Search

The article discusses the litigation on the Nationwide Rule established in the U.S. The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and other groups sued to stop the implementation of the Nationwide Rule, citing that it violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Forest Management Act (NFMA), while the state of Idaho, also sued seeking similar relief. The federal district court decided that the Forest Service was inadequate in identifying the inventoried roadless areas.

The article discusses the 2005 Roadless Area Policy or the State Petition Rule enacted in the U.S. It gives the states the power to request for roadless areas that would remain unchanged, and allows the state governor to make management recommendations for roadless areas in the state in a petition to the Secretary. The petitions are to contain information including a description of the lands the petition is being made for, management recommendations, and identification of issues to be addressed by the petition.

The article discusses the Nationwide Rule, a nationwide policy for roadless areas, established under the administration of then U.S. president Bill Clinton on January 12, 2001 and to take effect on March 13, 2001. The policy was established due to the importance of roadless areas for forest management purposes, as well as to address the concern of having to deal with planning roadless area projects on a forest-by-forest basis. It prohibits new roads in inventoried roadless areas and timber harvests.

The article discusses the U.S. National Forest System (NFS) Roadless Area Initiatives. The administration under former U.S. president Bill Clinton established the Nationwide Rule that prohibited road construction and reconstruction and timber harvesting in 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas in the NFS on January 12, 2001. After postponing the effectivity date of the Nationwide Rule, then president George W. Bush issued a rule that allowed states to plan the management of roadless areas.

The article presents a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on wilderness laws in the U.S. It summarizes statutory provisions on buffer zones, state fish and wildlife jurisdiction and responsibilities, and land and rights acquisition. It also discusses the provisions on prohibited uses and nonconforming permitted uses under the Wilderness Act, including area closures to public access, management requirements and emergencies and access to nonfederal in-holdings.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Deforestation releases substantial amounts of carbon dioxide, about 17% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Legislation has been proposed for U.S. targets to reduce GHG emissions. The two primary bills, H.R. 2454 and S. 1733, include provisions that would reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation; these activities are referred to as REDD. Both bills would use allowances to build capacity in developing countries and supplement U.S. emissions reductions; both would allow offsets for U.S. industries; and both contain a reserve to stabilize carbon prices. The bills are generally similar on allowances for REDD activities, but significant differences exist. H.R. 2454 would rely on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for implementation; S. 1733 would use the U.S. Agency for International Development. H.R. 2454 contains eligibility criteria and implementation standards for the supplemental emissions reductions, and identifies the types of activities that could be funded. S. 1733 would rely on federal agencies to issue regulations for these details. H.R. 2454 also contains more details on monitoring and reporting. The bills are similar on REDD offsets, although H.R. 2454 generally contains more details for implementation. Both would limit the quantity of international offsets—1 gigaton or billion metric tons (GtCO2) in H.R. 2454, and 0.5 GtCO2 in S. 1733—but would allow some additional international offsets if domestic offsets are insufficient. Both contain guidelines that require agreements with the developing country, and national baselines and strategic forest plans by the developing country. However, neither defines the types of REDD activities that qualify. Both would allow project level and state or regional level REDD offsets, and both would phase-out such offsets to encourage national level REDD offsets, but neither bill describes how the transition from project level or state level REDD offsets to national offsets is to proceed. Both bills also address the rights and needs of indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities, requiring due regard to indigenous and local rights and directing consultations with and the participation of indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities. There are several concerns about REDD allowances in the bills. H.R. 2454 provides significant details for supplemental emissions reductions, but eligible forests are undefined and the criteria and standards might be insufficient for effective implementation. The bills contain no penalties or consequences for failures to achieve the anticipated reductions in carbon release or to measure and monitor the activities. Both bills would use allowances for building capacity (e.g., personnel and equipment) to measure, monitor, and enforce REDD activities in developing countries, but neither bill defines capacity-building activities that could be funded, nor allocates funds between capacity building and supplemental emissions reductions. There are also concerns about REDD carbon offsets. There are issues for carbon offsets generally—their verification (measuring, monitoring, and reporting carbon sequestration), their additionality (activities not already occurring or required), their permanence, and leakage (merely shifting deforestation to other locations). These issues are exacerbated for REDD offsets, because many developing countries do not have the capacity to address these concerns. In addition, many are concerned that REDD offsets may inhibit developing countries from committing to GHG reductions and from evolving to low-carbon economies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report