LegiStorm

Summary:

Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43822 Summary A perennial focus for Congress is on appropriations for management of federal lands and resources. Issues include the purposes for which appropriations are used, factors influencing their distribution among states, and the extent to which appropriations are used on nonfederal lands. Congress also continues to be interested in the revenues derived from federal lands and resources. Questions relate to the amount of revenue generated on federal lands, the sources of revenue, and factors affecting the variation among states in the amount and type of revenue generated. Approximately 95% of federal lands are managed by four agencies: the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), and Forest Service (FS). Their FY2013 appropriations were $2,048.1 million for BLM, $2,591.6 million for FWS, $3,305.8 million for NPS, and $5,709.8 million for FS. Of these totals, FS received the largest discretionary appropriation ($4,934.7 million) while FWS had the highest mandatory appropriation ($1,053.1 million). The largest discretionary appropriation for FS was for Wildland Fire Management; for the other three agencies, it was the main operations account. The agencies have many sources of mandatory appropriations, some of which are common among them and across states (e.g., recreation fees) while others are unique to one agency or allocated to one state. Another distinction concerns the portion of appropriations used on lands not managed by the agencies, ranging from little in the case of BLM to roughly two-thirds for FWS. Revenue collections during FY2013 differed among the agencies, with $18.9 million for FWS, $223.6 million for FS, $333.4 million for NPS, and $525.0 million for BLM. Depending on the agency and state, sources of revenue might include land sales, grazing, timber, hardrock minerals, recreation, and rights of way. Influencing the allocation of appropriations among states and the amount of revenue collected in each state were the acreage of federal land; land resources, conditions, availability, uses, and impacts; demographics; fire activity; and other factors. BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS also receive federal lands highway funds from the Federal Highway Administration. A total of $573.8 million in highway funding for federal lands was distributed in FY2013, with almost half ($280.6 million) going to NPS and another two-fifths ($227.2 million) to state Programming Decisions Committees (bodies that make some project funding decisions). The remainder went to FWS ($36.5 million), FS ($19.8 million), and BLM ($9.6 million). Distributions among states ranged from less than $0.1 million to $86.5 million. The Payments in Lieu of Taxes program and FS Payments to States program compensate local governments for the presence of federally owned land. PILT applies to many types of federal lands, and payments are calculated under a formula. The total PILT payment in FY2013 was $401.8 million, with state totals ranging from $0 to $41.4 million (for California). The FS Payments to States program—which includes Secure Rural Schools (SRS) payments—applies to counties with national forest lands and certain BLM forested lands. Payments are based on either historic or current revenue generated on the lands, and other considerations. FY2013 payments to states totaled $312.5 million, ranging from less than $0.1 million to $97.1 million (for Oregon). The Department of the Interior's Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) collects mineral leasing revenues from all federal onshore areas. Revenue is derived from many commodities, including coal, gas, hardrock minerals, oil, phosphate, sodium, and sulfur. For FY2013, ONRR reported $4,296.9 million from federal lands in 37 states, with revenues by state of less than $0.1 million to $1,998.9 million (for Wyoming). Contents Introduction 1 Organization of Report 2 Caveats 4 Overview 5 Bureau of Land Management 8 Appropriations 8 Discretionary Appropriations 9 Mandatory Appropriations 10 Discussion 10 Revenue 15 Fish and Wildlife Service 17 Appropriations 17 Discretionary Appropriations 18 Mandatory Appropriations 19 Discussion 19 Revenue 29 National Park Service 30 Appropriations 30 Discretionary Appropriations 31 Mandatory Appropriations 32 Discussion 33 Revenue 36 Forest Service 40 Appropriations 40 Discretionary Appropriations 41 Mandatory Appropriations 42 Discussion 42 Revenue 47 Distributions from Federal Highway Administration 52 Payment Programs 56 Payments in Lieu of Taxes 56 Forest Service Payments to States 59 Office of Natural Resources Revenue 62 Figures Figure 1. Comparison of Appropriations by Agency, FY2013 6 Figure 2. Comparison of Revenues Collected by Agency, FY2013 7 Figure 3. Bureau of Land Management Appropriations by State, FY2013 12 Figure 4. Bureau of Land Management Revenue by Type, FY2013 17 Figure 5. Fish and Wildlife Service Revenue by Type, FY2013 30 Figure 6. National Park Service Revenue by Type, FY2013 40 Figure 7. Forest Service Appropriations for 12 Western States, FY2013 44 Figure 8. Forest Service Revenue by Type, FY2013 52 Figure 9. Federal Highway Administration Distributions for Federal Lands by Agency, FY2013 56 Figure 10. PILT and Forest Service Payments to States, FY2013 62 Figure 11. Office of Natural Resources Reported Revenue by State, FY2013 