Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and Resources Management

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | February 9th, 2009

The federal government owns about 650 million acres (29%) of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. Four agencies administer 617.5 million acres of the fede

The federal government owns about 650 million acres (29%) of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. Four agencies administer 617.5 million acres of the federal land: the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, all in the Department of the Interior.  Most of these lands are in the West, including Alaska. They generate revenues for the U.S. Treasury, some of which are shared with states and localities. The agencies receive funding through the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations laws, as well as in various trust funds and special accounts. The lands administered by the four agencies are managed for a variety of purposes, primarily related to preservation, recreation, and development of natural resources. Yet each of these agencies has distinct responsibilities for the lands and resources it administers. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 255.8 million acres and is responsible for 700 million acres of subsurface mineral resources. The BLM has a multiple-use, sustained-yield mandate that supports a variety of uses and programs, including energy development, recreation, grazing and wild horses and burros, and conservation. The Forest Service (FS) manages 192.8 million acres also for multiple uses and sustained yields of various products and services, including timber harvesting, recreation, grazing, watershed protection, and fish and wildlife habitats. Most of the lands are designated national forests, but there are national grasslands and other designations. Wildfire protection is an increasingly important activity for both agencies. The BLM and FS have several authorities to acquire and dispose of lands. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages 90.8 million acres of federal land, primarily to conserve and protect animals and plants. The National Wildlife Refuge System includes wildlife refuges, waterfowl production areas, and wildlife coordination units. Units can be created by an act of Congress or executive order, and the FWS also may acquire lands for migratory birds. The National Park Service (NPS) manages 78.1 million acres of federal land to conserve lands and resources and make them available for public use. Activities that harvest or remove resources generally are prohibited. The National Park System has diverse units ranging from historical structures to cultural and natural areas. Units are created by an act of Congress, but the President may proclaim national monuments. There also are three special management systems that include lands from more than one agency. The National Wilderness Preservation System consists of 107.6 million acres of protected wilderness areas designated by Congress. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System contains 11,944 miles of wild, scenic, and recreational rivers, primarily designated by Congress and managed to preserve their free-flowing condition. The National Trails System contains four classes of trails managed to provide recreation and access to outdoor areas and historic resources.

Federal Reserved Water Rights and Groundwater: Quantity, Quality, and Pore Space

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | February 8th, 2018

Tribal rights to groundwater have not been legally established to the same extent as rights to other natural resources (e.g., surface water, timber, minerals). A March 2

Tribal rights to groundwater have not been legally established to the same extent as rights to other natural resources (e.g., surface water, timber, minerals). A March 2017 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the rights of a California Indian tribe (the Agua Caliente band of Cahuilla Indians) to groundwater beneath the tribe's reservation in the Coachella Valley. In November 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the decision; the case now proceeds to other phases that may partially shape this ruling's significance. This is the first case in which an appellate court has held that a tribe's "reserved" rights under the Winters doctrine apply to groundwater. Pursuant to Winters, when Congress reserves land for a reservation, it also reserves a right to water necessary to accomplish the purposes for which the reservation was created. For decades, tribal reserved rights for surface water have been established and have required settlements between the federal government (as authorized by Congress), tribes, and nonfederal users. Thus, some have raised concerns about the implications of interpreting Winters rights to include groundwater. This Insight explores three aspects of groundwater relevant to Agua Caliente: quantity, quality, and "pore space." The legal outcome may affect how groundwater is allocated among tribal and nontribal interests and may influence groundwater allocations at other federal reservations. The Supreme Court has not declared outright that groundwater is subject to the Winters doctrine, but declining to review the Ninth Circuit decision essentially upheld phase one of the three-phase case: a federally reserved right to the groundwater resource for the tribe. Phase two will address whether the tribe has the right to receive groundwater of a certain quality from the aquifer and whether it owns the pore space beneath tribal lands. Phase three will determine the quantity of groundwater to which the tribe is entitled, pursuant to its reserved rights. The outcome of phases two and three could have implications for expanding the scope of federal preemption of state water law. It also could affect how much groundwater is available for nontribal water agencies and water districts and those entities' ability to store water in an aquifer beneath federally reserved lands. Congress has authority over federal water law and could influence this legal framework.

