    [Senate Hearing 109-315]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                     S. Hrg. 109-315, Pt. 5

                                                            Senate Hearings

                                     Before the Committee on Appropriations

    _______________________________________________________________________

    Department of the Interior

    and Related Agencies

    Appropriations

                                                                Fiscal Year
                                                                       2007
                                             109th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

                                                                  H.R. 5386

    PART 5
            DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
            DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
            ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
            NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

               Interior Appropriations, 2007 (H.R. 5386)--Part 5

                                                     S. Hrg. 109-315, Pt. 5

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2007

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

                                   H.R. 5386

       AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
    ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER
                        30, 2007, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                            PART 5 (Pages 1-xxxx)

                           Department of Agriculture
                           Department of the Interior
                        Environmental Protection Agency
                           Nondepartmental Witnesses

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
                                   index.html

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    26-550                      WASHINGTON : 2007
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                                   __________

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                      THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        TOM HARKIN, Iowa
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
    CONRAD BURNS, Montana                HARRY REID, Nevada
    RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama           HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
    JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            PATTY MURRAY, Washington
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
    LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    MIKE DeWINE, Ohio                    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
    SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas                MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
    WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
                        J. Keith Kennedy, Staff Director
                  Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                 Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies

                        CONRAD BURNS, Montana, Chairman
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
    THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              HARRY REID, Nevada
    JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
    WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado               HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
                               Professional Staff
                                Leif Fonnesbeck
                                  Ginny James
                                  Ryan Thomas
                                  Rebecca Benn
                                 Michele Gordon
                           Peter Kiefhaber (Minority)
                           Rachael Taylor (Minority)
                            Scott Dalzell (Minority)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, March 16, 2006

                                                                       Page

    Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................     1

                            Thursday, March 30, 2006

    Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary..............    55

                            Thursday, April 6, 2006

    Environmental Protection Agency..................................   177
    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   209

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Senator Conrad Burns (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Burns, Cochran, Allard, and Dorgan.

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                 Forest Service

    STATEMENT OF MARK E. REY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL
                RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            DALE BOSWORTH, CHIEF
            LENISE LAGO, ACTING BUDGET DIRECTOR

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

        Senator Burns. We will call the committee to order, and
    thank you, and good morning. I'm very pleased the Forest
    Service Chief, Dale Bosworth--nice to have you here with us
    this morning and I hope everything is all right over in your
    camp and also, the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
    Environment.

                               BUDGET REDUCTIONS

        I thought you were for the environment, Mark. But it's nice
    to have you here this morning and of course, you've been before
    this subcommittee many, many times.
        We all know there's a little belt tightening around here in
    trying especially in the non-defense and non-homeland security
    programs for fiscal year 2007. In fact we'll be debating this
    budget resolution this week and I would imagine that the debate
    continues on the direction of the overall amount of
    discretionary spending that this committee will have to spend.
    The President's budget request for the Forest Service is $4.096
    billion in non-emergency discretionary appropriations.
        This represents a 2.5 percent cut, compared to 2006 of $4.2
    billion for non-emergency funds. I know that in this budget
    climate, tough choices have to be made about some of the
    proposed program cuts in the Forest Service really concern me.
        For example, funding for maintaining road systems has been
    cut by $39 million, an 18 percent reduction. This is hard to
    understand given the Forest Service own estimates that they
    are--have more than $4.5 billion backlogged in maintenance work
    on its roads.
        If we don't maintain those roads, then people ultimately
    can't access the forest whether it's for recreation,
    firefighting, or forest management. I think that is very
    shortsighted.
        Funding for State fire assistance has also been decreased
    over $22 million. That's a 25 percent reduction. This will
    reduce by over 5,000, the number of rural fire departments that
    receive grants and technical assistance. These fire departments
    are often the first to respond to wildland fires and they
    provide a vital help to the Forest Service and the Department
    of the Interior.
        Another concern is $29 million cut in forest health
    programs in State and private forestry. I remember we had great
    debates, at one time, on the use of this money and how
    effective it is. In my State we have an enormous problem with
    bark beetles and the forest health funds for that program have
    been cut in half.
        The dead trees that result from beetle kill add directly to
    the already excessive fuel loads and greatly increase the fire
    risk. I would draw your attention to the forest, especially in
    Montana, where I get to look at those red trees every time I
    drive down the road and I see nothing--nothing happening in
    order to take this on. Because I'll tell you, these bark
    beetles coming through a 7- or an 8-year drought, we had trees
    that were stressed and they become more vulnerable to that
    beetle than any other tree in the forest. We've done hardly
    anything to take stressed trees and infected trees out of the
    forest to deal with this problem and that's the only way we
    have to dealing with it. I think that's the only thing I've
    been told, is the removal of those trees.

                                BUDGET INCREASES

        On the other side of the ledger, a few programs receive
    significant increases in the proposed budget request. These
    include the timber program, $32.5 million, Forest Legacy,
    that's good. Hazardous fuels is $10 million. That's good and I
    think you would have to put in that definition, these beetle
    kills. They're definitely a part of that problem.
        Wildfire suppression, we have an increase of $56 million
    and we're all interested in hearing from both of you how you
    formulated the 2007 budget and how you made the difficult
    decisions allocating funding between the various programs.

                            SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS ACT

        Finally another issue that concerns me, is the
    administration's proposal on reauthorization of the Secure
    Rural Schools Act. This proposal would sell over 300,000 acres
    of our National Forest System lands, including 14,000 acres in
    Montana, to pay for continuing payments to counties for another
    5 years.
        Now as I've traveled around my State and talked to various
    groups and individuals, county commissioners, there is simply
    no support for that proposal in this form. We need to come up
    with a better way to find reauthorization of the Secure Rural
    Schools Act. I think the national taxpayer has to be aware of
    this because it impacts communities that rely heavily on forest
    and forest products.
        So I thank you for joining me today. We're going to talk a
    little bit about grazing permits and be ready for that. So make
    sure you get out your reference material. I want to see how you
    justify that and so, I look forward to hearing from both of
    you, Dale and Mark, in this hearing today.
        Now, my good friend from North Dakota who has had a great
    ski season this year. They've had quite a lot of snow. Thank
    you for joining us.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I agree
    with much of what you've had to say. This appropriations
    request really shorts needed funding in many, many areas.
    Access to public lands, fewer roads and trails to provide that
    access, fewer resources for State and local governments, less
    funding for recreation and resource development.

                                 FISCAL POLICY

        I understand Secretary Rey, Mr. Bosworth, and Ms. Lago will
    be here to support the administration's budget, that is your
    job. If we were to ask you if you agree or disagree, you must
    agree because you are an appointee and we understand all that.
    But I think it's also the case that we have a fiscal policy
    that doesn't add up. It just doesn't add up.
        The reason that you're coming in, in fact we--last year,
    cut a half a billion dollars below our previous year's spending
    in this subcommittee. Half a billion dollars, not reducing the
    rate of growth, but we cut a half a billion dollars. The
    President's budget cuts another one-half billion dollars below
    that for the next year.
        My point is, the fiscal policy doesn't add up and the
    result is a lot of good things are going to pay the cost of
    that and I regret that. We have to try to find a better set of
    priorities and we need to be doing it in a way that is
    thoughtful.
        I did not bring a leafy spurge plant, you're well familiar
    with it. In fact, you brought pictures to show me I understand,
    that you're actually taking care of some of that leafy spurge.
    Not all of it, we still have a lot of work to do. But I
    appreciate your attention to it. Mr. Rey was in North Dakota
    recently, met with some ranchers and he actually talked about
    leafy spurge just a bit.
        You know there are many things, I won't go over them all,
    but the President is proposing to sell about $800 million in
    national forest lands in order to finance county payments for
    roads and schools. The reason we're forced into all of these
    abstinance choices, is we have a fiscal policy that doesn't
    add.
        We are spending money we don't have in areas now. I think
    we're going to be at $440 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan and
    now Katrina, and none of it's paid for. Nobody's ever asked to
    pay for any of it, really.
        So we just flounder along and at some point, somebody's
    going to say you know, this is unsustainable, it's a fiscal
    policy that doesn't work. But in its details in this
    subcommittee, you see the consequences of that, and it is cuts
    in areas that will have real impact, and are not cuts that make
    sense in the long term.
        Having said all that, I appreciate once again, you're being
    here and there are many areas to question and I have another
    Appropriations subcommittee just around the corner that I'm
    going to have to ask some questions of, about the train
    accident in Minot with respect to the anhydrous ammonia, some
    years ago. I've got to go ask the FRA some questions about that
    this morning.
        So I won't be able to hear all of your testimony, but I
    want to thank all three of you for being here this morning and
    you need to work with us because we need to find ways to make
    sense of all of this in an environment in which the fiscal
    policy doesn't add up. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Senator Burns. You are welcome and thank you for your
    statement, Senator Dorgan. And that is the reason they hire us
    around here, is to kind of protect these areas. So we will do
    that and try to find ways to pay for it.
        Mr. Secretary, nice to see you this morning and we look
    forward to your statement.
        Mr. Rey. With your sufferance, the Chief is actually going
    to start.
        Senator Burns. Chief, it's good to see you. I think
    everything is going well with you.

                       SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DALE BOSWORTH

        Mr. Bosworth. Everything is going just fine. Mr. Chairman
    and Mr. Dorgan, I do appreciate the opportunity to be here
    today and talk about the President's fiscal year 2007 budget
    for the Forest Service.
        As was stated, the 2007 President's budget for the Forest
    Service totals about $4.1 billion in discretionary funding.
    That's a $104 million decrease from fiscal year 2006.

                         FOREST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        What I would like to do is begin by discussing some of our
    successes from the past year and then talk about our strategy
    for accomplishing our agency's objectives.
        We had some significant accomplishments last year and a lot
    of our accomplishments, I think, are things that are measurable
    through performance measures and we're able to quantify those.
    Some of the priority areas where we either met or we exceeded
    our target included things like hazardous fuel treatment,
    noxious weed treatment, stream and lake restoration
    enhancement, timber volume that was sold, terrestrial habitat
    enhancement, decisions on range allotments, and number of miles
    of trails that were maintained.
        We accomplished much of that important work while also
    opening a service center in Albuquerque, New Mexico, which, in
    the end, will save dollars that will eventually go to the
    ground.
        I'm particularly proud of our ability to respond to
    unplanned events and in particular, the catastrophic hurricanes
    that hit the gulf States last year--hurricanes Katrina and Rita
    had a huge impact on the Forest Service, as well as a number of
    other people.
        Those strong winds affected something like 6 million acres
    of forest land in five southern States including over 300,000
    acres of national forest land. Potential losses amounted to 15
    to 19 billion board feet of timber and about 90 percent of that
    was on private land.
        Since the hurricanes, the Forest Service has sold 256
    million board feet of timber that had been damaged during the
    hurricanes. We've opened about 2,000 miles of road, and are in
    the process of also repairing some of that road.
        In support of hurricane Katrina response in the days after
    the hurricane, the interagency teams managed all agency radio,
    phone, and data communications; coordinated the receiving and
    distribution of 1,000 truckloads of supplies; provided evacuees
    with food, clothing, and shelter; and supported emergency
    medical operations at the New Orleans airport.
        At the base camp for example, four crews moved 2,400
    patients in a 3-day period to and from the Air Force triage
    hospital in New Orleans Airport. An incident command team
    managed the staging area in Mississippi, that was one of the
    largest air operations in the storm-affected area. Our crews
    unloaded, and refueled, and stored 10 to 12 747 plane loads of
    commodities every day.
        In one incident, the command team shipped over 2.9 million
    meals, 5.6 million gallons of water, and 39 million pounds of
    ice. That's enough drinking water for 11 million people for 1
    day.

