Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2013 Appropriations and Policy

M. Lynne Corn
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

The annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriation funds agencies and programs in three federal departments, as well as numerous related agencies and bureaus. Among the agencies represented is the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in the Department of the Interior. Many of its programs are among the more controversial of those funded in the bill. For FY2013, the President requested $1.55 billion, up 4.9% from the FY2012 level of $1.48 billion contained the Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74, Division E, H.Rept. 112-331). (This measure also provided appropriations for most federal government operations for the remainder of FY2012.) For FWS, the proposed changes in the various accounts ranged from elimination (down 100%) to increases up to 138%, relative to the FY2012 level.

This report analyzes the FWS funding levels proposed for the FY2013 appropriations bill. Emphasis is on FWS funding for programs that have generated congressional debate or particular constituent interest, now or in recent years. However, few specific issues have yet developed for the FY2013 appropriation for FWS, although general efforts to reduce federal spending will encourage scrutiny of all spending, in FWS as in other agencies.


Date of Report: April 5, 2012
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: R42466
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.

Administrative Appeals in the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service

Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney

Congress has expressed an interest in the appeals processes of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service because of its complexity, and because of allegations that the appeals processes have restricted the ability of the agencies to manage the resources under their care. In 2011, Congress changed the Land Resources Management Plan review process from one that provided for automatic stays and multiple levels of review to a 30-day pre-decisional objection process (P.L. 112-74 §428). In replacing the 1992 Forest Service Decisionmaking and Appeals Reform Act process with that of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, Congress aimed to expedite agency review. This change, however, will not take effect until final regulations are issued for which Congress did not set a deadline.

Administrative appeals are challenges to agency actions that agencies attempt to resolve themselves. Agencies set up hearing processes and regulations to meet the requirements guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution—that no person will be deprived of property without the due process of the law. This report describes the appeals processes of the BLM of the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture. These appeals are not all formal adjudicatory proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Act (although some have similar procedures), but are defined primarily by agency regulation.

BLM has many different types of administrative appeals. The type of appeal depends, in large part, on the type of action taken by BLM. Decisions regarding land use plans have one type of review that differs slightly for challenges by governors. Decisions regarding minerals, oil and gas, forests, and grazing have a different appeals process, sometimes even having different processes within those categories. Many, but not all, BLM decisions have a final agency review by an appeals board under the Department of the Interior. Sometimes the final review is completed by an Administrative Law Judge.

The Forest Service also has multiple types of reviews, although it does not have an appeals board. For the most part, Forest Service administrative appeals are based on the type of decision being challenged. Forest plans have one process. However, projects implementing those plans have different types of administrative appeals depending on the underlying statute from which the project was authorized. Decisions regarding use and occupancy of forests have another appeals process, which differs depending on the level of employee who made the decision being challenged.


Date of Report: March 28, 2012
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: R40131
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.

Compensating State and Local Governments for the Tax-Exempt Status of Federal Lands: What Is Fair and Consistent?

Ross W. Gorte
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

M. Lynne Corn
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

The federal government owns significant amounts of land and resources that are exempt from state and local taxation. State and local governments provide a wide variety of services— education, social services, public safety, transportation facilities, utilities, and much more. These services are funded through intergovernmental transfers (federal grants to state governments and federal and state grants to local governments), user fees, and state and local levied taxation— property taxes, income taxes, sales and use taxes, excise taxes, severance taxes, and more.

Congress has established programs to compensate state and local governments for the tax-exempt status of federal lands. Some propose that “fair” compensation would provide payments that are equivalent to the taxes that would be paid if the lands were privately owned. Assessing such tax equivalency, however, is difficult because of the substantial variability in state and local reliance on and rates for the various types of taxes. Others suggest that “fair” compensation would provide payments that offset the costs imposed on state and local governments from the federal lands, although this would exclude payments for governmental services that are not paid by the beneficiaries (e.g., social services). Providing consistent payments is a challenge; permanent appropriations are the most stable, but are difficult to establish and create permanent obligations. Finally, which lands to include for federal payments may seem straightforward, but lack of precise data on the federal lands might compromise accuracy of payments, and federal responsibility for tax-exempt Indian lands is unclear.

A plethora of federal payment programs exist, enacted at various times and for various reasons over the past century. Some payment programs are based on numbers of Indian children or children of federal employees (about $1.3 billion annually), some on federal receipts (about $0.5 billion annually), and some on federal acreage (about $0.4 billion annually). Some of the receiptand acreage-based payments are broad, covering many federal lands, while others are quite narrow (e.g., based on sales of a particular resource within a limited area). Some are permanently authorized, and have mandatory spending authority (payments without annual action by Congress). Others require periodic reauthorization, annual appropriations, or both.

Although most of the federal payment programs were justified as compensation for the taxexempt status of federal lands, the programs poorly reflect state and local tax equivalency or state and local costs of providing governmental services. In some places, the payments probably exceed what a private landowner would pay; in others, the payments fall short of what many might consider “fair” compensation. These possibly inequitable results likely occur from differences in the congressional committees of jurisdiction over various lands and programs and over time, and because only some programs were established with mandatory spending authority.

The mandatory spending authority for two relatively large payment programs—the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (SRS Act) program and the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program—expired at the end of FY2011 and will expire at the end of FY2012, respectively. As Congress debates the reauthorization of the SRS Act, the mandatory spending authority of the PILT program, and other payment programs, it might consider the broader questions of what is fair and consistent compensation to state and local governments for the taxexempt status of federal lands.