66 Tables Table 1. Bureau of Land Management Appropriations by State, FY2013 11 Table 2. Bureau of Land Management Discretionary Appropriations by State, FY2013 13 Table 3. Bureau of Land Management Mandatory Appropriations by State, FY2013 14 Table 4. Bureau of Land Management Revenue by State, FY2013 16 Table 5. Fish and Wildlife Service Appropriations by State, FY2013 20 Table 6. Fish and Wildlife Service Discretionary Appropriations by State, FY2013 23 Table 7. Fish and Wildlife Service Mandatory Appropriations by State, FY2013 27 Table 8. National Park Service Discretionary Appropriations by State, FY2013 34 Table 9. National Park Service Revenue by State, FY2013 37 Table 10. National Forest System Units and Acreage in 12 Western States, 2013 40 Table 11. Forest Service Appropriations for 12 Western States, FY2013 43 Table 12. Percent of Forest Service Spending on Federal Lands and Nonfederal Lands in 12 Western States 44 Table 13. Forest Service Discretionary Appropriations for 12 Western States, FY2013 46 Table 14. Forest Service Mandatory Appropriations for 12 Western States, FY2013 47 Table 15. Forest Service Revenue by State, FY2013 49 Table 16. Federal Highway Administration Distributions for Federal Lands, by Agency and State, FY2013 54 Table 17. Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) by State, FY2013 57 Table 18. FS Revenue-Sharing and SRS Title I and Title II Payments by State, FY2013 59 Table 19. Office of Natural Resources Reported Revenues by State, FY2013 64 Appendixes Appendix. Federal Acreage in Each State Administered by the Four Major Federal Land Management Agencies, 2013 67 Contacts Author Contact Information 71 Key Policy Staff 71 Introduction Two perennial issues for Congress are appropriations for management of federal lands and resources, and the revenues derived from these lands and resources. The focus of legislative action has been on the four major federal land management agencies: the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture. In determining discretionary appropriations for these agencies, Congress establishes the level of funds for diverse programs, projects, and activities. Congress also has enacted legislation to provide mandatory appropriations for varied programs and purposes. Further, these agencies receive distributions of funding from other agencies for specific purposes. How appropriations for federal land management are used throughout the states is of continuing interest to Congress. Questions relate to the amount of each agency's appropriations used within a particular state, factors influencing the distribution of appropriations among states, the purposes for which appropriations are used, and the extent to which appropriations are used on federal versus nonfederal land in each state. Other questions pertain to the revenues generated from federally managed lands. They include the amount of revenue generated on federal lands, the sources of revenue, and factors influencing the variation among states in the amount and type of revenue generated on federal lands. In this context, this report provides information on appropriations and revenues related to federal lands in each state. It focuses on lands managed by the BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS, as these agencies administer approximately 95% of the roughly 640 million acres of federal land. In particular, this report provides state-by-state information in four areas: appropriations for, and revenues collected by, the four agencies, distributions of funds from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to the four agencies for their lands, payments under the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program and the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 (SRS), and mineral leasing revenues for onshore federal lands, as reported by the DOI Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR). Comprehensive data covering these areas do not exist in a single source. State-by-state data for some types of information are readily available in public sources, as identified in the pertinent sections below. Where this was not the case, CRS sought to obtain the information directly from the pertinent agencies. Organization of Report The first four sections of this report pertain to appropriations for the four major land management agencies and revenues collected by those agencies. The appropriations figures represent budget authority, both discretionary and mandatory. For all four agencies, discretionary appropriations are provided primarily through the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations law. The agencies have varied sources of mandatory funding under legislation originated by authorizing committees. Laws authorizing mandatory appropriations allow the agencies to spend money without further action by Congress. Appropriations figures in this report generally represent new budget authority for FY2013 and thus generally do not include appropriations carried over from prior fiscal years. Figures representing total budget authority could present a different picture of agency funding for some states. Figures showing obligations or expenditures of funds also could differ considerably in some cases from the appropriations figures used in this report. Appropriations figures in this report also reflect any supplemental funds for FY2013 and reductions under