summarizes and compares climate change adaptation-related provisions in the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) and the Clean Energy, Jobs, and Power Act (S. 1733). H.R. 2454 was introduced by Representatives Waxman and Markey and passed the House on June 26, 2009. S. 1733 was introduced to the Senate by Senators Boxer and Kerry and, after subsequent revisions made in the form of a manager’s substitution amendment, was reported out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on November 5, 2009. Adaptation measures aim to improve an individual’s or institution’s ability to cope with or avoid harmful impacts of climate change, and to take advantage of potential beneficial ones. Both H.R. 2454 and S. 1733 include adaptation provisions that (1) seek to better assess the impacts of climate change and variability that are occurring now and in the future; and (2) support adaptation activities related to climate change, both domestically and internationally. Overall, while the two bills would authorize similar adaptation programs, they differ somewhat in scope and emphasis, and they also differ in the distribution of emission allowance allocations over time. Both bills contain provisions that address international climate change adaptation; domestic climate change adaptation programs, including the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the National Climate Service, and state and tribal programs; public health; and natural resources adaptation. S. 1733 includes five additional provisions not provided for in the House bill that deal with drinking water utilities; water system mitigation and adaptation partnerships; flood control, protection, prevention, and response; wildfire; and coastal Great Lakes states’ adaptation. Neither the Senate-reported bill (S. 1733) nor the House-passed bill (H.R. 2454) contains a process at the federal level for developing and implementing a national strategic plan to address the full range of sectors expected to be affected by climate change. Neither bill includes provisions that explicitly address adaptation in major sectors such as transportation and energy infrastructure, or agriculture. Another difference between S. 1733 and H.R. 2454 is the distribution of allowance allocations over time, and the subsequent availability of the amounts credited to certain funds. The relative distribution of allowances to adaptation-related activities is slightly higher in the House bill than in the Senate bill, and the difference increases over time, but the actual amounts of revenue generated would be contingent on the number and price of emission allowances. The Senate bill provides that funds for many adaptation-related provisions, such as for natural resources and public health, are made available “without further appropriations.” In contrast, the analogous provisions in the House bill provide that the funds would become available only by subsequent appropriations. A side-by-side table is included in an appendix to the report that compares adaptation-related provisions in H.R. 2454 and S. 1733. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the proposal of activities to reduce forest biomass fuels. It states that wildfire suppression and historic land management practices led to abnormal high biomass levels in many forests which can cause severe forest fires. It notes that several methods has reduced forest biomass fuels including prescribed burning and thinning. It also says that the U.S. Congress should provide appropriate funding for prescribed burning and thinning for biomass fuel reduction.

The 111th Congress, the Administration, and the courts are considering many issues related to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) public lands and the Forest Service (FS) national forests. Key issues include the following. Energy Resources. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 has led to new regulations on leasing programs and application of environmental laws to certain actions. H.R. 6 was enacted as P.L. 110-140 on December 19, 2007, without many of the federal lands provisions considered earlier. Hardrock Mining. The General Mining Law of 1872 allows prospecting for minerals in open public domain lands, and staking a claim, developing the minerals, and applying for a patent to obtain title to the land and minerals. The House passed H.R. 2262 in the 110th Congress, to reform aspects of the General Mining Law, and a similar bill, H.R. 699, has been introduced in the 111th Congress. Wildfire Protection. Various initiatives seek to protect communities from wildfires by expanding fuel reduction, and bills have been offered to restore forest health. Concerns over high and rising suppression costs have led to bills for separate wildfire suppression funding accounts. The economic stimulus legislation, P.L. 111-5, includes additional funding for fuel reduction. Wild Horses and Burros. To reduce the number of wild horses and burros on the range and/or program costs, the BLM is considering three controversial options: euthanizing healthy animals, selling them without limitations, or ceasing to removing them from the range. H.R. 1018 has been introduced to amend the Wild Horses and Burros Act to limit euthanasia and sales. National Landscape Conservation System. The BLM created the National Landscape Conservation System in 2000 to enhance the focus on specially protected conservation areas. The 111th Congress is considering measures to establish the 27 million acre system legislatively, including in Title Q of S. 22, which passed the Senate on January 16, 2009, and may debate the adequacy of funds for the system. Wilderness. Many agency recommendations for wilderness areas are pending. Questions persist about wilderness review and managing wilderness study areas (WSAs). Nearly fifty wilderness area bills were introduced in the 110th Congress, and one was enacted into law. Bills have been introduced in the 111th Congress, and one, S. 22, passed the Senate on January 16, 2009. National Forest System Roadless Areas. Debates about managing roadless areas—for wilderness values or development—persist, with differing regulations from the Clinton and Bush Administrations, and litigation