Field Assessment of Naled and Its Primary Degradation Product (Dichlorvos) in Aquatic Ecosystems Following Aerial Ultra-low Volume Application for Mosquito Control

Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (Springer) | March 13th, 2023

Naled, an organophosphate insecticide, is applied aerially at ultra-low volumes over aquatic ecosystems near Sacramento, California, USA, during summer months for mosqui

Naled, an organophosphate insecticide, is applied aerially at ultra-low volumes over aquatic ecosystems near Sacramento, California, USA, during summer months for mosquito control. Two ecosystem types (rice fields and a flowing canal) were sampled in 2020 and 2021. Naled and its primary degradation product (dichlorvos) were measured in water, biofilm, grazer macroinvertebrates, and omnivore/predator macroinvertebrates (predominantly crayfish). Maximum naled and dichlorvos concentrations detected in water samples one day after naled application were 287.3 and 5647.5 ng/L, respectively, which were above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s aquatic life benchmarks for invertebrates. Neither compound was detected in water more than one day after the application. Dichlorvos, but not naled, was detected in composite crayfish samples up to 10 days after the last aerial application. Detections in water from the canal showed that the compounds were transported downstream of the target application area. Factors such as vector control flight paths, dilution, and transport through air and water likely affected concentrations of naled and dichlorvos in water and organisms from these aquatic ecosystems.

Field Operations Manual for the Regional Monitoring Program (Version 1, Sediment)

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | August 1st, 2018

This Field Operations Manual (FOM) of the Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) is intended as a reference document for each sampling effort. The FOM describes in detail how

This Field Operations Manual (FOM) of the Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) is intended as a reference document for each sampling effort. The FOM describes in detail how field staff should collect water, sediment, bivalve, bird egg, and sport fish samples for all RMP sampling efforts.  Sampling conducted by the RMP should also reference the QA Program Plan (QAPP) document, which describes the entire program, and is the repository for details about laboratories, analytical methods, MDLs, sample handling, sample preservation, and quality assurance procedures. The FOM is a companion document to the QAPP, and provides a more detailed description of sampling methods that are only outlined in Section 11 of the QAPP.  In addition, each individual sampling effort will have a unique Cruise Plan or Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP). The SAP describes the details of each sampling effort, including dates, times, places, and staff, as well as the parameters that are being collected and analyzed. The SAP will reference this FOM for the detailed sampling methods. If different sampling methods are needed for a particular study, the SAP will describe deviations from the normal methods described in the FOM. 

Field-scale crop water consumption estimates reveal potential water savings in California agriculture

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | March 25th, 2024

Fifth National Climate Assessment

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) | November 14th, 2023

Led by USGCRP and its 14 member agencies, NCA5 draws on the expertise of nearly 500 authors and 250 contributors from every state, as well as Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U

Led by USGCRP and its 14 member agencies, NCA5 draws on the expertise of nearly 500 authors and 250 contributors from every state, as well as Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. NCA5 is the most up-to-date and comprehensive assessment of climate change in the United States, providing authoritative, decision-relevant information on how people across the country are experiencing climate change, the risks we face now and in the future, and actions underway to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience. The Assessment evaluates climate impacts across 10 U.S. regions and a wide range of interests, including water, forests and ecosystems, coasts and oceans, agriculture and rural communities, the built environment, energy and transportation, health and air quality, and economic and social systems. *This document, which was deleted from the federal websites that funded it by Trump administration political appointees,  is made available through the Internet Archive

Fill Mead First: A Technical Assessement

Utah State University | October 11th, 2016

The Fill Mead First (FMF) plan would establish Lake Mead reservoir as the primary water storage facility of the main-stem Colorado River and would relegate Lake Powell re

The Fill Mead First (FMF) plan would establish Lake Mead reservoir as the primary water storage facility of the main-stem Colorado River and would relegate Lake Powell reservoir to a secondary water storage facility to be used only when Lake Mead is full. The objectives of the FMF plan are to re-expose some of Glen Canyon’s sandstone walls that are now inundated, begin the process of re-creating a riverine ecosystem in Glen Canyon, restore a more natural stream-flow, temperature, and sediment-supply regime of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon ecosystem, and reduce system-wide water losses caused by evaporation and movement of reservoir water into ground-water storage. 