                          FISCAL YEAR 2007 PRIORITIES

        I'd like to move on to talk about the priorities for 2007.
    The budget continues to work with the Healthy Forests
    Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act Authorities
    in restoring forest health. The Forest Service will treat 3.2
    million acres in fiscal year 2007 and the majority of that will
    be in the wildland-urban interface.
        We've been increasing use of our stewardship contracting
    authorities. We have 209 projects now underway and we expect to
    have 80 more contracts and agreements in fiscal year 2007.
        A key theme from the White House Conference on Cooperative
    Conservation in the Forest Service's Centennial Congress is
    that our future in the Forest Service is going to be through
    collaboration and not through regulation. We're going to
    continue to move that way.
        Our new planning processes, our new travel management rule,
    as well as the resource advisory committees that are
    established through the Recreation Enhancement Act, are all
    going to be ways of leveraging public involvement to improve
    Forest Service efficiency and effectiveness.
        Our budget reflects our continued implementation of our
    vision as the center of excellence, reducing our indirect cost
    by about $200 million by the end of fiscal year 2007. The
    Facilities Realignment and Enhancement Act allows us to
    streamline facility holdings and still produce additional funds
    for our mission critical facility maintenance.
        Our Business Operations Transformation Program is estimated
    to save $241 million by fiscal year 2011, while also improving
    the transparency and accountability of our systems.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In conclusion, our 2007 budget responds to the national
    need for deficit reductions while preparing for new and a much
    more collaborative era in the future for natural resource
    management.
        Again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here and I look
    forward to working with you to implement our 2007 program. I'd
    be happy to answer any questions.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Dale Bosworth

                                    OVERVIEW

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for this
    opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year 2007 Budget for the
    Forest Service. I am pleased to be here with you today.
        The fiscal year 2007 President's budget for the Forest Service
    totals $4.10 billion in discretionary funding, which is a $104 million
    decrease in funding from fiscal year 2006. The budget advances the top
    priorities of the agency in order to sustain the health of the Nation's
    forests and grasslands. I will begin today by sharing some of the
    Forest Service's successes from the past year; these successes
    demonstrate our capabilities to accomplish the challenges ahead. Then,
    I will discuss our strategy for accomplishing agency objectives at a
    time when our Nation also needs to exercise fiscal discipline to
    provide the critical resources needed for our Nation's highest
    priorities: fighting the war on terrorism, strengthening our homeland
    defenses and sustaining the momentum of our economic recovery.

                            FOREST SERVICE SUCCESSES

        In 2005, the Forest Service achieved its priorities and
    demonstrated that it continues to be an agency of great value to the
    American people. The Forest Service exceeded its goals to restore the
    health of our forests and protect critical resources from catastrophic
    wildfires. Working collaboratively with the Department of the Interior
    (DOI), the Forest Service controlled 99 percent of all unwanted and
    unplanned fires during initial attack.
        The Forest Service and the Department of the Interior last year
    treated hazardous fuels on more than 2.9 million acres of land, and
    reduced hazardous fuels on an additional 1.4 million acres through
    other land management actions. Federal agencies plan to treat 2.9
    million more acres in 2006, and accomplish hazardous fuels reduction on
    an additional 1.6 million acres through landscape restoration
    activities. An additional 4.6 million acres are planned for 2007, which
    includes 3.0 million acres of hazardous fuels treatments and 1.6
    million acres of landscape restoration. By the end of fiscal year 2007,
    federal agencies will have treated hazardous fuels on more than 21.5
    million acres of our Nation's forests and wooded rangelands since the
    beginning of fiscal year 2001, and will have restored an additional 5.1
    million acres.
        I am especially proud this year of the strength and resourcefulness
    that Forest Service employees demonstrated during their involvement in
    the relief efforts following the many hurricanes of 2005. In the first
    four weeks after Katrina's landfall, Forest Service employees provided
    support to over 600,000 people affected by Katrina, distributing over
    2.7 million meals, 4 million gallons of water and 40 million pounds of
    ice. During peak response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Forest
    Service had 5,500 employees working in the affected region, and total
    Forest Service efforts represented over 250,000 personnel days. Forest
    Service employees provided a variety of critical services, including
    managing evacuation centers and base camps, providing logistical
    support, clearing roadways, and leading forest restoration efforts on
    both the private and public forests damaged by the storms.
        These efforts demonstrated the exceptional work ethic and ``can-
    do'' attitude of Forest Service employees. At the Levi Strauss shelter
    in San Antonio, Red Cross worker Bill Martin reported that ``[Forest
    Service workers] do everything here. . . . They aren't afraid of
    getting their hands dirty.'' At this shelter, Forest Service employees
    became known as the ``green pants.'' The nickname arose from evacuees
    who quickly learned that if they needed something done quickly or a
    question answered right away, they could get it from the men and women
    wearing the green pants of the Forest Service uniform. The commitment
    to service that Forest Service employees demonstrated during the
    hurricane relief efforts is the same commitment that sustains the
    health of our Nation's forests and grasslands.
        The National Forest System continues to provide benefits to the
    American public, including fresh water, flood regulation, carbon
    sequestration and recreation. 60 million people benefit from clean
    water provided by national forests and grasslands, and in 2005 the
    American people made over 200 million visits to the national forests
    and grasslands. These statistics underscore the importance of the
    National Forest System to the environmental infrastructure and natural
    heritage of the United States.
        The Forest Service accomplished all these tasks while
    simultaneously improving its organizational and financial management.
    In 2005 the Forest Service began its Business Operations Transformation
    Program, which will advance the efficiency of its technology, budget,
    finance and human resources operations, and is expected to save the
    agency $241 million in administrative operation costs over the next
    five years. As part of this effort, the Albuquerque Service Center
    became operational in 2005, and will create a centralized location for
    human resources and financial management operations.
        The Forest Service also achieved its fourth unqualified (``clean'')
    audit opinion in a row for fiscal year 2005, continuing the agency's
    efforts to improve financial performance. Building upon these
    successes, the Forest Service will use improved financial information
    to drive results in key areas.

                 FOREST SERVICE PRIORITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

        In fiscal year 2007 the Forest Service will continue its strategic
    focus on the following goals: restoring fire-adapted forests; providing
    sustainable recreation opportunities for the American people; improving
    the health of our watersheds; and helping our Nation meet its energy
    needs.
        In addition to these long-term strategic goals, the President's
    Budget provides increased support to Forest Service programs that
    improve forest health conditions, protect critical resources from
    catastrophic wildland fire, and help prevent the loss of open space.
    The President's Budget demonstrates that the Forest Service can use
    collaborative approaches and operate with renewed efficiency and
    accountability in order to reduce costs while accomplishing its
    mission. The Forest Service will achieve this by: (1) dealing
    strategically with threats to forest health; (2) expanding
    collaborative efforts; (3) increasing the efficiency of Forest Service
    programs; and (4) improving organizational and financial management.
    Through these four strategies, the Forest Service will build on its
    past successes and advance its priorities for fiscal year 2007.

                A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO RESTORING FOREST HEALTH

        The fiscal year 2007 Budget continues the work of the Forest
    Service under the authorities of the President's Healthy Forests
    Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). These
    authorities have removed administrative process delays and expedited
    critical restoration projects so that the Forest Service can more
    effectively restore national forests and grasslands to a more fire
    adaptive environment.
        In 2005, the Forest Service treated 2.72 million acres of land to
    reduce hazardous fuels, with over 60 percent of those acres in the
    wildland-urban interface. The fiscal year 2007 budget proposes $292
    million for the treatment of hazardous fuels. Combined with other
    programs; the agency will treat as many as 3.2 million acres, with a
    majority of acres treated in the wildland-urban interface. Recent court
    decisions affecting our use of categorical exclusions to accomplish
    this work will have an effect on our ability to rapidly and efficiently
    treat these acres that are in need of fuels reduction. The Forest
    Service is also better integrating its hazardous fuels treatments with
    other vegetation management activities. The result is an additional 1.1
    million acres of hazardous fuels treated in 2005 as secondary benefits
    to other vegetation management activities. Hazardous fuels treatments,
    in turn, often have secondary benefits such as wildlife habitat
    improvement or watershed restoration.
        Another important tool for improving forest health is stewardship
    projects. These projects allow forest managers to more efficiently
    manage efforts to restore forest health through the use of one contract
    document authorizing the disposal of national forest system timber
    incidental to and in exchange for services to be performed on national
    forest system land. The President's budget will allow the Forest
    Service to award approximately 100,000 acres of stewardship projects in
    fiscal year 2007, providing services such as noxious weed treatment,
    lake restoration, and harvesting biomass for energy use.
        In fiscal year 2007 the Forest Service will continue to assist
    communities adjacent to national forest land in the development of
    Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs). CWPPs enable communities
    to establish a localized definition of the wildland-urban interface in
    their area, and high-risk areas identified in a CWPP receive funding
    preference from the Forest Service. As of December 2005, at least 450
    CWPPs had been completed nationwide, covering at least 2,500
    communities at risk from wildfire
        In 2005, fires burned 8.6 million acres on Federal lands; the fire
    season was characterized by a continuing drought and dry fuel
    conditions. Climate forecasts and estimates of fuel loads on our
    Nation's forests highlight the continued need for highly trained and
    efficient fire prevention and fire suppression programs. In order to
    maintain these programs, the President's Budget proposes a $56 million
    increase above the fiscal year 2006 enacted amount for wildland fire
    suppression. This funding request equals the most recent 10-year
    average for suppression costs, which are on an upward trend.
        In 2005, the Forest Service continued its success in initial fires
    suppression, containing 99 percent of all unwanted fires. The
    President's Budget provides the preparedness funding needed to maintain
    this initial attack success rate. The development of an interagency
    fire managing planning and budget model to support cost effective
    allocation of preparedness resources is currently underway.
        The President's Budget provides additional incentives for reducing
    suppression costs by authorizing use of unobligated wildfire
    suppression funds for hazardous fuels treatment. This provides an
    incentive for line officers to reduce suppression expenses so they can
    have more resources to conduct hazardous fuels treatment. We are also
    committed to managing wildland fires for resource benefits or, as we
    also refer to it as, wildland fire use. This option is available to
    Federal agencies that have an approved land use plan and a fire
    management plan that allows for it. Our ability to manage naturally
    occurring fires in order to improve the health of fire dependent
    forests is increasing each year. The 2005 total of an additional
    251,000 acres was significantly higher than 2004 and we look forward to
    increasing our capability to use this important tool.
        These programs demonstrate the Forest Service's approach to
    restoring national forests and grasslands to a more fire adaptive
    environment. Through stewardship contracting, collaboration and
    community involvement, strategic treatment of hazardous fuels, and
    well-planned fire prevention and suppression, we are having a long-term
    impact on minimizing wildfire threats.
        The protection of forest health and open space is increasingly
    affected by the dynamics of a global timber market. Timber prices are
    now often set globally; the result has been a reduction in the private
    wood products infrastructure and divestment of timber companies from
    their timber land in the United States. These trends have altered the
    economic and environmental reality in which the Forest Service
    operates. The fiscal year 2007 budget provides several strategies to
    deal with these realities.
        The sell-off of industrial timber lands opens up millions of acres
    to potential development, which in turns adds to the threat of the loss
    of open space. To counter these trends, the President's Budget requests
    $62 million for the Forest Legacy Program, a $5 million increase over
    last year, which will protect an estimated 130,000 priority acres in
    fiscal year 2007. The Forest Legacy Program works in concert with the
    cooperative efforts of other Federal, State and non-governmental
    organizations to assist private landowners sustain intact, working
    forests.
        With the reduction in mill capacity and other related
    infrastructure, market conditions have created a more limited demand
    pool and led to higher costs for remaining purchasers, adversely
    affecting the financial feasibility of restoration work on our Nation's
    forests and grasslands. The fiscal year 2007 budget addresses this need
    by dedicating $5 million to foster markets in biomass utilization.
    Additionally, authorities of HFI/HFRA and stewardship contracting
    enable more efficient and effective partnerships with the local
    community in treating hazardous fuels, and promote investment in the
    local infrastructure to utilize timber.
        With greater exchange of global goods also comes greater transfer
    of invasive species. The fiscal year 2007 budget provides over $94
    million to Forest Service invasive species programs, allowing the
    agency to complete invasive species suppression, prevention and
    management on over 61,000 acres of Federal lands and 315,000 acres of
    state and private lands. These efforts involve enhanced collaboration
    with Forest Service partners to find and implement solutions to
    invasive species problems. In 2004 the Forest Service invasive species
    program underwent a program assessment rating tool (PART) evaluation.
    As a result of the assessment, new program performance measures based
    on a scientific or policy basis for validating agency actions were
    developed to more frequently update and utilize forest health risk maps
    for decision making and allocation of resources; and to provide for the
    measurement of the environmental and economic effects of invasive
    species treatments.
        An additional strategy for protecting forest health involves USDA's
    work to broaden the use of markets for ecosystem services through
    voluntary market mechanisms as announced by Secretary Johanns at the
    White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation. As part of this
    effort, Forest Service Research and Development will continue its work
    regarding the quantification of ecosystem services values.