challenging both sets of regulations. FS NEPA Application. The FS has proposed altering its process for activity review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and has added activities that can be categorically excluded from such environmental and public reviews. Many of these changes and proposals have been challenged in court. Other issues discussed briefly include national forest planning, national forest county payments, BLM land sales, and grazing management. Related Bills: H.R.6 H.R.2262 H.R.699 H.R.1018 S.22 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the United States, the agriculture and forestry sectors account for less than 10% of current estimated total U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions annually. Combined, these sectors are estimated to emit nearly 600 million metric tons CO2 equivalent (MMT CO2-Eq.) each year, most of which is emitted from the agriculture sector. Current estimates of the combined amount of carbon sequestered by the agriculture and forestry sectors is reported at about 800 MMT CO2-Eq. per year, most of which is attributable to carbon stocks and uptake by trees in the forestry sector. Numerous studies estimate the additional GHG mitigation potential of farm and forestry activities. Among these, two commonly cited studies are those conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Compared to current estimated mitigation potential levels, USDA and EPA projections provide a mostly positive picture of the potential for farm and forestry activities to mitigate GHG emissions. USDA and EPA project added mitigation potential of 590 to 990 MMT CO2-Eq. annually, thus increasing to roughly double current levels, assuming a high-end value or market price for carbon. At lower carbon prices, estimated additional mitigation potential is lower, but could still add about 40 to 160 MMT CO2-Eq. annually above current sequestration levels. These estimates are useful indicators of the potential for carbon storage in the agriculture and forestry sectors, which some in Congress see as potentially available for carbon offset allowances as part of a cap-and-trade program. A cap-and-trade system—as part of a GHG emissions reduction and trading program—is one possible approach being considered by Congress to address GHG emissions in the ongoing climate change debate. For policy decision-making, however, the results of studies such as those conducted by EPA and USDA to assess the carbon mitigation potential of farms and forests should be viewed with caution. These results are derived using complicated simulation models. The available input data and modeling assumptions are limited in the extent to which they are able to accurately reflect both actual current conditions and longer-term future conditions. Given that these studies were developed using data and information for the early 2000s—prior to a variety of recent policy, market, and economic changes—some researchers now acknowledge that the published results of these studies are almost certainly outdated. Other related concerns include criticisms by prominent researchers of these modeling approaches and estimates. In addition, in the absence of defined policies outlining how an emission trading system would be designed and implemented, these models are limited in the extent to which they can depict future conditions under a regulatory system for sequestering carbon on farms and forestry sectors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246, "2008 farm bill") was enacted into law on June 18, 2008. It contains 15 titles covering support for commodity crops, horticulture and livestock production, conservation, nutrition, trade and food aid, agricultural research, farm credit, rural development, energy, forestry, and other related programs. It also includes provisions that make certain changes to tax laws, in order to offset some new spending initiatives in the final bill. The enacted bill succeeds the most recent 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) and is to guide most federal farm and food policies through 2012. Many provisions of the 2002 farm bill expired in September 2007, but were extended under a series of temporary extensions prior to final enactment of the 2008 bill. The enacted 2008 farm bill continues and/or modifies most existing farm and commodity programs, and also creates new programs and provisions. For farm commodities, the bill generally continues the framework of the 2002 farm bill, revises payment limitations (tightening certain limits and relaxing others), adjusts support prices for some commodities, and creates a new revenue support program, in addition to the traditional direct, counter-cyclical, and marketing loan programs for major supported crops. The bill also adds new stand-alone titles containing provisions to address horticulture and livestock issues, including new mandatory funding for specialty crop block grants and to support organic production; and provisions to address meat and poultry inspection, country-of-origin labeling, and livestock competition. Other provisions include changes to the current crop insurance program, a new provision for ongoing disaster assistance, and expanded borrowing opportunities for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers. The bill's nutrition title increases food stamp benefits and sets new standards that will make more households eligible, and also raises funding for fresh. . . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discuses the legislative action on the enactment of the 2008 farm bill called The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008. Topics discussed include the agreement provisions on commodity programs, trade, and livestock, the aspects of agricultural development and food security, and the Congressional Budget Office' (CBO) estimated cost for the conference agreement on the bill for fiscal years (FY) 2008-2012.

The article focuses on the foreign relations between the U.S. and Canada. It offers an overview of the Canada's economic conditions, foreign policy, and national security. Also discussed are the immigration policy in Canada, the rate of softwood lumber exports, and the dispute on the agricultural industry in the U.S.