the sequester order of the President of March 1, 2013. By contrast, revenue figures throughout this report represent the actual amounts collected, because revenues are not subject to sequestration. The revenue data in the BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS sections reflect revenues collected by each agency, whether these revenues were retained by the agencies for use in the state where collected, used by the agency for other purposes, or allocated to another source (e.g., to the general fund of the Treasury). Depending on the agency, sources of revenue might include land sales, grazing, timber, recreation entrance/use, hardrock minerals, and rights of way, among others. The revenue data in these sections do not reflect the share of each agency's revenues, if any, from onshore mineral leasing. This is because these revenues are collected by the DOI Office of Natural Resources Revenue for all federal lands, as discussed below. Distributions to the BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS from the Federal Highway Administration are shown in the fifth section of this report. The funds are from several federal lands highway programs. They are the largest allocations to the four agencies outside of the departments in which they are located (DOI and Department of Agriculture). The sixth section of this report provides information on payments under the PILT and FS Payments to States programs. These programs compensate local governments for the presence of most federally owned land. PILT applies to many types of federal land, while the FS payments apply to counties with national forest lands and certain BLM forested lands. The ONRR section of this report, presented next, reflects the mineral leasing revenues from all federal onshore areas. The revenues are derived from a variety of energy and mineral activities on federal lands, involving a wide array of commodities. Finally, the Appendix lists the federal acreage managed by each of the four agencies, by state. Caveats Several caveats about interpreting the information in this report deserve note. First, this report provides statistics for only one year. While some funding amounts might be largely consistent from year to year, others might vary by different degrees. For example, congressional and presidential priorities might change, influencing funding for particular programs, projects, and activities and the location of agency spending. Also, the appropriations to agencies for wildland fire management, and their distribution among states, vary from year to year in part depending on the severity of fires. Similarly, land acquisition may occur in some states and not others in any given year. Another factor is unplanned events, such as natural or man-made disasters, as shown by the appropriation of supplemental funds for FY2013 to address the consequences of Superstorm Sandy. Still other factors relate to the budgetary framework, with one example being the reduction of FY2013 appropriations under the President's sequester order of March 1, 2013. Second, figures in this report should be regarded as estimates and are not aggregated across agencies or across states, for a variety of reasons. For one, the agencies receive and allocate appropriations differently. The allocation might be by state or by other geographic area, such as by national forest (which may cross state lines) or regional office. Agencies also differ as to how they define, organize, and report data. For instance, revenue data might reflect total revenue collected by an agency or only revenues collected from activities and resources on lands the agency owns. For example, BLM data include payments from federal, state, and local governments for fire work performed on non-BLM land, but the FS data reflect revenue generated exclusively on FS lands. Another difference is how agencies reflect appropriations for operations of their headquarters or regional offices. For instance, FWS and NPS reflect headquarters appropriations with the state in which the headquarters are located, while BLM does not reflect them with any state. An additional complication in making comparisons across agencies is whether to consider total appropriations or only those used on agency-owned lands. This is because agencies differ considerably in the extent to which they use appropriations in a state on lands other than those they own. As an illustration of this point, FWS uses about two-thirds of its appropriations on lands not managed by the agency, while virtually all of BLM appropriations are used on agency-managed lands. There is also overlap in some of the information provided by the agencies and reported here, such as for some mandatory appropriations included in both an agency's appropriations and its revenue totals (e.g., for recreation). Further, some amounts are reflected in multiple sections of this report, as is the case for SRS monies reflected in the BLM, FS, and SRS sections. As a result of these overlaps, aggregation could lead to double counting of some monies. Additional challenges and issues associated with particular data in this report are discussed in the pertinent sections. Third, this report does not provide information on the broader economic dimensions related to federal lands managed by the four agencies. An analysis of economic costs and benefits and other impacts is beyond the scope of this report. Fourth, this