                        INCREASED COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS

        The White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation, held in
    August 2005, marked an important milestone in the effort to expand and
    improve collaboration in natural resource management. The White House
    Conference underscored a clear lesson learned from the Forest Service
    Centennial--that the Forest Service has entered a new, more
    collaborative era of natural resource management. Today we are focusing
    on improving forest health and promoting sustainable recreation. In
    order to work effectively in this new environment, the future of the
    Forest Service must be built on collaboration instead of top-down
    regulation.
        The new planning rule for the Forest Service creates a dynamic
    planning process that is less bureaucratic, emphasizes sound science,
    and encourages more public involvement earlier in the planning stages.
    We also expect that the new system of planning will be more strategic,
    transparent, timely and efficient. The planning process will be more
    effective because the rule requires annual evaluation of monitoring
    results and a comprehensive evaluation every 5 years. Under the old
    planning rule, it usually took five to seven years to revise a 15-year
    land management plan; under the new rule, we expect that a plan
    revision will take from two to three years, saving the agency
    significant time and money.
        The new travel management rule, issued in November 2005, provides
    another example of successful cooperation resulting in effective rule
    making. In 2004, OHV users accounted for between 11 and 12 million
    visits to national forests and grasslands. While the Forest Service
    believes that OHVs are a legitimate use of the National Forest System,
    unmanaged OHV use has resulted in unplanned roads and trails, erosion,
    watershed and habitat degradation, and impacts to cultural resource
    sites. The 2005 travel management rule requires each national forest
    and grassland to designate the roads, trails and areas that will be
    open to motor vehicle use. The Forest Service will engage the public so
    that travel management will be a cooperative process, which in turn
    will help increase compliance. The result will be greater protection
    for recreation resources without significant expenditures from Forest
    Service appropriations.
        In 2004 Congress approved the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement
    Act, giving the Forest Service a 10-year authority to reinvest a
    portion of collected recreation fees to enhance local recreation
    opportunities and improve wildlife habitat in the area. We are
    projecting receipts of $54.8 million in fiscal year 2007 under REA. The
    Act also directed the creation of recreation advisory committees that
    will provide public involvement and comment on recreation fee programs.
    We are planning to establish a number of committees and councils
    throughout the country to afford communities and citizens the
    opportunity to provide input into the recreation fee program. I want to
    thank Congress for providing the Forest Service with this new and
    effective tool for cooperative conservation.
        A final example of collaboration includes working closely with the
    Bureau of Land Management in the energy permitting process. The Energy
    Policy Act of 2005 allows the BLM and the Forest Service to develop
    interagency agreements to support established BLM pilot offices
    designed to streamline the oil and gas permitting process on federal
    lands. These agreements will be used to reduce the backlog of oil and
    gas Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) and improve the inspection
    and enforcement processes.
        We will continue to emphasize the processing of APDs and lease
    requests, and the initiation and completion of several major oil and
    gas environmental impact statements. This emphasis will increase the
    resources available to process energy permit applications, resulting in
    a more effective permitting process. Within the energy program, the
    ``process mineral applications'' activity will increase by $7 million
    over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level to meet the high priority
    objective of processing energy mineral applications.

               INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY OF FOREST SERVICE PROGRAMS

        The President's Budget reflects continued implementation of the
    Forest Service's vision as a ``Center of Excellence in Government'' in
    which it will be viewed as a model agency recognized for efficiently
    delivering its services. The Budget continues reforms that will
    streamline the Forest Service's organization, improve accountability,
    and focus on measurable results. The Budget reduces indirect costs to
    $461 million, and reflects completion of organizational efficiency
    studies that will lead to savings in fiscal year 2008 and beyond. The
    Budget further reflects a continuing emphasis on Forest Service
    performance and accountability by including two new performance
    measures for the National Forest System: (1) the use of volume sold as
    an annual output measure for forest products and (2) an annual
    efficiency measure consisting of the ratio of total receipts for each
    activity to the obligations for each respective activity that generates
    those receipts. These reforms will foster a greater focus on results;
    lead to improved decisions based on performance; and enhance
    accountability through the use of more readily available and better
    quality performance information.
        Through the President's Budget the Forest Service will continue to
    make use of valuable authorities that Congress has recently made
    available to the agency, and the Forest Service will continue its
    efforts to increase program efficiency. With the provisions of the
    Forest Service Facilities Realignment and Enhancement Act, the Forest
    Service is reducing its administrative site maintenance backlog and
    improving efficiency in its land management program. This new authority
    provides a necessary incentive to identify and maintain needed
    facilities while streamlining facility holdings that reflect a bygone
    era of forest management. In fiscal year 2006, we anticipate $37
    million in receipts from this conveyance authority and we will be
    initiating over 100 administrative site conveyances with projected
    receipts of over $77 million by fiscal year 2009. In short, the new
    authority enables the Forest Service to accomplish more with its
    Capital Improvement and Maintenance funds, while also decreasing the
    deferred maintenance backlog by removing unneeded facilities.
        In fiscal year 2007, the Forest Service will continue to implement
    the fiscal year 2006 changes to Knutson-Vandenberg (K-V) authority,
    which allow the Forest Service more flexibility in the expenditure of
    K-V funds. Consistent with OMB direction to offset increases in
    mandatory spending, the agency has issued direction to the field to
    increase collections into the National Forest Fund to offset the
    increase in the K-V program. I would like to express my appreciation
    for support that this subcommittee has given the Forest Service in
    improving this authority.
        Providing high quality recreation opportunities on the national
    forests and grasslands is of great importance to the Forest Service.
    National forests and grasslands received over 200 million visits
    occurring in 2005. The fiscal year 2007 Budget contains $250.9 million
    to provide these opportunities for visitors to National Forest System
    lands. To provide the most efficient use of these funds, we are
    developing a programmatic plan called, ``the capacity-building model
    for sustainable recreation,'' that will identify ways to build capacity
    to meet increasing demand. Tools will include partnership development,
    volunteerism, recreation fee revenues, improved business practices, and
    prioritization of recreation facility assets. Specific actions in 2007
    will include completion of recreation facility master planning to
    prioritize facility assets; completion of a feasibility study on
    retention of recreation special use fees; continued implementation of
    the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act; collaborating with
    private sector partners to create a web site on improved business
    practices, including use of grant resources and volunteerism; and
    completing a skills assessment to enhance business and financial
    skills.
        In 2005 the recreation program PART assessment was conducted. As a
    result of this assessment we are taking actions to improve the
    recreation program performance, including updated performance measures
    connecting recreation program performance with achievement of the
    strategic goals; taking measures to improve visitor satisfaction and
    completing recreation business plans for each of the national forest
    and grasslands.
        The President's budget reflects the efforts of Forest Service
    Research and Development (R&D) to improve research programs while also
    advancing deficit reduction goals. To do this, R&D is expanding
    collaborative and coalition building efforts, focusing funding on
    research with external partners, and aligning research projects along
    strategic program areas. R&D is hosting two ``Outlook Workshops'' on
    future forestry research with non-governmental organizations (NGO's),
    government partners, academia and industry to encourage a common
    research agenda for all sectors of forestry research. In January 2006,
    R&D participated in a summit for Deans from U.S. forestry programs to
    lay plans for a common research agenda. The Forest Service will also
    continue to support the larger research community through the Forest
    Inventory Analysis (FIA). The FIA is the Nation's only forest census,
    and it has been tracking the conditions of America's forests for
    roughly 75 years. The President's Budget funds the FIA program at a
    level that will allow the program to cover 93 percent of the nation's
    forests with an annual inventory.
        R&D is also refocusing its research dollars, further increasing
    R&D's support of external and collaborative research efforts from 13
    percent of the R&D budget to 20 percent over the next five years.
    Finally, R&D is reorganizing its research along strategic programs
    areas, so the agency can best produce the research that supports
    current priorities. Along these lines, the President's Budget allocates
    $1.5 million to research on the value of ecosystem services; $3.5
    million to research on biomass markets and utilization; and includes
    funding for the reorganization of the Forest Products Lab, so the Lab
    can better focus on research that increases the utilization value of
    wood products, particularly in the areas of biomass, small diameter
    utilization, and energy and biofuels production from biomass. Through
    these efforts, the science produced by Research & Development will
    continue to be the foundation for effective Forest Service programs.

               IMPROVING ORGANIZATIONAL AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

        In support of the President's Management Agenda, the fiscal year
    2007 budget continues the Forest Service's efforts to improve
    organizational and financial management. The Forest Service's Business
    Operations Transformation Program is improving the overall efficiency
    of the Forest Service's administrative operations and increasing the
    agency's ability to redirect funds from indirect costs to mission
    delivery. The Albuquerque Service Center successfully opened this past
    year, bringing nearly 400 employees to a consolidated budget and
    finance center that will better serve the needs of Forest Service
    internal and external customers. During the next five years, the
    Business Operations Transformation Program is estimated to result in
    $241 million in savings for the Forest Service.
        The centralization of Forest Service budget and finance will also
    create greater transparency, accountability and efficiency in the
    agency's financial management. The Forest Service continues to improve
    its financial management, as evidenced by the agency's 4th consecutive
    unqualified (``clean'') audit in 2005. Building upon these successes,
    the Forest Service will use improved financial information to drive
    results in key areas.
        The President's Budget also continues support for the Forest
    Service Competitive Sourcing program, and focuses on proper and timely
    implementation of completed competitive sourcing studies and rigorous
    analysis of the studies' results and savings.
        In fiscal year 2007 the Forest Service will continue its work in
    Budget and Performance Integration through implementation of its
    strategic plan, Performance Accountability System, and by making
    effective use of the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The Forest
    Service Strategic Plan helps the agency and its field units develop
    programs of work that address natural resource needs while maximizing
    limited resources and improving performance accountability. The
    Strategic Plan will be revised in fiscal year 2006 to reflect the
    latest needs and resources of the agency.
        Through the PAS, the Forest Service is integrating existing data
    sources so that timely, consistent and credible performance information
    will be available for project and program managers as well as external
    customers. In addition, PART efforts will ensure that the agency's
    activities are aligned with its strategic plan. Thus far the Forest
    Service has used PART to evaluate the following programs: Wildland Fire
    Management, Capital Improvement & Maintenance, Forest Legacy, Invasive
    Species, Land Acquisition, Recreation and Energy. These assessments
    have resulted in development of improved performance measures to better
    track accomplishments and increase accountability and better
    integration of strategic goals with program accomplishments. For the
    fiscal year 2008 budget process, the Forest Service will complete a
    PART analysis of mission-support activities and programs aimed at
    improving watershed quality, and will reassess Wildland Fire and
    Invasive Species. Results from the PART process have been, and will
    continue to be, used to improve program management and develop better
    performance measures.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The fiscal year 2007 Budget reflects the President's commitment to
    providing the critical resources needed for our Nation's highest
    priorities. The fiscal year 2007 budget responds to the national need
    for deficit reduction while preparing the Forest Service for a new,
    more collaborative, era of natural resource management. With this
    budget the Forest Service will continue to identify and support more
    efficient and effective methods of pursuing its mission. This will be
    accomplished through increased collaboration, the use of new
    legislative authorities, expanded program efficiencies and improved
    organizational and financial management. Through these efforts the
    Forest Service will continue to sustain the health and productivity of
    the Nation's forests and grasslands.
        Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the President's Budget. I
    look forward to working with you to implement our fiscal year 2007
    program, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

        Senator Burns. Thank you, Chief. Now, Mr. Secretary, we
    welcome you to the table.

