans.

Management of Federal corridor lands is generally less restricted than wilderness areas, although management varies with the class of the designated river. Administration is intended to protect and enhance the values which led to the designation, but Congress also directed that other land uses not be limited unless they "substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values" (Section 10(a)). Primary emphasis for management is directed toward protecting aesthetic, scenic, historic, archaeologic, and scientific features of the area, but road construction, hunting and fishing, and mining and mineral leasing may be permitted in some instances, as long as the activities are consistent with the values of the area being protected and with other State and Federal laws.

State-designated rivers can be added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System only if the river is designated for protection under State law, is approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and is permanently administered by a State agency. Management of these State-designated rivers may be more complicated because of the diversity of land ownership patterns in these areas.

The National Trails System was authorized by the National Trails System Act of 1968. (P.L. No. 90-543, 82 Stat. 919, 16 U.S.C. §1241, et seq.) The Act describes the need to provide additional outdoor recreation opportunities, and establishes four classes of trails for the system: (1) national scenic trails--trails designated by an Act of Congress that provide outdoor recreation and the conservation and enjoyment of significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities; (2) national historic trails--trails designated by an Act of Congress that follow travel routes of national historic significance; (3) national recreational trails--trails in or reasonably accessible to urban areas, on Federal, State, or private lands, designated by the Secretary of the Interior with the consent of the States or the private landowner; and (4) connecting or side trails--trails to provide access to or among the other trails, designated on Federal lands by the appropriate Secretary and on other lands with the consent of the relevant governing body or landowner.

The first two components of the National Trails System were the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, stretching 2,155 miles from Mount Katahdin, Maine, to Springer Mountain, Georgia; and the Pacific Crest Scenic Trail, covering 2,600 miles from Canada to Mexico along the mountains of Washington, Oregon, and California. The System was expanded a decade later when the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 designated 4 historic trails with more than 9,000 miles, and another scenic trail, along the Continental Divide, with 3,100 miles. Subsequent enactments have brought the Federal portion of the system to a total of 19 trails covering approximately 35,000 miles authorized by Congress. About 40 percent of this mileage is now available for public use. In addition, over 800 national recreational trails are recognized as part of the National Trails System, as are two connecting or side trails.

Congress has requested feasibility studies for potential additions to the National Trails System. Thirty-seven trails have been designated for feasibility studies as national scenic trails or national historic trails. A detailed discussion of the trails programs of the Federal agencies can be found in CRS Report 89-8 ENR.

Each national trail is administered by either the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture under the authority of the National Trails System Act. Trail rights-of-way are determined by the appropriate Secretary to minimize the adverse effects on adjacent landowners. Rights-of-way are selected with the advice and assistance of States, local governments, private organizations, landowners, and land users. The Secretary must consult with a temporary (10-year) advisory council established for each trail in planning the rights-of-way and management activities. Development and management of trail rights-of-way are intended to "harmonize with and complement any established multiple-use plans for that specific area." Recreation facilities are generally acceptable, and other uses which will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail may be permitted by the appropriate Secretary. The use of motorized vehicles is generally prohibited on the National Scenic Trails, except: (1) for emergencies; (2) for reasonable access for adjacent landowners (including timber rights); and (3) for landowner use on private lands in the right-of-way "in accordance with regulations to be established by the appropriate Secretary."

The Secretaries are permitted to acquire lands or interest in lands for the National Trails System by written cooperative agreements, through donations, by purchase (with donated funds or appropriated funds), by exchange, and, only as a last resort and within limited authority, by condemnation on certain trails. The Secretaries are to administer the Federal lands, working cooperatively with agencies managing lands not under the jurisdiction of the Secretary that has overall administrative responsibility for the trail. The Secretaries are directed to cooperate with and encourage States to administer the non-Federal lands through cooperative agreements with landowners and private organizations for the rights-of-way or through States or local governments acquiring such lands or interests. The Secretaries have the authority to develop cooperative agreements with private landowners and organizations for rights-of-way. In addition, the Act strongly encourages public/private partnerships with groups and individuals working to create and perpetuate these trails.

