Ross W. Gorte
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Congress enacted the Wilderness Act in 1964. This act created the National Wilderness Preservation System, reserved to Congress the authority to designate wilderness areas, and directed the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior to review certain lands for their wilderness potential. The act also designated 54 wilderness areas with 9 million acres of federal land. Congress began expanding the Wilderness System in 1968, and today, there are 759 wilderness areas, totaling nearly 110 million acres, in 44 states. Numerous bills to designate additional areas and to expand existing ones are introduced and considered in every Congress.
The Wilderness Act defined wilderness as an area of generally undisturbed federal land, but did not establish criteria or standards to determine whether an area should be designated, because of differing perceptions of wilderness and because of the varying purposes of wilderness. In general, wilderness areas are undeveloped, and commercial activities, motorized access, and roads, structures, and facilities are generally prohibited in wilderness areas. However, in response to conflicting demands, Congress has granted both general exemptions and specific exceptions to the general standards and prohibitions.
The federal government owns about 29% of the land in the United States, although the proportion in each state varies widely. Four federal agencies—the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture—manage most of the federal lands. These agencies manage the 110 million acres of designated wilderness, as well as many other lands. They are also protecting lands as possible additions to the Wilderness System, and are reviewing the wilderness potential of additional lands.
In total, nearly 18% of federal land administered by the four major federal land management agencies, and nearly 5% of all land in the United States, has been designated as wilderness. Alaska, because of its size and relatively pristine condition, dominates wilderness statistics— more than 52% of designated wilderness is in Alaska. In total, nearly 16% of all land (federal, state, private, and other) in Alaska has been designated as wilderness. In contrast, 3% of all land in the United States outside Alaska has been designated as wilderness.
Date of Report: January 24, 2011
Number of Pages: 16
Order Number: RL31447
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development
In 1966, Congress passed the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act (P.L. 89-54) to prevent pets from being stolen for sale to research laboratories, and to regulate the humane care and handling of dogs, cats, and other laboratory animals. The law was amended in 1970 (P.L. 91-579), changing the name to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Congress periodically has amended the act to strengthen enforcement, expand coverage to more animals and activities, or curtail practices viewed as cruel, among other things. A 1976 amendment added Section 26 to the AWA, making illegal several activities that contributed to animal fighting. Farm animals are not covered by the AWA, which is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
In the 110th Congress, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007 (H.R. 137; P.L. 110-22) was enacted. The bill amended Section 26 of the AWA to strengthen provisions against animal fighting. The AWA was amended again in 2008 when provisions were included in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246). These provisions ban the importation of puppies under six months of age for resale, tighten prohibitions on dog and other animal fighting activity, and increase penalties for violation of the act.
Other AWA bills introduced in the 110th Congress included the Pet Safety and Protection Act (H.R. 1280/S. 714) to restrict where research facilities could obtain their dogs and cats; Haley’s Act (H.R. 1947) to make it unlawful for animal exhibitors and dealers (but not accredited zoos) to allow direct contact between the public and big cats such as lions and tigers; the Animal Protection and Accountability Improvement Act (H.R. 2193), to prohibit the use of animals in marketing medical devices and products; and the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (H.R. 6949/S. 3519), to require an AWA license from USDA of dog breeders who raise more than 50 dogs in a 12-month period and sell directly to the public.
In the 111th Congress, two of the bills were reintroduced: the Pet Safety and Protection Act (H.R. 3907/S. 1834); and the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (H.R. 5434/S. 3424). Both bills were referred to the House Committee on Agriculture, where they saw no further action.
Date of Report: January 10, 2011
Number of Pages: 11
Order Number: RS22493
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Todd Garvey
Legislative Attorney
The settlement reached in Cobell v. Salazar was authorized by the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 on December 8, 2010. Under the terms of the settlement, the United States government will pay $1.4 billion to members of the class who sought to have a historical accounting of their IIM accounts (an abbreviation for Individual Indian Monies). An additional $2 billion will be provided by the government for the purpose of consolidating fractionated trust and restricted lands.
First filed in 1996, Cobell v. Salazar involves the Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) management of several money accounts. These money accounts, or IIMs, as distinguished from tribal trust funds, are monies which the federal government holds for the benefit of individual Indians. The conflict in the case traces to the federal government’s trust responsibility with respect to American Indians. In the capacity of trustee, the United States holds title to much of Indian tribal land and land allotted to individual Indians. Receipts from leases, timber sales, or mineral royalties are paid to the federal government for disbursement to the appropriate Indian property owners. Flowing from the federal trusteeship of Indian lands and mineral resources are fiduciary responsibilities on the part of the United States to manage Indian monies and assets which have been derived from these lands and are held in trust. However, several of the beneficiaries of these trust funds alleged that DOI mismanaged these funds and filed suit in order to obtain a proper accounting of these funds and to receive damages if warranted.