                     SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. MARK E. REY

                  REAUTHORIZATION OF SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS ACT

        Mr. Rey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to speak
    exclusively today about the administration's proposal to
    reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Self-Determination Act
    of 2000.
        That legislation, as you know, was enacted by Congress in
    2000 to provide counties guaranteed payments for their school
    and road systems to offset the dramatic decline in timber sale
    receipts that occurred during the 1990s.
        What the administration is proposing, is a one-time 5-year
    reauthorization for the legislation. In reviewing the 2000
    legislation and the progress that has been made to date in
    implementing it, the authors of the 2000 legislation
    essentially wanted to effectuate three transitions.
        First was a transition to stabilize county school funding
    over the period of 6 years, so that the counties could
    diversify their economies and become less reliant on Federal
    timber receipts.
        The second was to stabilize the timber sale program or give
    the Federal agencies a chance to stabilize the timber sale
    program and make the receipts a more certain proposition, as
    opposed the situation that existed as a consequence of appeals
    in litigation during the 1990s.
        The third was to effectuate a transition where we improve
    the relationships between Federal land managing agencies and
    county governments, and Federal land managing agencies and
    local citizens.
        In our judgment, looking at the progress that has been made
    over the 6 years of the original authorization, the second and
    third of those three transitions have been nearly complete.
        With respect to timber sale receipts, they are now stable
    and increasing slightly and will continue to increase slightly.
    They are already at levels that were achieved in the early
    1970s and they are dependable for the future.
        Second, with respect to the operation of the resource
    advisory committees established under the 2000 legislation,
    there has been a dramatic improvement in the relationship
    between the Federal land managing agencies and local
    governments and local interest groups.
        Those groups, through the efforts of the resource advisory
    committees, have indeed invested $36 million per year each of
    the last 6 years in resource investments on the Federal lands.
    The result of those investments is to encourage volunteerism,
    particularly volunteerism among student groups in the
    management of the national forest and the Bureau of Land
    Management's lands involved. That's why, in our proposal to
    reauthorize the legislation, we would retain those resource
    advisory committees.
        It's the first of those three transitions that involves the
    county budgets and dependence on Federal receipts which is not
    complete. Some counties have indeed diversified their economies
    and are less dependent today than they were 6 years ago on
    Federal timber receipts.
        Others have clearly not, and it's because that transition
    is not complete and because the authorization for the
    legislation expires at the end of this year, thereby ending the
    guaranteed payments, that the administration has proposed a 5-
    year reauthorization of the legislation to try to extend and
    complete the first of those three transitions.
        To fund that reauthorization, we propose a one time sale of
    Forest Service lands that have been identified using criteria
    in each of the individual national forest plans as being
    isolated, difficult, and expensive to manage, and no longer
    meeting National Forest System needs.
        Lands fitting these categories in total amount to about
    309,000 acres of land, involving some 2,900 parcels in 31
    States. A complete list of all of those tracts went up on our
    website on February 10. On March 1, we provided a notice in the
    Federal Register opening a 30-day public comment period on that
    list of tracts so that the public could give us their views on
    the proposition generally and on individual tracts
    specifically.
        Today we are sending up legislative language to effectuate
    the authority to convey those lands for your consideration as
    well as letters to both the President pro tem of the Senate and
    the Speaker of the House.
        To reauthorize the secure rural school legislation, it is
    not necessary to sell all 309,000 acres of land to raise the
    needed funds. We think it will probably take somewhere between
    150,000 to 175,000 acres of land, which gives us a lot of
    flexibility to work with the list and to work with the
    interested public to evaluate each tract on a case by case
    basis before we send the final list up to the Congress later
    this spring.
        We offered this proposal understanding that land sales are
    a sensitive proposition and in doing so, we look back across
    the last 25 years of history at both land sales proposals that
    were enacted by Congress, such as the Southern Nevada Public
    Land Management Act of 1998, the Educational Land Grant Act of
    2000, and our own proposal enacted by Congress--in fact,
    enacted by this committee last year to convey access for Forest
    Service administrative sites.
        We also looked at a number of proposals that have been
    offered over the last two decades that have not met with
    Congress' support. What we discovered in evaluating both sets
    of proposals is that those that were successful and that were
    enacted by Congress seemed to share three characteristics.
    Those characteristics are thus: first, they had to be precise.
    There had to be an exclusive list of what was being discussed
    with very little tolerance for ambiguity about what was being
    considered and what might be sold or conveyed out of public
    ownership.
        The second characteristic was transparency. There had to be
    an adequate opportunity for everybody who had a view, to offer
    that view, and express whether they thought it was a good idea
    in general or whether specific tracts that were being discussed
    should be taken off the table. There was very little tolerance
    for slipping a proposal of this nature into a Senate House
    conference at the 11th hour.
        Third, there had to be an agreed-upon public purpose; that
    the land sales would serve the proposition that the sales would
    fund general deficit reduction didn't and hasn't, over the last
    two and a half decades, garnered much support.
        Our intent and our objective in proffering this proposal to
    Congress is to meet each of those three criteria. First,
    precision, by eventually offering you an exclusive list of
    everything that is being considered so there is not doubt,
    ambiguity, or uncertainty at what might be at stake or at
    issue.
        Second, by giving the public an opportunity to testify by
    advancing this as part of the President's budget in the first
    place and making sure we have collected all of the commentary
    that we can about the proposition generally and about specific
    tracts individually.
        Then third, given the broad bipartisan support for the
    initial enactment of the 2000 Secure Rural Schools bill and the
    similarly broad bipartisan support for its reauthorization, we
    believe we've met the standard of a broadly supported public
    purpose to use the funding generated by the land sales. We
    think it's important to look at our proposal in a larger
    context.
        On the average, using the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    and other authorities, the Forest Service acquires between 100
    and 115,000 acres a year--lands that are identified as meeting
    high ecological values and serving National Forest System
    needs.
        We're probably going to continue, with the Congress's
    support, that rate of acquisition. That means in less than 2
    year's time we would net out from an acreage standpoint the
    effects of this proposal to convey lands that don't meet
    national forest needs and aren't ecologically sensitive.
        A decade ago when I entered public service, if we wrote
    testimony for you describing the National Forest System, we
    would describe it as 191 million acres of national forest
    managed for the Federal good. Today that testimony speaks of
    193 million acres of national forest. So we've grown the system
    over 2 million acres in less than a decade's time.
        So that's the context I think it's most fair to look at
    this in. We have a great deal of commentary over the month and
    a half that this proposal has been part of the public
    discourse. Indeed, in response to that commentary we've made
    some changes.
        For instance, people told us as they reviewed the proposal,
    that even if we agree, for the sake of argument, that these
    lands no longer meet National Forest System needs, that's not
    the same as saying they no longer meet public needs. They may
    be meeting needs that the public enjoys, even if that's not
    something that's integral to the management of the National
    Forest System.
        Indeed, we know that on some of these isolated tracts which
    have road frontage, we've given county governments a special
    use permit to put in picnic tables for a roadside turnout or a
    picnic area.
        So what we've added to the proposal that we're sending to
    you today, is the proposition and a proviso that will offer
    these lands to State, county, and local governments, or land
    trusts acting on their behalf at fair market value on a right
    of first refusal basis. So if there is a public service that
    they are performing, that public service can continue, albeit
    being provided by another, perhaps more appropriate unit of
    government.
        Beyond that, we've heard a lot of rhetoric that this is a
    bad precedent--an unprecedented development and it's neither of
    those. Indeed today in this Congress so far, the Forest Service
    has testified on 24 separate bills that involve the conveyance
    of over 34,000 acres of Forest Service land into other
    ownerships and so, this is no more or less of a precedent than
    any of the other conveyance legislation that Congress has
    considered either in this Congress or in preceding Congresses
    over the last several decades.
        I will say that proposals like this do sometimes generate
    unexpected results, and perhaps the most pleasing unexpected
    result that this one has generated is that we've heard over the
    last month and a half from groups who are on a weekly basis
    critical of the Forest Service's management. They are saying
    that but for the Forest Service's management, dire and
    catastrophic things would occur.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So, it's pleasing to know that when faced with a prospect
    of an alternative, some groups more fully support what the
    Forest Service does on a day-to-day basis. In this job, you
    take your compliments wherever you can find them and so I am
    registering that one for the record today.
        With that, we'd be happy to answer any questions that
    you've got.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark E. Rey

                                    OVERVIEW

        Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year 2007 Budget for the
    Forest Service. I am pleased to join Dale Bosworth, Chief of the Forest
    Service, at this hearing today.
        In my testimony, I will discuss two main issues. First, I will
    focus on the proposal in the President's Budget to continue funding for
    an amended Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.
    Second, I will discuss the increased funding for the Northwest Forest
    Plan that is requested in the fiscal year 2007 budget, which will
    promote improved forest health and more robust forest products
    economies in the Pacific Northwest.
    continuing transitional support to rural communities through the secure

                               RURAL SCHOOLS ACT

        The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of
    2000 (Public Law 106-393) was enacted to provide transitional
    assistance to rural counties that had been affected by the decline in
    revenue from timber harvests on Federal lands. These counties
    traditionally relied on a share of receipts from timber harvests to
    fund their school systems and roads. The funding provided by the Act
    has been used to provide over 4,400 rural schools with critical funding
    and has addressed severe maintenance backlogs for county roads.
    Resource Advisory Committees (RACs) established under the act have
    developed and proposed forest health improvement projects. A recent
    study by the Sierra Institute for Community and Environment, Assessment
    of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act--Dr.
    Jonathan Kusel (January 2006), on the effectiveness of RACs under title
    II and community programs under title III of the Act was encouraging.
        Each year the level of interaction between RACs, local governments,
    and citizens has increased, resulting in broader support and
    understanding of our mission. Additionally, funding for title III has
    also been used to complete community wildfire protection plans which
    are necessary to efficiently plan protection strategies for our rural
    communities.
        The last payment authorized under the Act would be made in fiscal
    year 2007 based on timber and other receipt levels for fiscal year
    2006. The Administration is committed to provide transitional
    assistance to counties and States covered under the Secure Rural
    Schools Act. The Department of Agriculture has worked hard to find the
    offsets needed to temporarily fund this assistance, while targeting and
    gradually phasing it out.
        Our legislative proposal described in the President's fiscal year
    2007 Budget for the Forest Service would provide a source of funding
    for payments under the Secure Rural Schools Act by authorizing the sale
    of certain National Forest System lands. These parcels meet criteria
    identified in existing Forest Land Management plans as potentially
    suitable for conveyance. Many of these lands are isolated from other
    contiguous National Forest System lands, and because of their location,
    size or configuration are not efficient to manage as a component of the
    National Forest System. Isolated tracts can be expensive to manage
    because of boundary management and encroachment resolution costs. The
    sale of these lands will not compromise the health or integrity of the
    National Forest System; instead, it will allow the agency to
    consolidate Federal ownership and reduce management costs.
        The legislation would authorize to the Secretary of Agriculture to
    sell sufficient national forest land to fund an $800 million account
    that would be used to make Secure Rural Schools Act payments over a
    five year period. Payments from the land sales fund will be adjusted
    downwards and eventually phased out. This adjustment recognizes that
    the Secure Rural Schools Act provided transitional assistance to rural
    communities adapting to a changing timber economy and a changing
    federal role in resource extraction.
        Funds from the land sales account would be in addition to payments
    to the States from annual timber and other receipts on national forests
    and BLM lands. For administrative purposes, the Secretary of
    Agriculture would also make the supplemental payments from this account
    for Bureau of Land Management O&C lands. Payments will continue to be
    targeted to the most affected areas. Timber receipts are expected to
    rise over the next five years, which should further help in reducing
    the impact of the payment phase-out.
        Since payments under the Secure Rural Schools Act began in 2001,
    the affected economies have made important strides in economic
    diversification and are now less dependent on federal timber receipts.
    In addition, the Forest Service has reestablished itself as a catalyst
    for economic development by conducting hazardous fuels treatments that
    can support a market in forest biomass. By selling isolated federal
    lands, we will further contribute to diversified rural government
    funding.
        When the Federal lands are sold and become private property, they
    will be added to the county tax rolls, providing a sustainable funding
    source for local governments. All of these factors combine into a
    unified plan to promote robust local economies and reduce the
    dependence of county governments on direct federal assistance.
        The Administration remains committed to acquiring environmentally
    sensitive lands and protecting them from development. This commitment
    is reflected in the President's request for a $5 million increase in
    funding for the Forest Legacy program, which will protect an estimated
    130,000 priority acres in fiscal year 2007 through the purchase of
    conservation easements or fee simple title. In addition, our land
    acquisition program and land exchange program has been adding about
    100,000 acres per year to the National Forest System for the last
    several years. By selling lands that are inefficient to manage or are
    isolated with limited ecological values and purchasing critical,
    environmentally sensitive lands, the Forest Service will maintain the
    integrity of the National Forest System while funding payments under
    the Act in a fiscally responsible manner.