Wilderness Act: Act of September 3, 1964; P.L. No. 88-577, 78 Stat. 890. 16 U.S.C. §1131, et seq.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: Act of October 2, 1968; P.L. No. 90-542, 82 Stat. 906. 16 U.S.C. §1271, et seq.

National Trails System Act: Act of October 2, 1968; P.L. No. 90-543, 82 Stat. 919. 16 U.S.C. §1241, et seq., as amended August 1992.

National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978: Act of November 10, 1978; P.L. No. 95-625, 92 Stat. 3467.

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980; P.L. No. 96-487, 94 Stat. 2371. U.S.C. §3210.

Trails Programs in Federal Agencies: A Data Compilation. [by George H. Siehl] CRS Report 89-8 ENR. Washington, DC: Jan. 3, 1989.

River and River Corridor Protection: Status of State and Federal Programs and Options for Congress. [by Betsy A. Cody, Jeffrey Zinn, and George H. Siehl.] CRS Report 92-575 ENR. Washington, DC: July 17, 1992. 85 pp.

Wilderness Areas and Federal Reserved Water Rights. [by Pamela Baldwin.] CRS Report 89-11A. Washington, DC: Jan. 4, 1989. 50 pp.

Wilderness Legislation: History of Release Language, 1979-1992. [by Ross W. Gorte and Pamela Baldwin.] CRS Report 93-280 ENR. Washington, DC: March 1, 1993. 11 pp.

APPENDICES

Appendix D. Mileage of Rivers Classified as Wild, Scenic, and Recreational, by State

Sources: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Land Areas of the National Forest System, As of Sept. 30, 1993; U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Master Deed Listing, Listing of Acreages by State, As of: 9/30/94, (unpublished report); U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as of September 30, 1993; U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Public Land Statistics 1993.

*National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management figures reflect a roughly 3 million acre transfer of BLM land to the NPS due to enactment of the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 (P.L. No. 103-433).

Appendix C. Federally Designated Wilderness Acreage, by State and by Agency

Appendix D. Mileage of Rivers Classified as Wild, Scenic, and Recreational by State

State	Wild	Scenic	Recreational	Total
Alabama	36.40	25	0	61.40
Alaska	2,955	227	28	3,210
Arizona	18.50	22	0	40.50
Arkansas	21.50	147.70	40.80	210
California	685.80	199.60	986.85	1,872.25
Colorado	30	0	46	76
Connecticut	0	0	14	14
Florida	1.25	5.75	0.50	7.50
Georgia (a)	32.30	0	14.60	46.90
Idaho (a)	321.90	34.40	217.70	574
Illinois	0	17.10	0	17.10
Kentucky	9.10	0	10.30	19.40
Louisiana	0	19	0	19
Maine	92.50	0	0	92.50
Massachusetts	0	18.90	24.40	43.30
Michigan	79	277.90	267.90	624.80
Minnesota (a)	0	114.50	12.50	127
Mississippi	0	21	0	21
Missouri	0	44.40	0	44.40
Montana	161.90	66.70	139.40	368
Nebraska (a)	0	70	125	195
New Hampshire	0	13.50	1	14.50
New Jersey (a)	0	94.50	104.90	199.40
New Mexico	90.75	20.10	10	120.85
New York (a)	0	25.10	50.30	75.40
North Carolina	7.50	32.60	0.60	40.70
Ohio	0	136.90	76	212.90
Oregon (a)	601.20	380.80	788.05	1,770.05
Pennsylvania (a)	0	60.10	135.30	195.40
South Carolina (a)	32.30	0	14.60	46.90
South Dakota (a)	0	0	98	98
Tennessee	44.25	0	0.95	45.20
Texas	95.20	96	0	191.20
Washington	0	108	68.50	176.50
West Virginia	0	10	0	10
Wisconsin (a)	0	217	59	276
Wyoming	20.50	0	0	20.50
U.S. Total (b)	5,272.05	2,296.55	3,165.75	10,734.35

Source: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Division of Park Planning and Protection.

a. This State shares mileage with some bordering States, where designated river segments are also State boundaries.

b. The indicated totals are the actual totals of classified mileage in the U.S. and do not reflect duplicative counting of mileage of rivers running between State borders.