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 two agencies within other departments - 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 requested $25.78 billion for FY2009 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, a $1.63 billion (6%) reduction from the FY2008 level of $27.40 billion. While the President sought to increase funds for some agencies, he requested reduced funds for most agencies. Among the proposed increases for FY2009, over FY2008 appropriations, were the following: $42.3 million (36%) for the Minerals Management Service (MMS); and $33.8 million (5%) for the Smithsonian Institution (SI). Among the proposed decreases were the following: $885.1 million (18%) for the Forest Service (FS); $319.0 million (4%) for the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA); $206.9 million (20%) for DOI Wildland Fire Management; $99.9 million (4%) for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); and $64.6 million (5%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies have held hearings on agency budget requests. No bill to fund Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2009 has been introduced to date. Congress may debate a variety of funding and policy issues during consideration of FY2009 Interior appropriations legislation.... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The federal government owns about 653 million acres, heavily concentrated in 12 western states. Four agencies -- the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management, all in the Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture -- administer about 95% of those lands. This report describes the primary federal land acquisition and disposal authorities of these agencies, as background for congressional consideration of measures to acquire or dispose of particular land and to establish new authorities or amend or terminate existing ones. Congress faces questions on the adequacy of existing authorities, the extent and location of their use, the amount of land in federal ownership overall, and the sources and adequacy of funds for land acquisition, among other issues. The nature of the acquisition and disposal authorities of the federal land management agencies varies. In general, the acquisition authorities are designed to allow the four agencies to bring into federal ownership lands that many believe would benefit from federal management. Disposal authorities generally are designed to allow agencies to convey land that is no longer needed for a federal purpose or that might be chiefly valuable for another purpose. Many of the authorities specify particular circumstances where they can be used, such as the conveyance of Forest Service land for educational purposes. The extent to which the agencies have authority to acquire and dispose of land differs considerably. The Bureau of Land Management has broad authority for both acquisitions and disposals under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The agency has other authorities for disposing of land, including two laws that allow the agency to retain the proceeds for subsequent land acquisition, among other purposes. By contrast, the National Park Service has no general authority to acquire or dispose of land. The authorities for the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service are somewhere in between. The Forest Service has authority to acquire lands only within the boundaries of a national forest. The agency has various authorities to dispose of land, but they are relatively constrained (very specific authorities, such as for townsites) and infrequently used. The Fish and Wildlife Service has various authorities to acquire lands, but no general authority to dispose of its lands. The agency frequently uses acquisition authority under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1929, because of the availability of funding through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. Congress also enacts legislation to acquire or dispose of lands and in some cases the President has such authority with regard to the four agencies covered here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report describes the major provisions in the House-passed 2007 farm bill (H.R. 2419, H.Rept. 110-256) and compares them with current law. This comparison does not provide an exhaustive list of all provisions by individual sections or subsections within each title. Nor does it provide a detailed discussion of the budget offsets to cover additional spending on programs in the nutrition and energy titles that were adopted as part of the Manager's Amendment and En Bloc Reserve Fund Amendment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The FY2007 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding for the Department of the Interior (DOI), except for the Bureau of Reclamation, and for two agencies within other departments -- the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services. It also includes funding for arts and cultural agencies; the Environmental Protection Agency, which was recently transferred to the appropriations subcommittees that deal with Interior and Related Agencies; and numerous other entities and agencies. On June 29, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 5386 (S.Rept. 109-275), providing $26.05 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2007, $110.8 million (0.4%) above the House-passed level ($25.94 billion). The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported level would have been a $384.0 million (1%) decrease from the FY2006 enacted level of $26.44 billion, but a $522.8 million (2%) increase over the President's request for FY2007 of $25.53 billion. Among the proposed decreases in the Senate Appropriations Committeereported bill for FY2007, from the FY2006 level, were the following:< [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the 1980s, the United States and Canada generally enjoyed very good relations. The early 1990s brought new governments to Ottawa and Washington, and although Canada's Liberal Party emphasized its determination to act independently of the United States when necessary, relations between the two countries continued to be generally cordial. Canada's new Conservative government, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is regarded as more philosophically in tune with the Bush Administration than the Liberals were; some observers believe that this compatibility may facilitate bilateral cooperation. The two North American countries continue to cooperate extensively in international security and political issues, both bilaterally and through numerous international organizations. Canada's foreign and defense policies are usually in harmony with those of the United States. Areas of contention are relatively few, but sometimes sharp, as has been the case in policy toward Iraq. Since September 11, the United States and Canada have cooperated extensively on efforts to combat terrorism, particularly in Afghanistan. The United States and Canada maintain the world's largest trading relationship, one that has been strengthened during the past fifteen years by the approval of two multilateral free trade agreements. Although commercial disputes may not be quite as prominent now as they have been in the past, the two countries in recent years have engaged in difficult negotiations over items in several trade sectors, including natural resources, agricultural commodities, and the cultural/entertainment industry. However, these disputes affect but a small percentage of the total goods and services exchanged. Also, the United States and Canada work together closely on environmental matters, including monitoring solid waste transfers, and protecting and maintaining the quality of border waterways. Many Members of Congress monitor U.S.