                 INCREASED FUNDING OF THE NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN

        The 2007 Budget also reflects the President's commitment to
    sustainable forestry in the Pacific Northwest through increased funding
    for the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan. The Northwest Forest Plan affects
    the management and administration of 24.5 million acres of Federal
    land, of which 19.4 million are managed by the Forest Service within 19
    national forests in western Oregon, western Washington, and northern
    California. The Northwest Forest Plan was designed to produce a
    predictable and sustainable level of timber sales while protecting the
    long-term health of forests, wildlife and waterways of the region. The
    Plan has succeeded in meeting its environmental goals. A 2004 Forest
    Service review of the first 10 years of the Northwest Forest Plan found
    that the net gain in older forests since 1994 was between 1.25 and 1.5
    million acres, over twice the 600,000 acres expected during the first
    decade of the plan.
        The 2004 review found that the Plan has not been successful at
    providing a predictable level of timber and non-timber resources. In
    order to recognize the needs of all parties affected by the Northwest
    Forest Plan, the President's budget increases funding for the Plan by
    $66 million, with $41 million for forest products, $6 million for
    hazardous fuels treatment, and the remaining $19 million for assorted
    ecosystem management programs. This level of funding allows the Forest
    Service to offer the Plan's goal of 800 million board feet of timber
    per year.
        The economies of the Pacific Northwest have experienced marked
    change over the past 15-20 years. The region went from harvesting 4
    billion board feet of timber in 1990 to 409 million board feet in 2000,
    and the forest economies of the region have suffered from the lack of a
    predictable timber supply. The goal of the Administration is not to
    return to the peak levels of timber production; instead, the fiscal
    year 2007 budget provides for a sustainable, predictable level of
    timber harvest that also protects forest health. The current forest
    products economy offers great opportunities for businesses able to use
    new technologies and tap into expanding markets for new products. With
    a predictable timber supply established, the Pacific Northwest will be
    better equipped to adapt and succeed in the changing forest products
    market.
        One of the best examples of new opportunities in forest products is
    the rapidly expanding market for wood pellets as a fuel source. The
    demand for wood pellets for commercial and home heating has boomed as
    Americans face higher heating costs from traditional sources. Wood
    pellets suppliers have reported shortages from New Mexico to Rhode
    Island. Pellet producers, such as Forest Energy Corporation in Show
    Low, Arizona, are running their processing mills 24 hours a day and
    seven days a week to try and meet demand. In making the wood pellets,
    Forest Energy Corporation uses the small-diameter wood produced from
    hazardous fuels treatments in Arizona's national forests. Expanded
    funding for the Northwest Forest Plan will create similar win/win
    situations in which both sustainable harvested timber and the
    byproducts from hazardous fuels treatments are used to meet the growing
    demand for forest products.
        In addition to meeting the Northwest Forest Plan's timber targets,
    the Forest Service will improve over 3,900 acres of terrestrial
    wildlife habitat and 120 miles of fisheries habitat in fiscal year
    2007. The Forest Service has developed a comprehensive strategy for
    aquatic restoration within the Northwest Plan area to restore priority
    watersheds.
        The President's Budget also enables the Forest Service to continue
    to emphasize the treatment of hazardous fuels in the wildland-urban
    interface and address the reforestation needs of recent large forest
    fires. With the expanded NWFP funding, the agency will continue to
    emphasize partnerships and integrated projects to protect municipal
    watersheds, recover habitat for endangered and sensitive species, and
    control the spread of invasive species.
        The 2007 President's Budget provides $610 million to continue
    implementation of the Healthy Forests Initiative, to reduce hazardous
    fuels and restore forest health. The budget proposal, more than a $12
    million increase over 2006, takes an integrated approach to reducing
    hazardous fuels and restoring forest and rangeland health. Along with
    $301 million to the Department of Interior (DOI), the fiscal year 2007
    budget provides a total of $913 million to implement the Healthy
    Forests Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
        Through the continuation of the Secure Rural Schools Act and
    through expanded funding of the Northwest Forest Plan, the President's
    Budget promotes sustainable rural communities and the expansion of a
    forest products economy that is compatible with improved forest health.
    These efforts, in combination with the President's continued support of
    the Healthy Forests Initiative, highlight the Forest Service's
    commitment to managing the Nation's forests and grasslands with greater
    innovation and renewed efficiency. I look forward to working with
    Congress to enact the President's fiscal year 2007 budget. At this time
    I would be pleased to answer any questions.

                              NEW GRAZING PROPOSAL

        Senator Burns. Senator Dorgan is on kind of a short time
    line and for another hearing. So we'll allow that he can lead
    off the questions here this morning, so that he has other
    things.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Chief
    Bosworth first off, you'll recall last year that you all had
    issued some new rules with respect to leasing land, or shared
    cattle and whether under those circumstances people would
    qualify for grazing permits. I held a subcommittee hearing in
    Bismarck on August 30 of last year and we had the room filled
    with people pretty upset about things.
        We had your folks testify and the folks from your regional
    office, one of the things I discovered is that they learned
    about these new proposals at the same time that I learned about
    them. There was no consultation with the local folks. It
    appeared to me to be a pretty significant problem of
    communication. Have you reviewed that circumstance?
        Now you withdrew the proposals and should have, but what
    concerned me mostly about that, was that it appeared to me
    somebody in Washington just said here's our new approach and
    sent them out and caught everybody by surprise, even your local
    and your regional folks. Can you describe what happened there?
        Mr. Bosworth. Yes. I have looked into that and as you've
    said, we withdrew the handbook. We have a process where we can
    issue interim directives and then receive comment at the same
    time. It's a good system. It works fairly well.
        I think this was an inappropriate use of that system. I
    think we should have gone out and talked to people before we
    issued the interim directive and found out what people thought.
    Then we could issue a directive with whatever changes need to
    be made, as opposed to just issuing the interim directive.
        Senator Dorgan. I appreciate hearing that you also feel
    that was a problem and has been corrected because that
    shouldn't happen. You shouldn't catch your own people by
    surprise out there. So I appreciate the response.

                         THEODORE ROOSEVELT/EBERT RANCH

        Mr. Rey, you were in North Dakota recently. You have
    requested opportunities in funding to purchase the Theodore
    Roosevelt original ranch site in the Badlands and we have
    agreed I think, on a number of provisions with respect to that.
        I would like for us to exchange those letters and put them
    in this hearing record as well. I believe we're all set in
    terms of how we do that for a no net gain of Federal lands.
        Mr. Rey. That is correct.
        [The letters follow:]
                                                   U.S. Senate,
                                      Washington, DC, February 9, 2006.
    Hon. Mark Rey,
    Undersecretary for Natural Resources, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
            Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Rey: As per our recent conversation, this letter will
    serve as a record of my position on the Department's request to
    reprogram $1.45 million towards the purchase of the Ebert Ranch
    property in Billings County, North Dakota. I support the preservation
    of this important piece of history, which includes the viewshed of
    President Theodore Roosevelt's former ranch on the North Dakota
    Badlands. However, I am only willing to lend my support to this
    reprogramming and to future funding for the acquisition if the
    Department agrees to certain conditions that will help resolve local
    concerns.
        First, I expect the Department to submit a legislative proposal for
    the necessary land conveyance that reflects that the purchase of the
    Ebert Ranch property will not be completed until all of the other 5,150
    acres of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands the agency proposes to sell are
    actually sold. This will ensure that there will be no net increase in
    Federal lands in the state, and there will not be a diminished property
    tax base for local government. I also expect the Forest Service to take
    steps between now and the time the fiscal year 2007 Interior
    Appropriations bill is passed to make sure that these sales move
    forward in a timely manner once the bill is signed into law.
        Second, the conditions under which the property is acquired must
    not interfere with the other multiple uses that currently exist for
    that property. Grazing, oil and gas development, recreation and other
    multiple uses must all be preserved. In particular, the Department
    should commit to transferring all grazing allotments affiliated with
    the Ebert Ranch property to the Medora Grazing Association in order to
    ensure that these acres stay in production.
        Moreover, the Forest Service must also demonstrate that it wants to
    work with local stakeholders to resolve other grasslands management
    issues by agreeing to codify specific policy changes. The agency's July
    2005 attempt to make policy changes to its grazing handbook and manual
    without appropriate public involvement severely undermined public
    trust. The changes included the elimination of leasing base property
    and shared livestock by grazing permittees, which would be disastrous
    for many ranchers in North Dakota. To ensure that these policies are
    not reissued, I intend to amend your sale authority with legislative
    language that protects North Dakotans from any future restrictions for
    grazing permittees on the leasing of base property or shared livestock.
    I ask that you affirm your commitment that the Administration will
    support my efforts to add these provisions, which I would make specific
    to North Dakota.
        I also expect the Service to work directly with grazing
    associations and other interests to develop a mutually acceptable plan
    to implement the grazing Record of Decision for the Dakota Prairie
    Grasslands Management Plan. This includes negotiating a reasonable
    compromise with grazing associations and other interested parties on
    the proposed Allotment Management Plan pilot demonstration project.
        Finally, virtually every other scenario that was explored for the
    Federal Government to acquire the Ebert Ranch property would have
    required Governor John Hoeven to approve the transaction. You have
    chosen to structure this acquisition so that the land can be acquired
    by the Department without his approval. However, I still believe that
    the best interests of the State of North Dakota are served by ensuring
    that he supports the Federal Government's efforts to purchase and
    conserve this property. Therefore, I ask that the Department obtain
    Governor Hoeven's support, in writing, for the acquisition of this
    property prior to the reprogramming of any funds.
        You have previously indicated to me that the Department is willing
    to meet these conditions and ensure my support for this acquisition. I
    request that your respond to this letter reaffirming that commitment. I
    look forward to working together to resolve issues of mutual concern
    and protect this historic property.
                Sincerely,
                                               Byron L. Dorgan,
                                                          U.S. Senator.
                                     ______

                        U.S. Department of Agriculture,
                                       Office of the Secretary,
                                         Washington, DC, March 3, 2006.
    Hon. Byron L. Dorgan,
    U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Dorgan: This is in response to the February 9, 2006,
    letter outlining your position on the Department's request to reprogram
    $1.45 million towards the purchase of the Ebert Ranch property in
    Billings County, North Dakota. I appreciate your support for the
    acquisition of this important historical property. In addition, we will
    continue to seek the necessary approval for reprogramming with the
    House Appropriations Committee. Your support for the reprogramming is
    provided only if the Department could assist in the resolution of
    several local concerns. The Department's response to these conditions
    is as follows:
        We recognize the need to dispose of a like number of acres of the
    Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) in order to insure there is a no net
    increase in Federal lands in the state upon completion of the proposed
    acquisition. The Department is prepared to submit a legislative
    proposal providing the Secretary of Agriculture the authority needed to
    convey the necessary acreage through land sales at market value. Every
    effort will be made to insure these lands are offered for sale in a
    timely manner once this authority is provided. Preparatory work to that
    end is already underway.
        When acquired, we will manage the property as a component of the
    DPG in accordance with the Forest Plan direction which provides for a
    full complement of multiple use resource activities. Grazing allotments
    associated with the Ebert Ranch would continue to be grazed through
    existing arrangements with the grazing Association.
        We will provide legislative language to continue the grazing
    permittee practice of leasing base property and shared livestock
    specific to the state of North Dakota without timeframe restrictions.
        We have and will continue to work with the appropriate grazing
    associations in the development of the demonstration project for
    allotment management planning on the DPG. The objective of the project
    is to provide a long term sustainable multiple use management through
    sound and practical management of grassland ecosystems for the multiple
    benefits of local communities and the public.
        Finally, it is true that the current structure of the Ebert Ranch
    acquisition would not require the Governor to approve the transaction.
    However, we will continue to work with the Governor to assure his
    support for the acquisition.
        I look forward to working with you and other appropriate
    Congressional members to both resolve the issues of mutual concern on
    the Grasslands, and acquire this historic property.
                Sincerely,
                                                      Mark Rey,
                    Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment.

                     NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION SYSTEM

        Senator Dorgan. Let me also ask Chief Bosworth about this
    issue ricocheting around which you're very well familiar with,
    the contracting for the National Recreation Reservation System,
    a $100 million contract.
        Now I'm just an observer of this, but my understanding is
    the GAO has twice evaluated this and indicated that they felt
    the contract was improperly awarded. Yet, I think the Forest
    Service, from what I understand, has intended or decided to go
    forward with the procurement of this anyway.
        Is that the case? Do I have the facts right?
        Mr. Rey. Essentially, that's correct. GAO issues opinions
    in response to contract disputes. Under the law, those opinions
    are advisory.
        With respect to GAO's first opinion, we agreed there were
    some flaws in the contract administration which is why we
    reoffered it.
        In response to their second GAO opinion, we think they mis-
    analyzed the record as it existed at the time. It is within our
    authority to proceed and the unsuccessful contract bidder can
    now, if they choose, decide that they want to pursue this
    further action through the Court of Claims.
        So far, they've filed a protective notice, but there are
    discussions ongoing. I don't know where that will head.
        Senator Dorgan. Is it quite unusual for an agency, despite
    the advice of the GAO or the evaluation of the GAO, to proceed
    anyway? You worked in the Senate I believe, and you understand
    that we rely to a substantial degree on the GAO.
        The GAO is our investigative arm. They have investigated
    this twice and both times come up saying you're short and this
    shouldn't proceed. Yet, you're proceeding anyway. Have you done
    that, and can you cite other areas where you've proceeded
    against the advice of the GAO?
        Mr. Rey. There have been no other areas I know of where the
    Forest Service has, but it's not uncommon in the case of other
    agencies. We'd be happy to sit down with you and go through
    these specifics of this. There are some countervailing reasons
    why we did not want to offer the contract a third time.
        Had we offered the contract a third time, the prevailing
    bidder the first two rounds made it quite clear that they would
    appeal that result. So we wouldn't have been before GAO a third
    time under that circumstance.
        So this is a case where the two companies involved are
    quite determined to exercise all of their remedies and options.
    Eventually, we have to get beyond that and offer a contract, so
    we can offer recreation reservations to the public.
        So one of the strong considerations, was the virtual
    certainty that we would have been before GAO a third time
    anyway. But I think if we can have the opportunity to give you
    a briefing in greater detail, you will see some circumstances
    that also mitigated in favor of moving forward.

