Search Penny Hill Press

Monday, November 8, 2010

Endangered Species Act Issues Regarding Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead


Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney

Eugene H. Buck
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy


The construction and operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) have reduced salmon and steelhead populations in the Columbia Basin. In 1991 the Snake River sockeye became the first Pacific salmon stock listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a protected species. Since then, operations of the FCRPS have had to be considered in the context of the ESA. This means that federal operators of the FCRPS, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bonneville Power Administration, and the Army Corps of Engineers, are required to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on how federal actions may impact species. At the end of the consultation, NMFS issues a biological opinion (BiOp) as to whether the action would jeopardize the continued existence of a species or harm its critical habitat. As part of the consultation process, NMFS recommends mitigation measures to avoid harm to listed species. Protective measures for fish often come at a cost in terms of energy generation or irrigation supply, and this tension between natural resources and energy production and irrigation is at the heart of conflict in the Columbia Basin.

Beginning in 1992, a series of BiOps were issued by NMFS. Courts have found almost all of them inconsistent with the ESA. The 2005 BiOp was remanded to NMFS, with the final, updated BiOp released in May 2008. That BiOp is now the subject of a lawsuit. The court reviewing the 2008 BiOp had stated in 2007 that if the final document did not meet ESA standards, the court might vacate the BiOp. This step would mean that any harm to a listed species by FCRPS operations would be an unauthorized “take” under the ESA. In a May 18, 2009, letter to the parties, that court indicated that its “tentative position” was that the 2008 BiOp was inadequate.

The Bonneville Power Administration has offered nearly $1 billion to four Indian tribes to resolve the litigation. However, states, environmental groups, and fishing interests, who also have acted as plaintiffs, were not included in the settlement.



Date of Report: October 25, 2010
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: R40169
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.

Friday, November 5, 2010

Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (FS): Issues in the 111th Congress


Ross W. Gorte, Coordinator
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinator
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney

Marc Humphries
Analyst in Energy Policy


Congress, the Administration, and the courts are considering many issues related to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) public lands and the Forest Service (FS) national forests. Key issues include the following. 

Energy Resources.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) led to new regulations on federal land leasing for oil and gas, oil shale, geothermal, and renewable energy. The Obama Administration is reviewing some rules and has withdrawn certain oil and gas leases in Utah. 

Hardrock Mining.
The General Mining Law of 1872 allows prospecting for minerals in open public domain lands. Several bills to reform aspects of the Law have been introduced to require royalties on production and establish a fund to clean up abandoned mines, among other changes. 

Wildfire Protection.
Various initiatives seek to protect communities from wildfires by expanding fuel reduction, and one related program was established in P.L. 111-11. Cost concerns led to new fire suppression accounts in the FLAME Act (Title V of P.L. 111-88). 

Wild Horses and Burros.
To reduce program costs and the number of wild horses and burros on the range, the Secretary of the Interior has proposed wild horse preserves and increased fertility controls. Legislation would prohibit the slaughter of healthy wild horses and burros and more. 

National Landscape Conservation System.
The 111
th Congress affirmed BLM’s 27 million-acre land protection system by establishing it legislatively (P.L. 111-11). Questions focus on funding and management for these specially protected conservation areas. 

Wilderness.
P.L. 111-11 designated more than 2 million acres of wilderness, and more wilderness bills have been introduced. Many recommendations for wilderness areas are pending. Questions persist about wilderness review and managing wilderness study areas (WSAs). 

National Forest System Roadless Areas.
Debates persist about managing roadless areas for different values, and bills have been introduced to protect the areas. Regulations from previous administrations were challenged successfully, leading to potentially conflicting court rulings. 

FS NEPA Application.
The FS has altered its process for activity review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and has added activities that can be categorically excluded from reviews. Many of these changes and proposals have been challenged in court. 

BLM Land Sales.
The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act authorizes the sale or exchange of BLM lands and use of the proceeds for certain land acquisitions. The authority was extended to July 25, 2011. H.R. 3339 would make the authorization permanent, while S. 1787 would extend it to 2020. 

National Forest Planning.
The National Forest Management Act of 1976 requires land and resource management plans for the national forests. Regulations from previous administrations have not been implemented, and the Obama Administration has begun a new rulemaking effort.



Date of Report: October 22, 2010
Number of Pages: 33
Order Number: R40237
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.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinator
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding for the Department of the Interior (DOI), except for the Bureau of Reclamation, and for agencies within other departments—including the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service (IHS) within the Department of Health and Human Services. It also includes funding for arts and cultural agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, and numerous other entities.

The President initially requested $32.43 billion for FY2011 for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, a $136.3 million (0.4%) increase over the FY2010 level of $32.29 billion. Despite the relative stability of this total funding, the President sought increases for some agencies and decreases for other agencies. Based on the President’s initial request, among the proposed increases for FY2011, over FY2010 appropriations, were the following: 

  • $354.1 million (9%) for the Indian Health Service; 
  • $79.4 million (1%) for the Forest Service; 
  • $36.2 million (5%) for the Smithsonian Institution; and 
  • $21.6 million (2%) for the U.S. Geological Survey.
Among the proposed decreases were the following: 
  • $269.9 million (3%) for the Environmental Protection Agency; 
  • $53.6 million (2%) for the Bureau of Indian Affairs; 
  • $25.8 million (14%) for the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians; and 
  • $16.7 million (10%) for the Office of Surface Mining. 
Actions subsequent to the President’s initial request have affected funding levels for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. Most notably, on September 13, 2010, the President requested additional funding to facilitate the reorganization of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE)—formerly the Minerals Management Service (MMS). The President’s current request for BOEMRE is $222.9 million, an $86.4 million increase over the FY2010 MMS appropriation.