Date of Report: March 22, 2012
Number of Pages: 33
Order Number: R42439
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.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the112th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices

Eugene H. Buck
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

M. Lynne Corn
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney

Pervaze A. Sheikh
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Robert Meltz
Legislative Attorney

The Endangered Species Act (ESA; P.L. 93-205, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543) was enacted to increase protection for, and provide for the recovery of, vanishing wildlife and vegetation. Under ESA, species of plants and animals (both vertebrate and invertebrate) can be listed as endangered or threatened according to assessments of their risk of extinction. Habitat loss is the primary cause for listing species. Once a species is listed, powerful legal tools are available to aid its recovery and protect its habitat. Accordingly, when certain resources are associated with listed species— such as water in arid regions like California, old growth timber in national forests, or free-flowing rivers—ESA is seen as an obstacle to continued or greater human use of these resources. ESA may also be controversial because dwindling species are usually harbingers of broader ecosystem decline or conflicts. As a result, ESA is considered a primary driver of large-scale ecosystem restoration issues.

The 112th Congress may conduct oversight of the implementation of various federal programs and laws that address threatened and endangered species. This could range from addressing listing and delisting decisions under ESA to justifying funding levels for international conservation programs. The 112th Congress may also face specific resource conflicts involving threatened and endangered species, including managing water supplies and ecosystem restoration in San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Delta in California (i.e., Bay-Delta) and managing water supplies in the Klamath Basin. In the 112th Congress, resource-specific issues may be addressed independently, whereas oversight on the implementation of ESA may be addressed in debates about particular species (e.g., wolves, polar bears, and salmon). P.L. 112-10 (final appropriations for FY2011) included a legislative delisting of a portion of the reintroduced Rocky Mountain gray wolf population.

The 112th Congress may consider legislation related to global climate change that includes provisions that would allocate funds to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s endangered species program and/or to related funds to assist species adaptation to climate change. Other major issues concerning ESA in recent years have included the role of science in decision making, critical habitat (CH) designation, incentives for property owners, and appropriate protection for listed species, among others.

The authorization for spending under ESA expired on October 1, 1992. The prohibitions and requirements of ESA remain in force, even in the absence of an authorization, and funds have been appropriated to implement the administrative provisions of ESA in each subsequent fiscal year. Proposals to reauthorize and extensively amend ESA were last considered in the 109th Congress, but none were enacted. No legislative proposals were introduced in the 110th or 111th Congresses to reauthorize ESA.

This report discusses oversight issues and legislation introduced in the 112th Congress to address ESA implementation and management of endangered and threatened species.


Date of Report: March 15, 2012
Number of Pages: 24
Order Number: R41608
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.

Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues

Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Over more than 25 years, Congress has established 49 national heritage areas (NHAs) to commemorate, conserve, and promote areas that include important natural, scenic, historic, cultural, and recreational resources. NHAs are partnerships among the National Park Service (NPS), states, and local communities, where the NPS supports state and local conservation through federal recognition, seed money, and technical assistance. NHAs are not part of the National Park System, where lands are federally owned and managed. Rather, lands within heritage areas typically remain in state, local, or private ownership or a combination thereof. Heritage areas have been supported as protecting lands and traditions and promoting tourism and community revitalization, but opposed as potentially burdensome, costly, or leading to federal control over nonfederal lands. This report focuses on heritage areas designated by Congress (not other entities) and related issues and legislation.

There is no comprehensive statute that establishes criteria for designating NHAs or provides standards for their funding and management. Rather, particulars for each area are provided in its enabling legislation. Congress designates a management entity, usually nonfederal, to coordinate the work of the partners. This entity typically develops and implements a plan for managing the NHA, in collaboration with other parties. Once approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the management plan becomes the blueprint for managing the area.

NHAs might receive funding from a wide variety of sources. Congress typically determines federal funding for NHAs in annual appropriations laws for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. NHAs can use federal funds for many purposes, including staffing, planning, and projects. The FY2012 appropriation for the NPS for assistance to heritage areas was $17.4 million. The Obama Administration is seeking $9.3 million for FY2013.

The Obama Administration has expressed interest in having NHAs become financially selfsufficient, and some appropriators and other Members have emphasized self-sufficiency for these areas as well. One role of the NPS is to evaluate heritage areas at least three years before the expiration of the authorization for federal funds. The NPS is currently focused on evaluating nine NHAs designated in 1996, and anticipates completing these evaluations in August 2012.

Each Congress typically considers bills to establish new heritage areas, to study areas for possible heritage designation, or to amend existing heritage areas. In the 112th Congress, several such bills are pending. Other 112th Congress bills would ban federal funding for heritage areas.

Further, the sizeable number of existing NHAs and proposals in recent years to study and designate new ones has fostered legislation to establish a system of NHAs, and to provide criteria for their designation, standards for their management, and limits on federal funding support. In the 112th Congress, one such measure (H.R. 4099) has been introduced. The Obama Administration has supported such systemic NHA legislation. Some opponents believe that NHAs present numerous problems and challenges and that Congress should oppose efforts to designate new areas and/or to create a system of NHAs.

In the 111th Congress, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-11) included provisions to create nine new NHAs, to reauthorize one existing area, to study two areas for possible heritage designation, and to amend four existing heritage areas.


Date of Report: March 6, 2012
Number of Pages: 19
Order Number: RL33462
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.