                                 NOXIOUS WEEDS

        Senator Dorgan. Let me finally, Mr. Chairman, thank you for
    your indulgence. Let me say that I want to submit some
    questions for the record including questions about leafy
    spurge--to the extent there is some improvement, good for you.
        Our ranchers--and I'm sure in Montana and Colorado feel the
    same way--our ranchers want the Federal Government to be a good
    neighbor and a good neighbor means taking care of your weeds.
    So, I want to submit some questions and those questions will
    include among other things, the leafy spurge issues.
        Now I ask that you respond to the written questions. Thank
    you very much for being here.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator. You know you can go to a
    lot of fancy things in this town and if somebody asked you what
    you're working on and you say weeds, you'll find out how quick
    you're standing there by yourself, because nobody understands
    this battle we have with noxious weeds and invasive species in
    our country. That is something, we found out how to control
    them. We have a lady in Big Timber, Montana that can solve your
    problem for you if you have a really big problem. But now
    getting those folks at the table to act and to sign off on that
    is another story. But it offers no chemicals. It's as natural
    as day following night and it's grazing. Pure and simple, it's
    grazing. That's what controls weeds--sheep eat weeds and they
    take those numbers down.

                             GRAZING PERMIT BACKLOG

        While we're talking about that, we've got a real problem in
    the backlog of expiring grazing permits that need to be
    renewed. Yet, you cut that back this time. Congress put a
    schedule in place for renewal--the permits of the 1995
    Rescission Act. So your budget justifications says you're only
    getting done 50 percent of the work that you need to do each
    year to comply with that schedule and the schedule requires
    those allotments to be done by 2010. That doesn't seem very far
    off right now, as we sit here and talk about it.
        Now you've reduced the program by $8.5 million and the
    number of grazing allotments processed declined by 34 percent,
    from 484 allotments this year to 321 next year. Now why is it a
    good idea when we still have 3,200 permits that need to be
    processed?
        It makes no sense to me and my question is, how many
    allotment decisions have been made using the categorical
    exclusion? I would say, you know we get to feeling kind of
    like--and I know most of you hunt birds and you take bird dogs
    and everything like that, you know--we're feeling kind of like
    that bird dog up here, that we find the bird, we flush the
    bird, and the shooter never hits it. We don't get anything to
    retrieve and pretty soon, after four or five times of that, we
    get kind of tired of hunting for you and fighting for you out
    there to give you the tools to complete your work.
        So there was a cap, I think around 900 in that particular
    piece of language on categorical exclusions. So I would ask
    you, how many allotment decisions have you made using this
    authority so far. How many have you used?
        Mr. Bosworth. Let me just take a second to give you a
    little bit of background. We got the authority, which very
    helpful to use the categorical exclusions about a year and a
    half ago. Then of course, it took us a little bit of time, not
    too much, to get the directives out.
        Then we got into an issue called the Earth Island Institute
    lawsuit on categorical exclusions. That held us off until about
    last fall and we moved forward with using categorical
    exclusions. I think we've completed 44 allotments at this point
    using the categorical exclusions. We expected to do another 100
    this year and it's going to continue to be a tool that will
    work.
        We exceeded our targets in terms of range allotments that
    were completed in 2005. I believe we'll meet or exceed our
    targets this year. I would expect and hope that we would be
    able to exceed the number that is shown for the budget
    justification for fiscal year 2007. We'll be very close to
    meeting our expected number of allotments that use categorical
    exclusions and have them completed by the timeframe.
        So we're still committed to achieving that objective and
    that target.
        Senator Burns. You've cut back your resource here; what
    effect will that have?
        Mr. Bosworth. Obviously when we have less dollars, we do
    less work. Having said that, though, I think I mentioned a
    couple of things in my opening comments about some improved
    efficiencies that we'll get more of the dollars to the ground
    by reducing our indirect costs by centralizing our business
    processes. Some of those things will save us a considerable
    amount of money over the next few years and what we're after is
    getting more of the dollars out on the ground getting the work
    done.
        So I believe that that is one of the ways we'll be able to
    achieve and exceed some of these targets.

                           GRAZING AND NOXIOUS WEEDS

        Senator Burns. This is the dilemma we find ourselves in, in
    this respect, then it is a concern that Senator Dorgan had
    about leafy spurge. We've got both spurge and nap. Some private
    forest and private lands are paying this person that has got a
    lot of sheep. They are paying them a buck a head a month to
    graze it off when the livestock people use to pay for the
    permits to use that resource of grazing.
        Now it seems to me that we could solve two problems here.
    By accelerating these grazing permits and deal with our
    invasive and weeds and get it done. These are dollars that--
    they're not very many dollars involved, but it has more impact
    on the health of the forest and our range lands than anything
    we could do.
        It's just out there and very simple. Why we can't get that
    done, is absolutely beyond me. I know why we're not getting it
    done, because we just don't have a lot of folks that go down
    deep in the Forest Service that really believe this to happen.
    They may have to do some work. They may have to stake out some
    boundaries.

                                GRAZING PERMITS

        But I really believe that this business of denying those
    grazing permits, actually denies us a most essential tool to
    the health of the land and the forests. I really believe that,
    because I can show you maps, that when we have grazing in
    forest land, we had less fires.
        Mr. Bosworth. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to that
    because there are no situations where a permit has expired that
    we haven't reissued the permit. The issue here is getting all
    of our grazing allotments reissued under NEPA. In the meantime,
    we're still grazing. We have used contracts for sheep and goats
    in places in the past, to work specifically on things like
    leafy spurge, because that is effective.
        With cattle, it's not. It doesn't do the same thing. From
    time to time, we pay people to graze on the national forest to
    actually reduce the amount of leafy spurge.
        We're also using the biological controls like a flea beetle
    to help with both leafy spurge as well as spot knapweed.
        Senator Burns. Most of that was developed over at Sidney,
    Montana.
        Mr. Bosworth. Some of it was and it works fairly well in
    many places. We're not reducing any grazing based upon the
    schedule that we had for reissuing these allotments.
        The issue would be that if we don't complete it by the end
    of the timeframe, we start having problems then. I think that
    is 2010. We expect to meet that date. We expect to have all of
    these reissued by that time. In the meantime, if one ends, then
    we will reissue it anyway. We have that authority that we were
    given by Congress.
        Senator Burns. Okay. I just need some dedication and I'd
    like to see some folks down there doing those things. I don't
    want their shirt tale to hit their backside. I want them to get
    after it.
        Mr. Bosworth. I would like to add that our folks in the
    field are committed to getting this done. There is no lack of
    desire on their part and they are out on the ground, trying to
    get the job done.

                    SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS LAND SALES PROPOSAL

        Senator Burns. Let's talk about the sales of these acres.
    Now I'll tell you what the attitude of the folks in Montana are
    taking, that you're going to sell about 13,948 acres eligible
    for the sale in Montana, when 75 percent of the receipts go to
    schools in California, Oregon, and Washington.
        I'm not going to sell my ranch and then send the money over
    there. How do I justify that when I'm driving down the road
    next week?
        Mr. Rey. Well, the 2000 legislation was a piece of national
    legislation and in establishing the guaranteed payment, it
    mirrored what were the historic timber sale receipts in
    different States.
        Our proposal to reauthorize it is a national piece of
    legislation, although we did include in response to commentary
    from a number of members, a requirement that we maximize
    regional equity to the extent possible. I do think that when we
    get into the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools
    legislation, one of the things we would like to work with the
    committees of jurisdiction on is the question of whether the
    2000 formula is still the right distribution of funds.
        Today, as I said in my testimony, some counties have made
    the transition better than others and it may be that we should
    be readjusting the formula to reflect that. I dare say, there
    are some counties in States that get the majority share of the
    money under the 2000 legislation that have done a pretty good
    job of making that transition. There are also counties and
    States that got a lesser share in 2000--based upon the historic
    receipts level--that haven't made the transition.
        Senator Burns. Well I agree with that, but I find a hard
    time coming up with an answer when you're doing things like
    this.
        Senator Allard, welcome to the committee this morning.
        Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to
    be here, as always. I have a prepared statement and I wonder if
    I might make that?
        Senator Burns. Without objection, it shall be made a part
    of the record.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Wayne Allard

        Thank you, Chairman Burns, for holding this important hearing.
    Colorado's abundance of forests make this a very significant hearing to
    me.
        Undersecretary Rey and Chief Bosworth, I thank you for your
    appearance before the subcommittee today, it is good to see both of you
    again. The role the Forest Service plays in managing our public lands
    is of particular interest to the people of Colorado.
        I hope the committee will indulge me as I am about to brag about my
    home state for a moment. I think that I am one of the luckiest people
    in Washington, DC. Not only do I get to serve the people of Colorado,
    but I am fortunate enough to have incredibly beautiful and unique lands
    in my home state. Colorado is home to 13 National Forests. This is more
    than almost any other state. These forests provide countless scenic
    vistas, unequaled hunting, fishing, and camping opportunities, and the
    nation's most popular skiing. In fact not only does the nation's most
    visited ski resort lie in Colorado, but 3 of the top 5 most visited ski
    areas call Colorado home.
        But the importance of Colorado's forests goes far beyond
    recreational opportunities. Our National Forests are a cornerstone of
    Colorado's economy. Hunting and fishing alone contribute over one
    billion dollars to Colorado's economy every year, with much of this
    money going to rural communities.
        This and other forest related industries pump billions of dollars
    into Colorado's economy and employ one of the states largest segments
    of the workforce.
        But perhaps the most important thing is that Colorado's forests
    also contain 4 major watersheds, the Arkansas, Upper Colorado, Rio
    Grande and Missouri (or South Platte), that supply water to 19 western
    states. Colorado can truly be called the Headwaters State. With the
    obvious exception of Hawaii it is the only state where all of the
    rivers flow out of the state's borders.
        Now I have to turn to the bad news. Areas of the state continue to
    suffer from drought conditions, and the potential for catastrophic
    fires is very high again this year. To compound this problem Colorado
    currently has 1.5 million acres that are suffering from the effects of
    beetle kill.
        Timber sales are thought by many resource managers to be the single
    most effective tool available to the Forest Service to mitigate
    against--or treat during--episodes like bark beetle epidemics. But the
    Forest Service doesn't seem to be getting enough money to the national
    forests in Colorado to combat the problem. We've got a sawmill in
    Montrose that's running at half capacity and another one just across
    the State line in Saratoga, Wyoming, that's closed because they don't
    have enough timber.
        That said, I support the proposed increase in the forest products
    line item and applaud the emphasis on forest plan implementation. I
    will have a question regarding this matter when we get to that portion
    of this hearing.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman

                             NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN

        Senator Allard. I have a question regarding the President's
    budget. There's a $30 million increase in forest products line
    item and the entire $30 million increase plus an additional $11
    million of forest products funding would go to the Pacific
    Northwest as increased funding for the Northwest Forest Plan.
        My question is this: Will the increased funding for the
    Northwest Forest Plan be at the expense of dealing with the
    bark beetle problem in Colorado, or is there room in this
    proposed budget to get more timber sale money to the national
    forests in Colorado to address the bark beetle problem?
        I'm sure you're aware that we have a very serious problem
    in Colorado with bark beetle and we're losing our entire
    forests in some cases. I'm wondering if you would respond to
    that?
        Mr. Rey. Sure. I'll start and the Chief can add anything he
    wants to. The 2007 budget proposal suggests slight increases
    for both the forest management account, timber sale account,
    and the hazardous fuels account in all Forest Service regions.
        By far, the largest increase is in the Pacific Northwest to
    fully fund the Northwest Forest Plan and we think that's
    justified. Over the last 10 years, by far the sharpest decrease
    in timber sales levels has been in the Pacific Northwest. The
    Northwest Forest Plan was itself an 80 percent reduction of
    what were historic levels there. So simply meeting the
    Northwest Forest Plan means we're only going to hit about 20
    percent of what the historic level was.
        That increase that we're proposing in 2007 will not come at
    the expense of any other region. We are proposing for the
    implementation of the Healthy Forests Initiative and the
    Healthy Forests Restoration Act yet another record request--
    that being the third in a row--for a total funding for those
    purposes.
        If Congress looks favorably on that request and if the
    Federal land managing agencies--Forest Service and the
    Department of the Interior--meet the targets that we've agreed
    to in fiscal year 2006 using money you've already given us, as
    well as using the money that we requested in fiscal year 2007,
    by the end of 2007 we will have treated Federal acreage
    equivalent to the land mass of the State of Ohio.