-Canada environmental, trade, and transborder issues that affect their states and districts. In addition, because the countries are similar in many ways, lawmakers in both countries study solutions proposed in the other to such issues as federal fiscal policy and federal-provincial power sharing. This report provides a short overview of Canada's political scene, its economic conditions, and its recent security and foreign policy, focusing particularly on issues that may be relevant to U.S. policymakers. This brief country survey is followed by several summaries of current bilateral issues in the political, trade, and environmental arenas. The report is updated annually.< [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Wilderness Act generally prohibits commercial activities, motorized uses, and infrastructure developments in congressionally designated wilderness areas. However, the Wilderness Act and many subsequent laws designating wilderness areas also contain provisions authorizing activities that do not conform with these general prohibitions. The general prohibitions and the authorized uses are important because controversies persist over permissible and prohibited activities in wilderness areas, and because bills often seek to modify existing areas or activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-393) provided a temporary (through FY2006), optional program of payments to counties whose regular Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management receipt-sharing payments had declined significantly. Concerns about the decline in traditional payments, the substantial annual fluctuations in payments, and the linkage of payments to receipt-generating activities have led to many proposals to change the system. Tax equivalency is the most common alternative suggested, but the Clinton Administration proposed a program using historical payments, and this vision was used in P.L. 106-393. The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act expired at the end of FY2006. Congress could let the program end, renew the authorization or make it permanent, or modify it in various ways. Possible issues for modifying the program include the basis and level of compensation (historical, tax equivalency, etc.); the source of funds (receipts, a new tax or revenue source, etc.); the authorized and required uses of the payments; interaction with other compensation programs (notably Payments in Lieu of Taxes); and the duration of any changes (temporary or permanent). In addition, budget rules impose a procedural barrier to reauthorizing the law; to be considered on the floor, legislation with mandatory spending (in excess of the baseline) must be offset by additional receipts or declines in other mandatory spending. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Federal farm support, food assistance, agricultural trade, marketing, and rural development policies are governed by a variety of separate laws. However, many of these laws periodically are evaluated, revised, and renewed through an omnibus, multi-year "farm bill." The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171) was the most recent omnibus farm bill, and many of its provisions expire in 2007, so reauthorization is expected to be addressed in the first session of the 110th Congress. The heart of every omnibus farm bill is farm income and commodity price support policy -- namely, the methods and levels of support that the federal government provides to agricultural producers. However, farm bills typically include titles on agricultural trade and foreign food aid, conservation and environment, forestry, domestic food assistance (primarily food stamps), agricultural credit, rural development, agricultural research and education, and marketing-related programs. Often, such "miscellaneous" provisions as food safety, marketing orders, animal health and welfare, and energy are added. This omnibus nature of the farm bill creates a broad coalition of support among sometimes conflicting interests for policies that, individually, might not survive the legislative process. The scope and direction of a new farm bill may be shaped by such factors as financial conditions in the agricultural economy, competition among various interests, international trade obligations, and -- possibly most important -- a tight limit on federal funds. Among the thorniest issues may be future farm income and commodity price support. Questions of equity (who should get aid and how much), program cost, conformance with WTO trade obligations, effects on U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace, and the unintended impacts of agricultural activities on the environment are among the considerations. The economic prosperity of the U.S. farm sector is heavily dependent upon exports, so the provisions of a new bill reauthorizing farm export and foreign food aid programs also will be of keen interest. Moreover, the agricultural credit, research, conservation, domestic nutrition assistance, and rural development titles bring an array of interests into the debate, and their issues and concerns could prove equally contentious. Several farm groups have strongly endorsed a continuation of current policies and programs. However, agriculture and rural interests not receiving much benefit from current programs oppose a simple extension and would like some of the spending to be aimed at solving their problems. Furthermore, the Secretary of Agriculture has repeatedly stated that farm programs need to be made "equitable, predictable and beyond challenge" in the WTO. This report will be updated as related developments transpire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides an overview of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 as the omnibus farm bill in the U.S. The direction and scope of the farm bill might be shaped by factors such as limit on federal funds, international trade obligations, competition on different interests and financial conditions in the agricultural economy. Questions of unintended effects of agricultural activities on the environment and conformance of trade obligations with World Trade Organization (WTO).

