Federal land (2024)

State environmental policy
U.S. environmental policy
Endangered species policy
State endangered species
Federal land policy
Environmental terms

Federal land is managed by the United States federal government on behalf of the American people. According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." The federal government owned between roughly 635 million to 640 million acres (28 percent) of the estimated 2.27 billion acres in the United States in 2013. By comparison, the federal government owned 1.8 billion acres (79 percent) of land in the United States in 1867.^[1][2]

Throughout the 19th century, two-thirds of the 1.8 billion acres of land were transferred to individuals, states, corporations and businesses to promote development and settlement. Since the 20th century, however, federal lands have remained primarily under federal ownership and are managed for conservation, recreation, the protection of fish and wildlife, and the development of natural resources, including limited oil and natural gas production.^[1]

Background

Historically, federal lands have been held to increase the stature of the federal government, to promote settlement and economic development, and to bring in revenue for various national, state, and local needs, such as schools, defense, and transportation. The original states relinquished their lands to the newly formed federal government, which received the authority to create new states and manage federal property under the U.S. Constitution.^[1][3]

As the United States continued to grow between 1781 and 1867, the U.S. federal government acquired all land extending to the Pacific Ocean through purchases from various foreign countries, including France, Great Britain, and Russia, and through the cession of land by treaty after the Mexican War. This land totaled approximately 1.8 billion acres (79 percent) of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. By comparison, the federal government owned roughly 640 million acres (28 percent) of all land in the United States in 2013.^[1][3]

During the 1800s, federal land laws were designed to preserve the land, sell the land to raise revenue or to encourage transportation, or otherwise dispose of the land for settlement and economic development. Congress passed laws during the 19th century authorizing the disposal of federal lands to private citizens, states, and private companies and businesses. Some lands were sold to pay soldiers or to reduce the national debt. Congress passed the Homestead Act of 1862 to encourage settlement in the Western United States.^[1][3]

In the late 19th century and early 20th century, conservation and preservation advocates saw a need to conserve some lands and resources for both economic and aesthetic reasons. Yellowstone National Park, the world’s first national park, was established to be preserved and be used for recreation. In 1891, the federal government began creating forest reserves after concerns were raised that timber harvests were depleting the nation’s forests.^[1][3]

According to the Congressional Research Service, the 20th century saw a shift from the disposal of federal lands to citizens and private companies to federal ownership and management of remaining federal lands. In 1976, Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which declared that the remaining federal lands would stay under federal ownership. The law prompted a backlash in the form of the Sagebrush Rebellion, which consisted of state and local officials, farmers, miners, and ranchers who advocated for state and local management of federal lands.^[1][3]

Federal land by state, 2015

Alaska had the most federal land (223.8 million acres) while Nevada had the greatest percentage of federal land (84.9 percent). In contrast, Rhode Island and Connecticut had the fewest acres of federal land: 5,157 acres and 8,752 acres, respectively. Connecticut and Iowa tied for the lowest percentage of federal land at 0.3 percent each.

The map below shows the total amount of federal land in each state and the percentage of each state's total land acreage that is owned by the federal government. A darker shade of green indicates a higher percentage of a state's land is owned by the federal government.

Land management agencies, 2013

Four federal agencies—the U.S. National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture—manage roughly 97.6 percent, or 608 million acres, of federal land. The U.S. Department of Defense also manages 14 million acres in the form of training ranges and military bases.^[4]

Purpose of federal land policies

Most federal land policies focus on conservation, recreation, oil and natural gas extraction, wildlife and forest management, and grazing. Four major federal land agencies are responsible for these policies. These agencies were created at different times and for different purposes:^[1]

• The U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the oldest federal land agency, was established in 1891. The agency oversees and protects national forests. As of 2013, the agency managed 193 million acres of land, including 155 national forests. Forest reserves are managed for conservation, recreational activities, timber harvesting, and fish and wildlife protection. Most USFS lands are national forests.
• The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was established in 1947. The agency managed the most onshore federal lands of any agency (247 million acres) as of 2013. Around 99 percent of BLM-managed land is found in the 12 Western states, including Alaska (which contains 29 percent of BLM-managed land). BLM lands are used for energy production, grazing, and conservation. Most oil and gas leases on federal land are managed by the BLM. By law, the BLM must abide by a "multiple-use, sustained-yield" mandate, which requires the agency to balance its many activities. In contrast, the National Park Service's land is used primarily for conservation and is not governed by a multiple-use mandate.
• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is responsible for 89 million acres of federal land. Unlike the BLM and USFS, the Fish and Wildlife Service's primary mission is to conserve and protect animals and plants, including endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.
• The U.S. National Park Service (NPS) was established in 1916. The Park Service manages all U.S. national parks and other lands used for preservation or recreation, totaling 79 million acres of federal land. The NPS's dual purpose is to preserve natural resources and provide public access to them through the parks system. Unlike the policies of other federal agencies, NPS policies prioritize conservation over other uses; thus, little grazing, timber harvesting, and other activities occur on NPS-managed lands.