After more than a decade of litigation over obligations associated with the management of the IIM accounts—consisting of over 3,600 documents and over 20 federal district court and court of appeals opinions—the parties ultimately reached a settlement on December 7, 2009. However, the settlement, which by its terms would create a Trust Administration Fund and a Land Consolidation Fund, required congressional authorization before it could go into effect. A year later, Congress authorized the settlement through the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (CRA), which was signed by President Obama on December 8, 2010.
Date of Report: January 3, 2011
Number of Pages: 13
Order Number: RL34628
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
M. Maureen Murphy
Legislative Attorney
In Carcieri v. Salazar, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1058 (2009), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a 1934 statute provides no authority for the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) to take land into trust for the Narragansett Indian Tribe (Tribe) because the statute applies only to tribes under federal jurisdiction when that law was enacted. Although the case involves only a small parcel of land in Rhode Island, the reach of the decision may be much broader because it relies on the major statute under which the SOI acquires land in trust for the benefit of Indians. The decision appears to call into question the ability of the SOI to take land into trust for any recently recognized tribe unless the trust acquisition has been authorized by legislation other than the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) or the tribe can show that it was “under Federal jurisdiction” in 1934.
The case involves a parcel of land which the SOI had agreed to take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe, thereby presumably subjecting it to federal and tribal jurisdiction and possibly opening the way for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The land is outside the Tribe’s current reservation, which is subject to the civil and criminal laws of Rhode Island according to the terms of the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1974 (RIICSA). RIICSA does not explicitly address the possibility that lands other than the “settlement lands” could be placed in trust; nor does it specify what jurisdictional arrangement should apply should that occur. A sharply divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled in favor of the trust acquisition, with the majority relying predominantly on statutory construction of RIICSA. Dissents, however, criticized this method of resolving the case as mechanical, seeing the consequent elimination of Rhode Island jurisdiction over the land as directly conflicting with the overriding purpose of RIICSA and the State’s bargained-for-objective in agreeing to the settlement—ending all Indian claims to sovereign authority in Rhode Island.
The issues before the Supreme Court were (1) whether the authority under which the SOI has agreed to acquire the land, 25 U.S.C. § 465, a provision of the IRA of 1934, covers trust acquisitions by a tribe that was neither federally recognized nor under federal jurisdiction in 1934, and (2) whether the trust acquisition violated the terms of RIICSA. The Supreme Court’s decision is predicated on the Court’s finding that the definitions of “Indians” and “Indian tribe” in the 1934 legislation unambiguously restrict the beneficiaries for whom the SOI may take land into trust to tribes that, in 1934, were “under Federal jurisdiction.” The Court also held that the Narragansett Indian Tribe was not “under Federal jurisdiction” in 1934. It, therefore, ruled that the trust was not authorized by the statute and reversed the lower court.
A number of tribes have obtained federal recognition since 1934. As a December 2010 trust acquisition for the Cowlitz Indian Tribe may indicate, the Department of the Interior (DOI) may continue to take land into trust for recently recognized tribes, provided an extensive exploration of the particular history of the tribe and its relations with the federal government demonstrates to the satisfaction of the DOI that the tribe was “under Federal jurisdiction” in 1934. In the 111th Congress, there were several bills aimed at amending the IRA; none, however, were enacted. A provision amending the IRA retroactively and ratifying past trust acquisitions was included in the continuing appropriations bill for FY2011, H.R. 3082, as passed by the House of Representatives. In the Senate, S. 1703, as reported by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (S.Rept. 111-247), sought to address the issue.
Date of Report: January 11, 2011
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: RL34521
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney
On March 5, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced that the sage grouse (sometimes called the greater sage grouse) was facing risks to its population such that a listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was warranted. However, in that same determination, FWS found that the sage grouse listing was precluded because listing other species was a priority. The agency made the same warranted but precluded determination regarding a distinct population segment of the sage grouse, the Mono Basin sage grouse (sometimes referred to as the Bi-State population). In a subsequent determination, FWS found that protection of the Gunnison sage grouse (a different species from the greater sage grouse) was warranted but precluded as well.
This report analyzes the process behind a warranted but precluded determination under the ESA. It also discusses what impact a warranted but precluded determination has on federal actions that may affect a species, with a particular analysis of impacts on the sage grouse. In the case of the sage grouse, whose habitat covers so much of the western United States, agency decisions, such as oil and gas leasing, will have to take into account this listing decision. Both the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service have existing policies addressing how land management planning must consider species for which this determination was made.
Date of Report: January 10, 2011
Number of Pages: 11
Order Number: R41100
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Posts