The growing and diverse nature of recreation on federal lands has increased the challenge of balancing recreation with other land uses, and balancing different types of recreation. Motorized recreation has been particularly controversial, with issues centering on access and environmental impacts. The 109th Congress is considering legislation and conducting oversight on issues involving recreation on federal lands, including traditional recreational pursuits and newer forms of motorized recreation. The Administration is addressing these issues through budgetary, regulatory, and other actions. Several prominent issues are covered in this report. Motorized Recreation in the National Forests and on BLM Land. The use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) on Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands has been particularly controversial. Both agencies decide the extent of allowed OHV use through their planning processes. The FS finalized new regulations (Nov. 9, 2005) governing OHV use that require designating roads, trails, and areas open for OHV use and prohibit OHV use outside the designated system. The BLM is addressing transportation issues through national strategies and other guidance. A July 13, 2005, House Resources joint subcommittee hearing examined motorized recreation use on federal lands. Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles. Personal watercraft (PWC) and snowmobile use in National Park Service (NPS) units has fueled debate over the balance between recreation on, and protection of, park lands and waters. Regulatory actions restricting use of these vehicles have been especially controversial. The NPS is evaluating PWC and snowmobile use in several areas. Service-wide management policies encompassing motorized and nonmotorized recreation are being reviewed. Aircraft Overflights. Grand Canyon National Park is at the center of a conflict over whether to limit air tours over national parks to reduce noise. The NPS and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) continue to work to implement a 1987 law that sought to reduce noise at Grand Canyon, and a 2000 law that regulates overflights at other park units. Recent regulations require air tour operators to seek authority to fly over park units; the agencies then must develop Air Tour Management Plans at those park units. Further, the FAA is developing final safety regulations for commercial air tours nationally. The National Trails System. While designation of trails is often popular, issues remain regarding the funding, expansion, and quality of trails. The 109th Congress is considering a variety of trail measures, including adding routes to the National Trail System, authorizing studies of routes for possible additions to the system, and authorizing land acquisitions from willing sellers. Legislation has been introduced to create a new category of trails, called National Discovery Trails. This report replaces CRS Issue Brief IB10141, Recreation on Federal Lands, coordinated by Kori Calvert and Carol Hardy Vincent. It will be updated periodically to reflect legislative and regulatory action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many programs authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill (P.L. 107-171) will expire at the end of FY2007, and the House and Senate Agriculture Committees are likely to consider legislation to reauthorize these programs. General forestry legislation is within the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committees, and past farm bills have included provisions addressing forestry, especially on private lands. The next farm bill may also include forestry provisions addressing various issues, such as funding for forestry programs, wildfire protection, invasive species control, economic diversity for forest-dependent communities, and markets for ecosystem services. This report will be updated as events warrant. Forestry programs have been addressed in past farm bills and other agriculture legislation. The initial federal forestry funds were for a study of western forests in the 1877 Agriculture appropriations act, and the Division of Forestry was established in the Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1881. In 1905, the forest reserves (in the Department of the Interior) were transferred to USDA, and a new agency -- the Forest Service (FS) was created. Thus, federal forestry has historically been associated with agriculture, and with agriculture legislation. This report briefly describes the Agriculture Committees' jurisdiction over forestry, with examples of legislation addressed by the committees. It concludes with a discussion of forestry issues likely to be addressed in the upcoming farm bill. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 109th Congress is likely to consider issues related to the public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the national forests managed by the Forest Service (FS). The Administration might address public lands and national forests through budgetary, regulatory, and other actions. Key issues of likely congressional and administrative interest are covered here. Energy Resources. Congressional and administrative interest in access to federal lands for energy and mineral development was reflected in major energy policy legislation that was not enacted in the 108th Congress. Some versions would have eliminated the 160-acre limit on coal leases and authorized demonstration technologies for unproven, unconventional oil and gas reserves; others would have opened ANWR to oil and gas leasing. Energy legislation remains a priority. R.S. 2477 Rights of Way. Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477 granted rights of way to construct highways across unreserved federal lands, but the extent of valid rights of way is unclear in some states. Congress prohibited regulations "pertaining to" R.S. 2477 from becoming effective. The Bush Administration developed regulations on "disclaimers of interest," which may be used to clear title to R.S. 2477 highway easements. Whether the regulations "pertain to" R.S. 2477 remains controversial. Congress may provide guidance on validating these easements. Southern Nevada Land Sales. The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act allows the Secretary of the Interior to sell land near Las Vegas, with the proceeds permanently appropriated for certain purposes. The President has proposed altering the distribution of receipts, with 70% going to the Treasury rather than to a special account. No related legislation has been introduced. Wild Horses and Burros. The 108th Congress made controversial changes to the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. They included giving the agencies new authority to sell certain old and unadoptable wild horses and burros, and removing prohibitions on selling wild horses and burros and their remains for processing into commercial products. Legislation has been introduced to overturn the changes. Wilderness. Many wilderness recommendations remain pending for national forests and BLM and other federal lands. Questions also persist about wilderness reviews and management of wilderness study areas (WSAs). The 109th Congress will likely see numerous bills to designate wilderness areas, and may address wilderness review and WSA protection. Wildfire Protection. In 2002, the Bush Administration proposed a Healthy Forests Initiative to protect communities from wildfires by expediting fuel reduction. Congress enacted the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) with many aspects of the President's initiative and other provisions. Wildfire protection also has been addressed through changes in regulations. The 109th Congress may conduct oversight on implementation of the law and regulations. Other Topics. Other topics of likely interest include grazing management, hardrock mining, national forest planning, national forest roadless areas, national monuments, and competitive sourcing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Congress continues to face questions about forestry practices, funding levels, and the federal role in wildland fire protection. The 2000 and 2002 fire seasons were, by most standards, among the worst in the past half century. National attention began to focus on wildfires when a prescribed burn in May 2000 escaped control and burned 239 homes in Los Alamos, NM. President Clinton responded by requesting a doubling of wildfire management funds, and Congress enacted much of this proposal in the FY2001 Interior Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-291). President Bush responded to the severe 2002 fires by proposing a Healthy Forests Initiative to reduce fuel loads by expediting review processes. Many factors contribute to the threat of wildfire damages. Two major factors are the decline in forest and rangeland health and the expansion of residential areas into wildlands -- the urban-wildland interface. Over the past century, aggressive wildfire suppression, as well as past grazing and logging practices, have altered many ecosystems, especially those where light, surface fires were frequent. Many areas now have unnaturally high fuel loads (e.g., dead trees and dense thickets) and an historically unnatural mix of plant species (e.g., exotic invaders). Fuel treatments have been proposed to reduce the wildfire threats. Prescribed burning -- setting fires under specified conditions -- can reduce the fine fuels that spread wildfires, but can escape and become catastrophic wildfires, especially if fuel ladders (small trees and dense undergrowth) and wind spread the fire into the forest canopy. Commercial timber harvesting is often proposed, and can reduce heavy fuels and fuel ladders, but exacerbates the threat unless and until the slash (tree tops and limbs) is properly disposed of. Other mechanical treatments (e.g., precommercial thinning, pruning) can reduce fuel ladders, but also temporarily increase fuels on the ground. Treatments can often be more effective if combined (e.g., prescribed burning after thinning). However, some fuel treatments are very expensive, and the benefit of treatments for reducing wildfire threats depend on many factors. It should also be recognized that, as long as there is biomass, drought, and high winds, catastrophic wildfires will occur. Only about 1% of wildfires become conflagrations, but which fires will "blow up" into catastrophic wildfires is unpredictable. It seems likely that management practices and policies, including fuel treatments, affect the likelihood of such events. However, past experience with wildfires are of limited value for building predictive models, and research on fire behavior under various circumstances is difficult, at best. Thus, predictive tools for fire protection and control are often based on expert opinion and anecdotes, rather than on research evidence. Individuals who choose to build homes in the urban-wildland interface face some risk of loss from wildfires, but can take steps to protect their homes. Federal, state, and local governments can and do assist by protecting their own lands, by providing financial and technical assistance, and by providing relief after the fire. This is a background report and is unlikely to be updated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