report is not intended to make implications about these lands if they were under nonfederal ownership, such as the level of funds that might be provided for their management; the revenues that might be generated through their use; or the broader economic costs, benefits, and impacts that might occur. For example, the legal and political frameworks pertinent to management under state law may vary considerably from those that apply to the BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS. Finally, for all categories of data, figures are provided for FY2013 as the most recent fiscal year for which data were available across categories. Throughout the report, figures generally are rounded to the closest million. Due to rounding, figures of less than $50,000 are shown as <$0.1 million. Territories are not shown in a table if they did not receive the appropriations or payments, or collect the revenues, shown in the table. Also, figures may not sum to the totals provided due to rounding. Overview BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS received widely varying amounts of FY2013 appropriations for federal land management, as shown in Figure 1. Each agency dispersed its appropriations differently among the states. The lands of these agencies across states also generated widely differing amounts of revenue. Influencing the allocation of appropriations among states, and the amount of revenue collected in each state, were the acreage of federal land; land resources, conditions, availability, uses, and impacts; demographics; fire activity; and other factors. Many of these factors are common among the agencies, while others apply more particularly to one or a subset of agencies. For instance, FWS appropriations used in a state are particularly affected by the number of species listed under the Endangered Species Act, entry ports for regulated wildlife, and two major state grant programs for conservation of game and sport fish (Wildlife Restoration and Sportfish Restoration). Figure 1. Comparison of Appropriations by Agency, FY2013 (in millions of dollars) Source: Prepared by CRS with data from various sources. Figures for BLM, FWS, and NPS were derived primarily from the respective agencies. FS discretionary appropriations data are derived from detailed funding tables prepared by the House Committee on Appropriations. FS mandatory appropriations data are derived from Forest Service, Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Justification, at http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/media/2014/25/2015-BudgetJustification-030614.pdf. Notes: Figures reflect total appropriations for all agencies. For details related to a particular agency, see the pertinent appropriations sections in this report. The FY2013 appropriation to the FS ($5,709.8 million) was more than twice the appropriation to BLM ($2,048.1 million) and FWS ($2,591.6 million) and more than 40% bigger than the appropriation for NPS ($3,305.8 million). Of these totals, FS received the most in discretionary appropriations ($4,934.7 million), while FWS had the highest mandatory appropriation ($1,053.1 million). Wildland Fire Management constituted the largest portion of FS appropriations for the 12 states covered in this report (and overall). For the other three agencies, the biggest appropriation was for the main operations and management account. The agencies have many sources of mandatory appropriations, some of which are common among them and across states (e.g., recreation). Others are unique to one agency, with the contribution for annuity benefits for U.S. Park Police being one example. Still other mandatory accounts are specific to not only one agency but one state; this is the case for BLM's appropriations for Secure Rural Schools payments, which are made to Oregon. The largest mandatory appropriations differed among the agencies: for BLM, the Helium Production Fund; for FWS, state grants for conservation of game and sport fish (Wildlife Restoration and Sportfish Restoration); for NPS, recreation fees; and for FS, payments to states generally. Another distinction is in the extent to which the four agencies use appropriations on lands other than those they manage. Very little if any of BLM appropriations for most states are used on non-BLM lands. A relatively small amount of NPS and FS appropriations are used off agency lands. By contrast, roughly two-thirds of FWS appropriations are used on lands under non-FWS ownership. Revenue collections during FY2013 were small for the FWS ($18.9 million) as compared with the other agencies. BLM's revenue collections were the largest ($525.0 million). They were more than double the FS amount ($223.6 million) and more than one-third bigger than NPS collections ($333.4 million). Depending on the agency and state, sources of revenue might include land sales, grazing, timber, hardrock minerals, recreation, and rights of way. Sales of helium were the biggest revenue source for BLM. FWS had four revenue sources of roughly the same size (from $4.0 million to $5.0 million). On NPS lands, recreation generated the most revenue ($179.5 million). While recreation also was the single largest source of revenue on FS lands ($61.4 million), revenue/collections associated with timber or salvage timber sales collectively were a larger portion of FS revenues ($129.5 million). Figure 2 shows revenues collected by