1 U.S. General Services Administration. Summary Report of Real Property Owned by the United States throughout the World as of September 30, 1992. [Washington, DC: U.S. General Services Administration] December 1994. Unless otherwise noted, this report provides data current as of 1994.

2 For more information on natural resource programs on lands administered by the Department of Defense, see: U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Natural Resource Issues in National Defense Programs. [by George H. Siehl.] CRS Report No. 91-781 ENR. Oct. 31, 1991.

3 Table 2 does not include the nearly 2 billion acres of offshore submerged lands, the "exclusive economic zone," which in size is equivalent to more than two thirds of the land area of the entire United States.

4 In this report, the term "Federal lands" is used to refer to any Federal lands regardless of their mode of acquisition, or managing agency; "public domain lands" is used when the historical distinction is relevant, and "public lands" is used to refer to those lands managed by BLM.

5 FLPMA also established a comprehensive system of management of the remainder of the western public lands, and a definitive mission and policy statement for the BLM.

6 Appropriations for these four agencies are all handled by the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies.

7 U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Information and Status. [by George H. Siehl.] CRS Report 89-159 ENR. March 8, 1989. 6 pp.

9 Another principal Forest Service program is a continuation of the original role of the Bureau of Forestry: to provide forestry assistance to States and to nonindustrial private forest owners. The authorities for assistance programs were consolidated and clarified in the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978. Forestry research is the third principal Forest Service program. Congress first authorized forestry research in 1928 "to insure adequate supplies of timber and other forest products"; the research authorities were streamlined by the Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978. International Forestry is the fourth principal Forest Service program, as authorized in the Food, Agriculture, Trade, and Conservation Act of 1990 (the Farm Bill).

10 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. Land Acres of the National Forest System, as of September 1993. FS-383. Washington, DC: Feb. 1994. p. 1.

11 In 1966, Region 7, the Lake States Region, was combined with Region 9, the Northeastern Region, to form the current Eastern Region.

12 See: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Forest Service Planning: Setting Strategic Direction Under RPA. OTA-F-441. Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, July 1990.

13 See: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Forest Service Planning: Accommodating Uses, Producing Outputs and Sustaining Ecosystems. OTA-F-505. Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, Feb. 1992.

15 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. Land Areas of the National Forest System, as of Sept. 1993. p. 118.

16 Public Land Statistics, 1993. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Vol. 178. Washington, DC: September 1994. Table 4, p. 6. (Hereafter referred to as Public Land Statistics, 1993.)

17 43 C.F.R 1601. Some continue to question whether lands in grazing districts may be considered "reserved".

19. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Grazing Fee Review and Evaluation; Update of the 1986 Final Report. Washington, DC: April 30, 1992. p. 2.

20. The Forest Service also permits private livestock grazing on approximately 94 million acres.

21. Public Land Statistics, 1993. p. 32. BLM timber products sold in 1991 totalled $163 million, with western Oregon accounting for $151 million. The dramatic decline in timber sales is due in part to an injunction against several BLM timber sales on the grounds that the agency had not complied with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.

22. In FY 1992, there was a change in the system of counting subunits of the refuge system. The drop in numbers of units in that year is due to this change, rather than to a loss of refuges.

23. Pre-existing non-federal rights (e.g., minerals, oil and gas, easements, etc.) also are obviously honored. These rights are only occasionally acquired along with the land itself.

24. For example, some refuges (especially island refuges for nesting seabirds) may be completely closed to the public -- a restriction which would be extremely unlikely for an entire NPS unit.

25. This program should not be confused with other programs run by the Department of Agriculture to conserve wetlands.

26. U.S. General Accounting Office. National Wildlife Refuges: Continuing Problems with Incompatible Uses Call for Bold Action. GAO/RCED 89-196, Sept. 1989. 84 p.

27. Release language provides congressional direction on the timing and extent of future wilderness considerations by the Forest Service and on the interim management of roadless areas in the National Forest System. For more information, see: CRS Report 93-280 ENR, Wilderness Legislation: History of Release Language, 1979-1992.

Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment*



	National Council for Science and the Environment 1725 K Street, Suite 212 - Washington, DC 20006 202-530-5810 - info@NCSEonline.org