                                  BARK BEETLES

        Senator Allard. Well I'm wondering if perhaps, maybe you
    won't be available--you and Mr. Bosworth both wouldn't be
    available--to come by my office. I would like to visit with you
    a little bit about our bark beetle problem in Colorado, if you
    would. I also have a letter I would like to give to you and to
    Mr. Bosworth when we leave for the vote, if that's okay.
        [Note.--Senator Allard asked Chief Bosworth for a meeting
    about the bark beetle problem in Colorado. Forest Service
    representatives met with members of Senator Allard's staff on
    March 30, 2006, and discussed the problem.]

                                HAZARDOUS FUELS

        Senator Allard. Mr. Rey, also I have a question in regard
    to the $11 million increase in hazardous fuels funding in the
    budget. I strongly support spending money pro-actively in
    hazardous fuel projects. It will help reduce the risk of forest
    fires also, and the associated risk to watersheds, communities,
    and residents when we get the fires.
        I understand some acres treated aren't the highest priority
    acres. From your reviews of the hazardous fuel program, is
    there room to improve what is being done on the ground, and how
    are you working towards that objective?
        Mr. Rey. There's always room for improvement. But
    substantial improvement has already occurred. What drives the
    priority selection for acres today are primarily two things.
        One, the development of the community-based fire plans that
    several hundred communities in the West have developed to
    identify the acres that create the greatest risk to the well-
    being of those communities. That was a planning system that was
    incorporated in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and has
    been widely embraced by communities throughout the country. So
    to the extent that acres are identified in those plans, they
    come to the top of the list.
        Second, we are developing some fire behavior and spread
    models that are now beginning to determine the patterns of
    treatments we use, so that we have the greatest potential to
    control wildfire spread, treating the most effective number or
    the most cost effective number of acres in a particular
    watershed or airshed possible.
        Senator Allard. Well, I just wonder how successful the
    Forest Service has been at integrating these multiple budget
    line items. For example, the hazardous fuel, the forest health,
    and timber sales funding, and to individual projects in getting
    more bang for your buck.
        Mr. Rey. I think we've been pretty successful in doing
    that. The proof in the pudding will be in this fire season and
    in subsequent fire seasons as we are able to demonstrate to you
    in a real time, on-the-ground basis, that wildfires that ignite
    were brought under control, as a consequence of burning into
    areas that were treated. Already this spring, a fire called the
    February fire--actually this winter, since February is part of
    winter--the February fire, as it was named in Arizona, was
    controlled because it burned into some treated areas that were
    treated as a consequence of the Healthy Forests Initiative.

                               RECREATION FUNDING

        Senator Allard. When I look at what's happening in the
    various regions and whatnot, I have a concern about Forest
    Service Region 2 where Colorado is located. It's my
    understanding--and correct me if I'm wrong--that the national
    forests have more visitors there than in any other region.
        Fully about 32.5 million people visited there last year,
    for example. Now that's a good thing because obviously, we want
    people to enjoy our forests and the great resources that are in
    Region 2. While we look at that figure, it's confusing that it
    doesn't receive the highest recreation funding. In fact, it
    gets less funding per visitor than any other region. I wonder
    if you can explain why this is the case in Region 2?
        Mr. Bosworth. The way we allocate the recreation dollars
    varies depending upon the kind of recreation that would be
    occurring on the national forest. For example, if you count
    skier days the same way you would count, say a campground,
    there would be a difference in terms of the cost of
    accomplishing that, or administering a wilderness area, from
    the recreational standpoint. When it's a small wilderness close
    to a high population area, that is much more expensive to do
    than, say, a very large wilderness area that is a long ways
    away from a population area. So what we do is we look at the
    different kinds of recreation that occurs and the cost of doing
    that and we allocate those dollars to the regions based upon
    that approach. I'd be happy to sit down with you or your staff
    and have some folks go over the process that we use for that
    allocation. We're always continuing to make adjustments to try
    to make sure that we get the dollars to high priority areas.
        Senator Allard. I would very much like to have that. I'll
    take you up on that after with my staff, because I really would
    like to see how that is working so I can have a better
    understanding of it.
        [Note.--Senator Allard accepted Chief Bosworth's offer to
    have a meeting concerning the recreation funding allocation
    process. Forest Service representatives met with members of
    Senator Allard's staff on March 30, 2006, and discussed the
    issue.]
        Mr. Rey. I would just say in very simple terms, overnight
    use costs more to manage than day use and a lot of the Region 2
    use is day use off the Rocky Mountain front by people coming
    from Colorado or from the Denver metropolitan area and coming
    into the forest for a day either to picnic, hike, ski, or to do
    other day-use things and then going back home that night.
        Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I'm not familiar with how
    much time you're giving us.
        Senator Burns. You're done.
        Senator Allard. I had a feeling that perhaps maybe my time
    was expiring so I'll quit cooking.
        Senator Burns. I'll tell you one thing, when the chairman
    of the full committee comes in, we're all done.
        Senator Allard. You've got a good point.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have other questions, I would
    just like to submit them in writing.
        Senator Burns. For the information of our members here, we
    have I think, three stacked votes which we're going to have--
    everybody is trying to get out of here tonight--so we're going
    to have a lot of votes, and so our hearing may be shortened a
    little bit by this.
        So Senator Cochran, we welcome you to the subcommittee this
    morning.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate the opportunity to join you and other members of
    this subcommittee in welcoming Secretary Rey and Chief Bosworth
    to this hearing, reviewing the budget request for the
    management of our forest resources and the other activities and
    challenges that face the Department.
        I'm very pleased to also commend you for your timely and
    energetic devotion to duty in the aftermath of Hurricanes Rita
    and Katrina, which struck the gulf coast region of our country
    and did such a tremendous amount of damage to forest resources,
    both on private lands as well as public lands and the effort
    you're making to help recover, and rebuild, and restore health
    to the forest in this region. I deeply appreciate it and it's
    going to be a continuing effort and we'll try to provide the
    resources we have available to us through the appropriations
    process to ensure that you have what you need to do the job.
        Other than that, we know we're confronted with some
    wildfire challenges because of debris and difficulties that
    stem from these disasters. We recognize that we have an
    obligation to try to make available additional funds for that
    purpose, too.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I don't have any other questions. I know our time is
    limited because of this series of votes that's occurring. I
    appreciate the chairman giving me an opportunity to come in and
    welcome you and I would ask that the rest of my statement be
    printed in the record.
        Senator Burns. Without objection, it will be. Does that
    include all the scribblings, too?
        Senator Cochran. Just like I wrote it, that's good.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran

        Mr. Chairman I am pleased to join you in welcoming Secretary Mark
    Rey and Chief Dale Bosworth to the committee this morning. We
    appreciate very much for their hard work over the past five years to
    ensure that our National Forest system is maintained in a manner that
    allows for the appropriate use our nation's forest resources and
    protects the health of our forests.
        I also want to commend you an your staff for the effort you have
    made throughout the Gulf Coast region following the Hurricanes Katrina
    and Rita to clear debris and establish emergency staging areas for the
    delivering of assistance in the form of shelter, food, and water to
    thousands of Gulf Coast residents who lost their homes. In recent years
    the Forest Service has had to deal with natural disasters throughout
    the nation, especially in regions that had large wildfires. This
    experience in emergency preparedness and assistance was evident with
    the quick and effective response of the forest service on the Gulf
    Coast.
        The hurricane Katrina also caused widespread damage to private as
    well as federal timber lands in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama.
    Current estimates put the value of timber lost at over $1 billion. Much
    of this timber was located on private lands and these landowners have
    suffered a significant financial loss. The Forest Service and private
    landowners should work in a collaborative manner to ensure
    reforestation and restoration so this industry will be able to
    contribute throughout the South as one of our most important economic
    assets.
        In recent weeks we have seen a significant outbreak in forest
    wildfires due to the drought and the large fuel load that remains on
    the ground. I encourage the Forest Service to allocate the needed
    resources to help combat these fire outbreaks. Many of these forest
    lands are located next homes and schools in rural communities. These
    communities will need your help because much of their emergency
    response and firefighting equipment was destroyed by the Hurricanes.
        Another issue important to the Southeastern region of the United
    States is the research and treatment of insects and disease within our
    forests. In Mississippi, over 69 percent of the forestland is privately
    owned, and much of this land borders public forestlands. It is very
    important for the Forest Service continue the research and development
    of new management and treatment methods to better protect federal
    lands.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing.

        Senator Burns. We will start voting here at around 10:30
    and there are four stacked votes and so, it would be very tough
    for us. Everybody said they're are going to be a 10- and 15-
    minute vote, but don't count on that.

                                FOREST PLANNING

        But in the area, Chief, you know you joined us in Missoula,
    Montana at a very constructive hearing about forest planning
    and this type thing. As you know, we've got five forest plans
    covering 11 million acres in Montana, and that's being revised
    now. We received a lot of comments on that. Most of it during
    the hearing was concerned about public access and motorized use
    being further limited in our forest in Montana. Especially, in
    other words, consolidating and bringing down in concentrated
    areas which I think basically, does more damage to our forests,
    and the riparian areas, and the other erosion issues, than it
    does when we spread it out across the whole forest.
        Can you bring me up to date on the progress of those forest
    plans out there, right now? We were suppose to be updated late
    last fall and then we moved that back in the February area, and
    we haven't heard a lot from out there and gotten any kind of
    report.
        Can you give us a progress report on where we are and how
    we're progressing? It has to do with maintenance cuts, and
    Montana road closures, in our national forests, all of these
    issues come down to the forest planning idea.
        Mr. Bosworth. Well we're continuing work on the forest
    plans in Montana, as we discussed once before. The Beaverhead-
    Deerlodge National Forest is proceeding using our old planning
    rule. We have three forests in western Montana--the Flathead,
    the Lolo, and the Bitterroot--that are using the new planning
    rule that we just completed.
        We expect those three forests to be coming out with their
    proposal here in the next few months. They are working very
    closely with the public. In fact, one of the things that I
    think the new planning rule does, is it enhances the ability of
    the public to work together with the Forest Service in
    developing the forest plans.

                               TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

        I would like to say a little bit about the off-highway
    vehicle use, because that's important to the people in Montana.
    We are implementing our new off-highway vehicle rule, and that
    requires that people remain on designated roads and trails or
    areas that have been designated. So in a collaborative way,
    we're working with the public to designate which of those roads
    and trails and I think that is working fairly well.
        It's always difficult to agree on any individual trail. Our
    purpose is to provide better access and sustainable access to
    the national forest. We don't want to end up with so much
    damage that the next generation of people can't be out there on
    the forest and enjoy it. We want to have a way that people can
    get out on these trails and on trails that have been designed
    for motorized vehicle use and get to the country that they want
    to get to.
        Most of the people, including organizations like the Blue
    Ribbon Coalition, support the notion that we have in our rule
    that would require designation of individual roads and trails
    or areas. We'll complete that designation in about 3.5 years.
        Senator Burns. That's a good idea, but then you know we've
    got to have the confidence that once we make the decisions on
    those areas that we don't close roads. Now, I'm getting
    complaints now from the State of Montana.
        Now there are certain times of the year when you close a
    road for a specific purpose and for a specific time. I'm
    getting complaints that they never open the road again. They
    just don't do it. So, I think we've got to work our way through
    some of those problems and then when we look at our
    maintenance, as far as the roads are concerned, that the ones
    that we're going to use we've got to cut back there and we want
    to try to maintain as safe a trail and a road as we possibly
    can for that specific traffic.
        So that's the things we're running into. When I talk to
    people who use the forest lands for snowmobiling, and hiking,
    and biking, and all of that kind of recreation.
        Mr. Bosworth. I would like to follow up a little bit on
    these roads where a gate's been closed and not reopened when
    it's a seasonal closure, because maybe I could work with your
    staff and find more specifically where that might be occurring.
    It's certainly our intention, that when we have a seasonal
    closure that's supposed to be closed on a certain day then
    opened on a following date that that is what we do.
        Now, from time to time, I'm sure that there's a situation
    where our folks haven't gotten out there on that day--a week
    late or something like that, but I don't want to see places
    where we're not opening those gates.
        Senator Burns. We know there could be extenuating
    circumstances. Mother Nature's a little fickle every now and
    again too, you know. We have to make a judgement call
    sometimes. But those complaints, we hear about that a lot.
        Mr. Bosworth. I'll be happy to get some more specifics on
    that. Because again as I say, it is our intention that we open
    those on the days that we say we'll open them.
        [Note.--Chief Bosworth agreed to discuss the issue of road
    closures with Senator Burns. Forest Service legislative affairs
    personnel have contacted Senator Burns' office to set up the
    meeting and are awaiting a date to discuss the issue.]