agency. Figure 2. Comparison of Revenues Collected by Agency, FY2013 Source: Prepared by CRS with data from various sources. BLM and NPS figures were derived primarily from data from the respective agencies. FWS information was derived from U.S. Department of the Interior, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2015, Fish and Wildlife Service, at http://www.fws.gov/budget/2014/FY2015_FWS_Greenbook-DOI31014.pdf. FS information was derived from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, All Service Receipts (ASR), Final Forest Statement of Receipts (ASR-13-2), http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3795423.pdf. Notes: For details related to a particular agency, see the pertinent revenue sections in this report. Supplementing the appropriations to BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS are allocations of funding from outside the agencies. A major allocation is from the Federal Highway Administration for federal lands highway programs. Of the total distributed in FY2013 ($573.8 million), the NPS received almost half ($280.6 million), and another two-fifths ($227.2 million) went to state Programming Decisions Committees. Smaller amounts were allocated to the FWS ($36.5 million), FS ($19.8 million), and BLM ($9.6 million). With a distribution of $86.5 million, California received significantly more funds than any other state; the next largest distribution was $36.1 million for Montana, and only nine states received more than $20.0 million. Two eastern states—Connecticut and Delaware—received the lowest distributions (less than $0.1 million). Factors affecting the distribution among states include the amount of federal lands, public road miles, recreational visitation, and federal public bridges as well as agency priorities. The Payments in Lieu of Taxes program and FS Payments to States program compensate local governments for the presence of federally owned land. PILT applies to many types of federal lands, with payments based on county population and several other factors. Of the total PILT payment in FY2013 ($401.8 million), 17 states (and other areas) received less than $1.0 million, while 10 states received more than $20.0 million. The FS Payments to States program provided $312.5 million in FY2013 payments to counties with national forest lands and certain BLM forested lands. Payments are based on either historic or current revenue generated on the lands and other considerations. Of the 41 states that received FY2013 payments, 21 received less than $2.0 million. Oregon received the highest payment—$97.1 million—about three times more than the next highest state. From federal onshore areas, ONRR reported collecting $4,296.9 million in mineral leasing revenues during FY2013. The revenue was from different types of payments: bonuses, rents, and royalties. It derived from many energy and mineral commodities, including coal, gas, hardrock minerals, oil, phosphate, sodium, and sulfur. The FY2013 total was from federal lands in 37 states. Wyoming and New Mexico together accounted for more than two-thirds of the total, while about half the states had revenue of less than $1.0 million (including 13 states with no onshore receipts). Revenue levels not only vary widely among states but can vary considerably from year to year. Factors affecting revenues derived in each state include the amount of federal acreage, the extent of that acreage containing recoverable energy and mineral resources, weather conditions, and other circumstances. The total funding for federal land management in a state, and total revenues derived from federal lands in a state, are difficult to ascertain with certainty for varied reasons. They include differences among agencies in how they receive and allocate appropriations and define, organize, and report data. For these and other reasons, figures in this report are not aggregated across states. Moreover, there are variations from year to year in appropriations among states and revenues derived on federal lands across states. This report provides a snapshot of one fiscal year. Bureau of Land Management Appropriations The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) estimates that appropriations for FY2013 were $2,048.1 million. The majority of this funding was discretionary. Specifically, the total includes $1,714.9 million (83.7%) in discretionary appropriations and $333.1 million (16.3%) in mandatory appropriations. According to the BLM, virtually all appropriations to the agency are used for managing agency-owned lands. Table 1 and Figure 3 provide the discretionary, mandatory, and total BLM appropriations by state. Discretionary Appropriations For FY2013, BLM received $1,714.9 million in discretionary appropriations through six accounts, as shown in Table 2. The largest account was for Management of Lands and Resources, which in FY2013 received $1,020.9 million (59.5%) of BLM's discretionary appropriation. This account funds an array of BLM programs and activities, including land resources, wildlife and fisheries, threatened and endangered species, recreation, energy and minerals, and resource planning for agency lands. The second-largest discretionary appropriation was for Wildland Fire Management. This account funds fire preparedness and suppression, hazardous fuels reduction, and other programs. BLM's allocation from this department-wide account comprised $478.1 