No regular appropriations bill to fund Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2011 was enacted before the start of the fiscal year on October 1, 2010. Consequently, on September 30, 2010, President Obama signed the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 111-242). The law generally continues funds for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies at FY2010 levels, through December 3, 2010.

Congress typically considers a variety of funding and policy issues during consideration of each year’s appropriations legislation. These issues have included energy development onshore and offshore, wildland fire fighting, Indian trust fund management, royalty relief, climate change, DOI science programs, and wild horse and burro management. Other issues have included the appropriate funding levels for Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement and education; Indian Health Service construction and contract health services; wastewater/drinking water needs; the arts; land acquisition through the Land and Water Conservation Fund; and the Superfund program. This report will be updated to reflect major congressional action. 
.


Date of Report: October 27, 2010
Number of Pages: 60
Order Number: R41258
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.

Biomass: Comparison of Definitions in Legislation Through the 111th Congress


Kelsi Bracmort
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy  

Ross W. Gorte
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy


The use of biomass as an energy feedstock is emerging as a potentially viable alternative to address U.S. energy security concerns, foreign oil dependence, rural economic development, and diminishing sources of conventional energy. Biomass (organic matter that can be converted into energy) may include food crops, crops for energy (e.g., switchgrass or prairie perennials), crop residues, wood waste and byproducts, and animal manure. Most legislation involving biomass has focused on encouraging the production of liquid fuels from corn. Efforts to promote the use of biomass for power generation have focused on wood, wood residues, and milling waste. Comparatively less emphasis has been placed on the use of non-corn based biomass feedstocks— other food crops, non-food crops, crop residues, animal manure, and more—as renewable energy sources for liquid fuel use or for power generation. This is partly due to the variety, lack of availability, and dispersed location of non-corn based biomass feedstock. The technology development status and costs to convert non-corn based biomass into energy are also viewed by some as an obstacle to rapid technology deployment.

For over 30 years, the term biomass has been a part of legislation enacted by Congress for various programs, indicating some interest by the general public and policymakers in expanding its use. To aid understanding of why U.S. consumers, utility groups, refinery managers, and others have not fully adopted biomass as an energy resource, this report investigates the characterization of biomass in legislation. The definition of biomass has evolved over time, most notably since 2004. The report lists biomass definitions enacted by Congress in legislation and the tax code since 2004 and definitions contained in pending legislation (the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, H.R. 2454; the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, S. 1462; the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, S. 1733; and the discussion draft of the American Power Act). Comments on the similarities and differences among the definitions are provided. One point of contention regarding the definition is the inclusion of biomass from federal lands. Some argue that removal of biomass from these lands may lead to ecological harm. Others contend that biomass from federal lands can aid the production of renewable energy to meet certain mandates (e.g., the Renewable Fuel Standard) and can enhance forest protection from wildfires. Factors that may prevent a private landowner from rapidly entering the biomass feedstock market are also included in the report.



Date of Report: October 28, 2010
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: R40529
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.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified

 M. Lynne Corn
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Under federal law, local governments are compensated through various programs for losses to their property tax bases due to the presence of most federally owned land. These lands cannot be taxed, but may create demand for services such as fire protection, police cooperation, or simply longer roads to skirt the federal property. Some of these programs are run by specific agencies, and apply only to that agency’s land. The most widely applicable program, administered by the Department of the Interior (DOI), applies to many types of federally owned land, and is called “Payments in Lieu of Taxes,” or PILT. The authorized level of PILT payments is calculated under a complex formula. This paper addresses only the DOI PILT program. There is no PILT-like program generally applicable to military lands, but a small fraction of military lands are eligible for the DOI PILT program. Furthermore, PILT does not apply to Indian-owned lands, virtually none of which are subject to local taxes.

This paper explains PILT payments, with an analysis of the five major factors affecting the calculation of a payment to a given county. It also describes the effects of certain changes in PILT in 2008. Previously, annual appropriations were necessary to fund PILT, but a 2008 provision (in P.L. 110-343) for mandatory spending ensured that, beginning with FY2008 and continuing for four more years, all counties will receive 100% of the authorized payment. Efforts have begun to convert the temporary mandatory spending into a permanent feature of PILT. With the enactment of five years of mandatory spending, counties might also renew the long-term debate over the equity of the PILT formula itself in future years.

Other issues have arisen concerning PILT since the program was created in 1976. One is the perceived delay in making PILT payments in 2010. An administrative controversy arose when DOI announced that the PILT payments would be delayed past the normal June issuance. DOI cited various reasons, but counties (many facing falling revenue bases) protested the delay. Checks were eventually issued with only minor delay.

Other issues have been the inclusion of additional lands under the PILT program, particularly some or all Indian lands, which are not now eligible for PILT. Most categories of Indian-owned lands cannot be taxed by local governments. In some counties, this means a very substantial portion of the land is not taxable. The remaining tax burden (for roads, schools, fire and police protection, etc.) therefore falls more heavily on other property owners. To help compensate for this loss, some counties have proposed that Indian lands (variously defined) be included among those eligible for PILT payments. Other lands mentioned from time to time for inclusion include those of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. In addition, some counties would like to revisit the compensation formula and emphasize a payment rate more similar to property tax rates (which vary widely among counties), a feature that would be a major change in counties with high property values. Finally, for lands in the National Wildlife Refuge System, some would argue that all lands of the system should be eligible for PILT, rather than limiting the PILT payments to lands reserved from the public domain and excluding PILT payments for acquired lands. The exclusion affects primarily counties in eastern states. 
.


Date of Report: October 28, 2010
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: RL31392
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.