Maintenance

According to the Congressional Research Service, the four major federal land management agencies face deferred maintenance costs (also known as a "maintenance backlog"), which include land and/or infrastructure maintenance that was not done when scheduled and thus was deferred to an unknown future period. Recreation sites, buildings, roads, and trails are the most common infrastructure in need of maintenance. The total amount of federal funding provided for the maintenance backlog each year is unknown because the funding is not identified in either presidential budget requests or congressional appropriations documents. The CRS, however, has estimated that the total deferred maintenance costs for the four federal land management agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. National Park Service) totaled between $17.4 billion to $22.65 billion as of 2014.^[5][6][7]

Views differ on how to address the maintenance backlog; whether funding for maintenance projects should be increased; or whether funds from other programs should be used to address the backlog. These views are summarized below:

• In a June 2015 article, Reed Watson and Scott Wilson of the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), whose stated mission is "improving environmental quality through property rights and markets", argued for user fees to address deferred maintenance costs. The authors argued that the federal government's acquisition of more land argue that the maintenance backlog is evidence of federal land mismanagement and that existing funds should be diverted to maintain existing federal land.
• In a December 2013 op-ed, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) argued for using funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which is used to acquire additional federal land, to address the maintenance backlog. Murkowski further argued that expanding private donations to national parks and introducing entrance fees for parks that do not require a fee could raise funds to address maintenance issues.^[8]
• In an article titled Help Fix the National Park Service Repair Backlog, the National Parks Conservation Association, whose stated mission is "to protect and enhance national parks", argued that Congress has not appropriated funding to address maintenance costs and that Congress should increase funding to address the backlog.
• According to the Center for Western Priorities, whose stated mission is "to protect land, water, and communities in the American West", federal budget cuts are responsible for failure to address maintenance needs on federal land and that Congress should pass increased funding for the maintenance backlog.^{[9][8][10][6][11]}

Energy production, 2014

According to the Congressional Research Service, around 113 million acres of onshore federal land were accessible and open to crude oil and natural gas production as of 2014. Federal lands may also be used for mining coal and producing solar energy and geothermal energy.^[12][13]

In 2014, the United States produced 148.8 million barrels of oil and 2.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas on federal land. Between 2009 and 2014, oil production on federal land rose 29.8 percent—from 104,525 thousand barrels of oil in 2009 to 148,802 thousand barrels of oil in 2014. Meanwhile, natural gas production on federal land decreased by 27.8 percent during the same period—from 3,196,473 million cubic feet of natural gas in 2009 to 2,499,845 million cubic feet of natural gas in 2014. Oil prices also rose from $61.95 a barrel to $93.17 a barrel, and natural gas dropped from $8.86 per million Btu in 2008 to $4.37 per million Btu.^[14][15][16]

The map below shows oil and natural gas production on federal land in 2014. Production was concentrated in Western states and some Midwestern and Southern states such as North Dakota and Texas.

New Mexico led in oil production on federal land while Wyoming led in natural gas production on federal land in 2014.

See also

• 

  Federal land policy

  See Also

  Federal land policy in Texas

• 

  Grazing permits on federal land

• 

  Federal land ownership by state

• 

  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Footnotes

v•e Environmental Policy
Background	Environmental policy in the United States • Clean Air Act • Clean Water Act • Conservation • Endangered Species Act • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Enforcement at the EPA • Glossary of environmental terms • Energy and environmental news
Energy and environmental news	January 2015 • February 2015 • March 2015 • April 2015 • May 2015 • June 2015 • July 2015 • August 2015 • September 2015 • October 2015 • November 2015 • December 2015
Environmental terms	Air pollutants • Air Quality Index • BLM grazing permit • Carbon dioxide • Carbon footprint • Clean Air Act • Clean Water Act • Climate change • ConservAmerica • Cross State Air Pollution Rule • Deep ecology • Ecology • Endangered species • Implementation of the Endangered Species Act • Environmental chemistry • Environmental engineering • Environmental health • Environmental restoration • Environmental science • Federal land • Fracking • Greenhouse effect • Greenhouse gas • Ground-level ozone standards • Ground water • Hazardous air pollutant • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change • Keystone XL • Mercury and air toxics standards • Municipal solid waste • National Ambient Air Quality Standards • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System • National Priorities List of Superfund sites • National Wildlife Federation • Natural resources • Nonpoint source of water pollution • Oil • Ozone • Pesticide • Petroleum • Point source of water pollution • Public water system • Radioactive waste • Renewable energy resources • Renewable Portfolio Standards • Solar energy • State park • Superfund • Traditional energy resources • U.S. Bureau of Land Management • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • U.S. Forest Service • U.S. Geological Survey • Wastewater treatment • Water quality criteria • Wetland • Wilderness Act • Wilderness Society • Wind energy
Endangered species terms	Candidate species • Critical habitat • Delisting • Distinct population segment • Endangered species • Listed species • Listing a species • Listing petition • Species recovery • Taking a species
Environmental policy by state	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming
Endangered species policy	Costs of listing a species • Delisting a species • Endangered Species Act litigation • Endangered species policy in the United States • Endangered Species Act litigation • History of the Endangered Species Act • Private property and the Endangered Species Act • Science and the Endangered Species Act • Success rate of the Endangered Species Act • Transparency and the Endangered Species Act
Endangered species policy by state	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming
Environmental statistics	Payments in lieu of taxes • Land ownership by state • Grazing permits on BLM lands • Federal land ownership by state • BLM oil and gas permits by state • Environmental spending in the 50 states • Greenhouse gas emissions by state • Superfund sites in the United States • National Park Visitor Spending Effects Report
Endangered species statistics	Endangered species by state • Endangered animals by state • Endangered plants by state • Delisted species • Top 20 federally funded species • Land acquisition funding for endangered species • Federal endangered species grants by state