million (27.9%) of the agency's discretionary appropriations for FY2013. The FY2013 appropriations for BLM's four other discretionary accounts were considerably smaller. Oregon and California Grant Lands received $106.0 million (6.2%) of the discretionary appropriation for managing certain timberlands in western Oregon. Another $62.4 million (3.6%) was for the Working Capital Fund, a revolving fund used for purchasing supplies, equipment, facilities, and services in support of BLM programs. Service Charges, Deposits, and Forfeitures provided $26.3 million (1.5%) of discretionary appropriations. The account funds administrative expenses and other costs of certain BLM actions for which the public has paid fees, such as for processing applications and authorizations for use of public lands and resources. The remaining $21.2 million (1.2%) of the discretionary appropriation was for Land Acquisition, for BLM to acquire lands or interests in land. Mandatory Appropriations A variety of laws provide for mandatory appropriations for BLM. Of the $333.1 million provided under these laws in FY2013, the largest amount was from the Helium Production Fund—about three-fifths ($202.2 million, 60.7%) of the FY2013 mandatory appropriation. In FY2013, receipts from BLM sales of federal crude helium were deposited in the Helium Production Fund. The second-largest mandatory appropriation, with $38.0 million (11.4%) of the total, was for Secure Rural Schools payments to western Oregon counties. The Land and Resources Management Trust Fund, with $21.8 million (6.5%) of the mandatory appropriations, reflects donations to BLM from individuals, companies, state agencies, and others for certain activities and services. Another $17.5 million (5.3%) was from receipts from recreation fees, with $16.7 million (5.0%) from onshore mineral leasing receipts deposited in the Permit Processing Improvement Fund. Land disposals in Nevada under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act and livestock grazing on BLM lands (Range Improvements) generated another $10.5 million (3.2%) and $9.5 million (2.9%), respectively. The remaining $16.9 million (5.1%) of mandatory appropriations derived from several other sources. Table 3 contains the mandatory appropriations by account. Discussion BLM manages its lands through 12 state offices, which in some cases administer BLM lands and onshore federal minerals in more than one state. Each of these state offices received a portion of BLM's FY2013 appropriations, as did the Office of Fire and Aviation, a national-level office. Other FY2013 appropriations were not allocated to any state office. Most of these funds, shown as "no state" in the tables, were provided to BLM headquarters in Washington, DC, for expenses that support all BLM land management and national programs. As shown in Table 1 and Figure 3, BLM state offices received widely varying amounts of FY2013 appropriations, ranging from $17.0 million for all eastern states to $299.6 million for New Mexico. The level of appropriations allocated by BLM to state offices is influenced by a number of factors. One is the amount of lands and onshore federal minerals managed by BLM, of which acreages vary widely among states. Different land resources, conditions, uses, and impacts can affect the cost of land management, as can demographics. Another variable is the extent of wildfire suppression and other fire activity, which affects the allocation of funds among states for wildland fire management. Another factor is that some programs may have no or very little activity within a state, resulting in none or a small portion of these program funds being allocated to the state. In particular, some programs are specific to one state, and some of these state-specific programs received relatively large appropriations. For example, the New Mexico state office received the largest FY2013 appropriation because BLM's sale of helium is shown as budget authority for that state. Excluding the Helium Production Fund, the appropriation for New Mexico would have been about two-thirds lower—$97.4 million. As a second example, the Oregon state office received the second-largest appropriation among states ($283.4 million), primarily because it received the overwhelming majority of the discretionary appropriations for Oregon and California Grant Lands and the mandatory appropriation for Secure Rural Schools. Table 1. Bureau of Land Management Appropriations by State, FY2013 (in millions of dollars) Discretionary Appropriations Mandatory Appropriations Total Appropriations Alaska 111.9 1.1 113.0 Arizona 75.4 2.5 77.9 California 142.5 10.2 152.7 Colorado 89.0 3.5 92.4 Eastern states 17.0 <0.1 17.0 Idaho 120.6 2.6 123.3 Montana 85.3 4.3 89.6 New Mexico 88.0 211.5 299.6 Nevada 170.1 17.1 187.2 Oregon 237.8 45.7 283.4 Utah 114.9 6.0 120.9 Wyoming 96.1 6.6 102.7 Subtotal 1,439.8 310.9 1,750.7 Office of Fire and Aviation 91.1 0 91.1 No state 275.1 22.2 297.3 Total 1,714.9 333.1 2,048.1 Source: Data provided by the Bureau of Land Management, Budget Division, July 22, 2014. Adapted by CRS. Notes: This table shows appropriations to BLM state offices, which in some cases administer lands (and/or onshore federal minerals) in more than one state. Specifically, the eastern states office administers lands in states east of the Mississippi River; the Montana office administers lands in Montana, North Dakota, and Sout