Fill Mead First: a technical assessment

Utah State University | November 10th, 2019

The Fill Mead First (FMF) plan would establish Lake Mead reservoir as the primary water storage facility of the main-stem Colorado River and would relegate Lake

The Fill Mead First (FMF) plan would establish Lake Mead reservoir as the primary water storage facility of the main-stem Colorado River and would relegate Lake Powell reservoir to a secondary water storage facility to be used only when Lake Mead is full. The objectives of the FMF plan are to re-expose some of Glen Canyon’s sandstone walls that are now inundated, begin the process of re-creating a riverine ecosystem in Glen Canyon, restore a more natural stream-flow, temperature, and sediment-supply regime of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon ecosystem, and reduce system-wide water losses caused by evaporation and movement of reservoir water into ground-water storage. The FMF plan would be implemented in three phases. Phase I would involve lowering Lake Powell to the minimum elevation at which hydroelectricity can still be produced (called minimum power pool elevation): 3490 ft asl (feet above sea level). At this elevation, the water surface area of Lake Powell is approximately 77 mi2, which is 31% of the surface area when the reservoir is full. Phase II of the FMF plan would involve lowering Lake Powell to dead pool elevation (3370 ft asl), abandoning hydroelectricity generation, and releasing water only through the river outlets. The water surface area of Lake Powell at dead pool is approximately 32 mi2 and is 13% of the reservoir surface area when it is full. Implementation of Phase III would necessitate drilling new diversion tunnels around Glen Canyon Dam in order to eliminate all water storage at Lake Powell. In this paper, we summarize the FMF plan and identify critical details about the plan’s implementation that are presently unknown. We estimate changes in evaporation losses and ground-water storage that would occur if the FMF plan was implemented, based on review of existing data and published reports. We also discuss significant river-ecosystem issues that would arise if the plan was implemented.

Fillmore Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Fillmore and Piru Basins Groundwater Sustainability Agency | December 16th, 2021

The Fillmore Basin (the Basin) is managed (along with the upslope Piru Basin) by the Fillmore and Piru Basins Groundwater Sustainability Agency (the Agency). The Basin is

The Fillmore Basin (the Basin) is managed (along with the upslope Piru Basin) by the Fillmore and Piru Basins Groundwater Sustainability Agency (the Agency). The Basin is planned to remain sustainable over the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) implementation and sustainability period based on the current understanding of historical, current (2019), and projected (2022 through 2072) groundwater conditions in relation to the sustainability indicators specified in SGMA. A sustainability indicator refers to any of the effects caused by groundwater conditions occurring throughout the basin that, when significant and unreasonable, cause undesirable results. The Agency, with consideration of feedback from active stakeholder engagement, has identified and planned for the prevention of significant and unreasonable undesirable results.

Final Amended Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Agency (KRGSA) Plan Area

Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Agency (KRGSA) | July 22nd, 2022

In January 2020, the Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Agency (KRGSA) submitted the original KRGSA Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) to the Department of Water Re

In January 2020, the Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Agency (KRGSA) submitted the original KRGSA Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The KRGSA GSP was one of five GSPs that were submitted through a Coordination Agreement to collectively cover the entire Kern County Subbasin. In January 2022, DWR sent a letter to the Kern County Subbasin GSAs that provided an evaluation of the Subbasin GPSs and determined that the GSPs were collectively “incomplete” in meeting all SGMA requirements (Determination Letter). DWR noted three separate deficiencies in the collective GSPs and provided Corrective Actions to address the deficiencies. This Amended KRGSA GSP has been prepared to supplement the original 2020 KRGSA GSP in response to DWR comments. Amended sections are incorporated into the original KRGSA GSP to produce one complete document. Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7