U.S. lumber producers have raised concerns about softwood imports from Canada many years. Alleged Canadian subsidies (a prerequisite for establishing countervailing duties -- CVDs) were investigated in 1982, 1986, and 1992. No subsidies were found in 1983. Preliminary subsidy findings led to a 1986 Memorandum of Understanding (with a 15% Canadian tax on lumber exported to the United States), and to a 6.51% CVD in 1992. The CVD was challenged under the U.S.Canada Free Trade Agreement, and was terminated in 1994. A 1996 Softwood Lumber Agreement restricted lumber exports to the United States for 5 years, until March 31, 2001. (See CRS Report RL30826.) U.S. Industry Arguments. The U.S. producers argue that they have been injured by Canadian subsidies, especially for provincial "stumpage fees" (for the right to harvest trees). In Canada, the provinces own 90% of the timberlands; this contrasts with the United States, where 42% of timberlands are publicly owned and where government timber is often sold competitively. These differences in land tenure make comparisons difficult. In addition, U.S. lumber producers argue that log export restrictions in Canada subsidize Canadian producers by preventing other producers from getting direct access to Canadian timber. U.S. log exports from federal and state lands are also restricted, but logs can be exported from U.S. private lands. Canada has argued in the WTO that U.S. treatment of export restrictions as a subsidy violates the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM). Finally, U.S. producers argue that they have been injured by imports of Canadian softwood lumber. They point to the growth in Canadian exports and market share, from less than 3 billion board feet (BBF) and 7% of the U.S. market in 1952 to more than 18 BBF per year since 1998 and a market share of more than 33% since 1995. Canadians counter that the U.S. industry has been unable to satisfy the growth in demand. U.S. homebuilders and other lumber users assert that Canadian lumber is needed to satisfy U.S. demands. Current Issues. The Department of Commerce (DOC) initiated CVD and antidumping investigations on April 30, 2001. On March 22, 2002, subsidies were determined to be 19.34% and dumping margins 9.67%. On May 2, the ITC determined that imports had injured the U.S. industry. Final duties of 29% were set on May 22. Canada has requested binational panel reviews of these findings under the NAFTA; each of the three panels has recently issued a report remanding the agency determinations. Negotiations to settle the dispute are also proceeding. Canada has filed seven WTO cases against the United States in connection with softwood lumber issues. In August 2001, the WTO adopted a panel report finding that U.S. treatment of export restrictions as a subsidy violates the SCM Agreement; no U.S. action was required at the time. A panel report adopted August 30, 2002, upheld a U.S. law creating an administrative procedure for complying with WTO rulings in dumping and CVD cases. Five cases involve challenges of U.S. actions in the softwood investigations themselves. A final mixed decision involving DOC preliminary subsidy determinations was adopted November 1, 2002. Three panels have been established; one of these publicly issued a final ruling (similar to the subsidy decision) on August 29, 2003. One case remains in consultations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2000 and 2002 fire seasons were, by most standards, among the worst in the past 50 years. Many argue that the threat of severe wildfires has grown, because of unnaturally high fuel loads (e.g., dense undergrowth and dead trees), raising concerns about damage to property and homes in the "wildland-urban interface" (WUI) -- homes in or near forests. Debates about fire control and protection, including funding and fuel treatments (e.g., thinning and prescribed burning), have focused on national forests and other federal lands, but nonfederal lands are also at risk. Federal wildfire management funding rose dramatically after the severe 2000 fire season. In September 2000, President Clinton proposed a new National Fire Plan, requesting $1.8 billion to supplement the $1.1 billion originally requested for FY2001. Congress largely enacted this proposal and funding request, and the expanded wildfire management programs (excluding the supplemental firefighting money) have generally been sustained. In the FY2003 Interior Appropriations bill (H.R. 5093), the House added, and the Senate debated adding, money for firefighting in the summer of 2002; this legislation was not enacted. Reducing fuel loads has been proposed for fire protection. Several tools exist -- prescribed burning, salvage and other timber cutting, and thinning. Stewardship (goods-for-services) contracting has been suggested as a way to fund additional fuel reduction. Proponents of fuel reduction have expressed frustration with project delays from environmental analyses of, and public participation in, agency decisions (primarily under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA) and from administrative appeals and judicial challenges of decisions. Critics, however, are concerned that hasty action will allow environmentally damaging timber harvesting, without adequate environmental review and public oversight. On August 22, 2002, President Bush proposed the Healthy Forests Initiative, to improve fire protection through fuel reduction. Related bills were introduced in the 107th Congress; however, none was enacted. Several would have eliminated or reduced NEPA analysis of environmental impacts, broadly or within prescribed conditions. Some measures proposed eliminating, reducing, or modifying public involvement in agency decisions. Many would have exempted fuel reduction from administrative reviews, and two sought to repeal the statute establishing the Forest Service administrative appeals process. Several would have prohibited, restricted, or altered judicial review for fuel reduction projects. However, many also would have required a new collaborative process for decisions on fuel reduction. Most proposals would have established priorities for action, typically emphasizing the WUI, municipal watersheds, and areas with insect and disease infestations and blown-down trees. Some of the bills sought to limit the acreage treated under the newly-established procedures, to exclude specific classes of lands, and/or to restrict road construction. Two would have authorized stewardship goods-for-services contracting. Most proposals would have established permanent programs. This report is an overview of wildfire protection activity in the 107th Congress, and is unlikely to be updated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]