                         EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE LAWSUIT

        Senator Burns. The Earth Island thing on categorical
    exclusions, I see in your budget justification that this case
    delayed or cancelled 723 fuel reduction projects, affecting
    over a million acres. Bring us up to date on the status of the
    litigation, and are you planning to appeal it if we get----
        Mr. Rey. The litigation is under appeal now. The District
    Court decision is under appeal before the 9th Circuit. Given
    the average turnaround time for a 9th Circuit decision, I'm not
    optimistic that we'll get any kind of a response during this
    upcoming operating season.
        Senator Burns. Is there anything you can do in light of
    that appeal? Can you do some things that would facilitate
    moving some of those projects forward?
        Mr. Rey. We will move some of those projects forward, but
    those that garner objections will be delayed by the normal
    appeals process.

                         BARK BEETLE DAMAGE IN MONTANA

        Senator Burns. I would say, I really feel like the most
    dangerous thing, Mr. Secretary, is this bark beetle, not only
    in Colorado. I would just invite anybody to drive over
    Homestead Pass, between Whitehall and Butte, and then look
    south and just absolutely cry, and then go into the Yak and
    just absolutely sit down and cry that we cannot, some way or
    another, deal with these stressed trees and thinning the
    things--the management things that's going to take to care of
    that particular problem.
        I have some more questions to ask of you.
        Do you have anything to add, Senator Allard, you want to
    talk about right now, or are you going to do it in private
    conversations?
        Senator Allard. I have some more questions if you need me
    to fill time.

                             WILDLAND FIRE PROGRAM

        Senator Burns. We don't need anymore fill time here. I'm
    going to ask you some other questions, but I'll do it and your
    response can be to the committee and be made a part of the
    committee record. Wildland fire outlook this year? Any
    forecasts?
        Mr. Rey. The forecast this year, is this will probably be a
    more difficult season than the last two. Particularly in the
    Southwest.
        Senator Burns. I know our snow pack in Montana has never
    been better, it's really good this year. Fire readiness
    capability, I think we want to talk about that and I think we
    also want to iron out this difference between State and
    volunteer fire assistance that you've got in your budget this
    year, and take a look at that. The outlook is good.
        But those are the areas where I think I had my primary
    concerns and I'll do that. We'll sit down. When you go by his
    office, we'll schedule my office. We don't want you to work a
    half of a day.
        [Note.--Senator Burns asked Chief Bosworth to have a
    meeting to discuss several issues related to the Wildland Fire
    Management program. Forest Service legislative affairs
    personnel have contacted Senator Burns' office to set up the
    meeting and are awaiting a date to discuss the issues.]
        Senator Burns. Senator Allard?
        Senator Allard. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like
    to voice many of the same concerns that the chairman is
    voicing.

                               TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

        In the Rocky Mountain Region there are a lot of things that
    have happened that commonly effect, I think both Montana and
    Colorado. The question I have that I would like to ask here is,
    how much does the U.S. Forest Service anticipate the travel
    management, that is the designating of routes and areas for
    motor vehicle use to cost to fully implement nationwide.
    Specifically, what budgets within the U.S. Forest Service will
    funds be allocated in order to implement the travel management
    designated routes and areas for motor vehicle use. Do you
    happen to have that information?
        Mr. Bosworth. In terms of the kinds of dollars we would use
    normally, you would think that recreation would be an area that
    would be funding part of that work. There are also a number of
    other functional areas that benefit from doing a better job of
    managing off highway vehicle use.
        For example, water quality can be improved if we're doing a
    better job of keeping machines out of streams. Wildlife habitat
    can be improved if we're more careful about which trails and
    roads we allow motorized vehicles.
        So we expect that a number of different budget line items
    will contribute to the planning and to the implementation of
    managing off highway vehicles.
        As far as the total cost per forest, I could get you the
    best information if you give me a little bit of time to do
    that.
        Senator Allard. That would be helpful I think, particularly
    in my State. We'd be interested in knowing how that breaks out.
        Mr. Bosworth. I'd be happy to do that.
        Senator Allard. Very good.
        [The information follows:]

                       Cost of Travel Management Planning

        The Forest Service has estimated that nationally we will spend
    between $15 and $35 million per year over the next 4 years on travel
    planning. These costs only include travel planning costs associated
    with identifying a system of designated roads, trails, and areas. Costs
    on each national forest will depend not only on the local environment
    and local use, but on each unit's history of travel planning. Some
    national forests have recently completed comprehensive travel plans,
    while others are just beginning. These figures represent an average
    cost of $600,000 to $1.5 million per national forest to complete a
    travel plan from start to finish. On most national forests, travel
    planning will require a substantial effort, including environmental
    analysis and documentation prepared in an open, collaborative process.
    Although specific costs for travel management plans for each of the
    national forests in Colorado is not available, they are expected to be
    in the range stated above.
        Since travel planning serves multiple purposes, funding may be
    derived from a variety of Forest Service appropriations depending on
    the primary purposes served at the local level. Among the principal
    programs and appropriations associated with travel planning are: Roads;
    Trails; Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness; Wildlife and Fisheries
    Habitat Management; and Vegetation and Watershed Management.

        Senator Burns. One personal thing, are we still working on
    that little thing with Mack White?
        Mr. Bosworth. We're still working on that with Mack White.
    The Regional Forester has been in negotiations.
        Senator Burns. Will you tell him--be like Larry the Cable
    Guy--git er done and don't ask for any icing on the cake. We're
    just dealing with the cake right now. But I appreciate that and
    your efforts there.

                             ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

        We have received statements from Senator Larry Craig and
    the Society of American Foresters that will be made part of the
    hearing record.
        [The statements follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Larry Craig

        The President's budget reflects our nation's clear priorities for
    this year: win the war on terror, reduce budget deficits by reining in
    spending, create jobs and grow the economy, and boost America's energy
    independence.
        In short, this budget is ``leaner and meaner.'' And in the end, I'm
    hopeful it will translate into a more efficient government.
        I've been very vocal about my support for the Secure Rural Schools
    and Communities Act, but I want to reiterate my thanks to the President
    for including funding for this important program in his budget request.
    However, I do have significant preliminary concerns about the offsets
    proposed by the President, and I look forward to receiving additional
    details and working with the administration.
        Since the last Forest Service budget hearing, I have some new
    questions I'm hoping to have answered regarding the agency's new travel
    management rule. Recreation is an important quality of life issue for
    my constituents and I want to assure them that access will be
    maintained to our national forest lands. Additionally, it is important
    to note that the Forest Service is not in the business of closing roads
    for the purpose of saving money.
        Idaho's Parks and Recreation Department has provided an exceptional
    amount of assistance to our federal land agencies doing trail
    maintenance and construction. We have recreational groups who have
    shown interest in an ``adopt a trail'' program to help the Forest
    Service do trail clearing and maintenance. I would like to have it on
    record that Idahoans are doing their part, from our State agencies to
    public land users, and I do not want those efforts to be overlooked.
        Overall, I am pleased with the distribution of funds to the various
    accounts. I feel we need to continue to focus on fire preparedness and
    suppression; however, with a decrease in rehabilitation and
    restoration, I am curious about the President's proposal to continue to
    manage our public lands in a sustainable way after the fires come--and
    the fires will come.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Society of American Foresters

        The Society of American Foresters (SAF), representing over 15,000
    forest managers, researchers, and educators, supports sound management
    and stewardship of the nation's 749 million acres of forestland. We
    offer the following suggestions to facilitate improved stewardship and
    management of the nation's forests through funding for forestry
    programs within the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the
    Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Given the understandable
    restrictions on the length of our testimony, we do not offer the in-
    depth analysis we normally provide but would be pleased to provide
    further detail upon request.
        Today, the nation's forest face serious threats--threats that will
    affect the provision of clean water and air, wildlife habitat,
    recreation opportunities, forest products, and scenic beauty. Congress
    is faced with serious budget challenges and funding is extremely
    limited. In recognition of this, we've limited our funding
    recommendations to three priority areas even though there are many
    important forestry programs within USDA and USDOI. The priority areas
    are:
      --Forest Research and Inventory
      --Forest Health on both public and private forestlands
      --Family forestland Management

                         FOREST RESEARCH AND INVENTORY

        The key to good stewardship and sustainable, long-term management
    of the nation's forests is sound scientific information. Forestry
    professionals must have the latest information on the state of forests,
    as provided by the Forest Inventory and Analysis program, and have
    access to new techniques and new research that will ensure they can
    continue to be good stewards in the constantly changing forest
    environment. We are deeply concerned with continuous declines in forest
    research capacity in the public and private sectors. Since the mid-
    80's, forestry research capacity in the U.S. Forest Service has
    declined by 50 percent and unfortunately, the private sector and
    universities are facing similar downsizing. At the same time, federal
    investment in other research, including USDA's National Research
    Initiative which does not adequately provide for forestry research, has
    increased.
        This decline in forestry research is contrary to the critical
    importance of the nation's forests in global trade and in ensuring
    national health and welfare. We strongly urge sustained long-term
    funding for forestry research and inventory, including full funding for
    the Forest Inventory and Analysis program, to ensure the United States
    retains its capacity to manage and improve forests and the associated
    values and benefits.

                                 FOREST HEALTH

        Across the country, over 190 million acres of federal forests and
    millions of acres of non federal forests, suffer from severe forest
    health issues and are threatened by catastrophic wildfires due to lack
    of management, insect and disease epidemics, climatic conditions,
    historical fire suppression practices, and other causes. Insect and
    disease problems include invasive species like the emerald ash borer,
    gypsy moth, and asian longhorned beetle; other insects like southern
    pine beetle and mountain pine beetle; and diseases like sudden oak
    death and white pine blister rust. To address these threats, we
    strongly urge increases above fiscal year 2006 levels for forest health
    management and sustained funding for wildfire management accounts in
    both the USDA Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.

    Biomass Utilization
        The President's budget proposes $5 million within the hazardous
    fuels line item to support biomass utilization grants. Biomass
    utilization offers a mechanism to address costly forest health issues
    and recover economic value from small diameter and unmerchantable wood.
    In addition to these forest benefits, biomass utilization can help
    reduce the nation's reliance on foreign oil imports and increase the
    use of renewable energy sources, a goal emphasized by the President and
    supported by the passage of the 2005 Energy Bill. We urge you to fund
    biomass utilization within the hazardous fuels program at $10 million,
    to help foster utilization and development of markets for this material
    and assist in achieving forest health U.S. energy security goals.

    Wildfire Suppression Funding
        We greatly appreciate the Appropriations Committee's work to
    address the funding problems that have plagued wildfire suppression
    accounts in the Forest Service and Department of the Interior. Since
    steps were taken by your Committee and the Budget Committees to provide
    $500 million in emergency suppression funding, the agencies have not
    had to borrow from other accounts and disrupt the work of other
    important federal forestry programs. We urge you to continue to monitor
    this issue and provide additional emergency funding when necessary. In
    addition, we urge you to continue to monitor the Forest Service and
    Department of the Interior's cost containment efforts, to ensure
    progress is being made in this area.

    Hazardous Fuels
        We strongly support the President's proposal to increase the U.S.
    Forest Service's funding for hazardous fuels reduction. We encourage
    the use of these funds in areas where Community Wildfire Protection
    Plans have recommended treatments. We are concerned with the $10
    million decrease in hazardous fuels reduction funding for the
    Department of the Interior. This decrease would result in an estimated
    32,000 acre reduction in fuel treatments, 17,000 acres in the Bureau of
    Land Management alone. Ultimately, the undesirable consequences will be
    increased risk of catastrophic wildfire and insect and disease
    outbreaks. We urge you to fund DOI's hazardous fuels program at fiscal
    year 2006 enacted levels..

                          FAMILY FORESTLAND MANAGEMENT

        With the future of 48 percent of the nation's forests in the hands
    of over 10 million family or non-industrial landowners, it is critical
    that this land remain forested. Family forestland owners are faced with
    severe challenges today, when owning forestland is often uneconomical
    and development pressures are fierce. A significant turnover in
    ownership of family forests is expected to occur over the next decade,
    creating a great deal of uncertainty as a new, younger generation
    decides what to do with their forests. Family forests supply
    approximately 60 percent of the nation's wood products. However only 3
    percent percent of landowners have a written management plan and only
    22 percent have sought professional advice prior to harvesting timber.
    These lands must be well managed with advice from professionals to
    avoid losses in productivity which make them susceptible to conversion
    to nonforest uses. To keep these lands forested, we must ensure that
    family forestland owners have access to professional advice and that
    these forests remain under sound management and stewardship. There are
    a variety of federal forest programs that assist in accomplishing this
    goal. The Forest Stewardship Program and Forest Legacy Program are
    critical to maintaining and improving private family forests. We urge
    you to increase funding above fiscal year 2006 levels for these
    programs as shown below.

               FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------------------
     Discretionary appropriations                   2007
                                       2006       proposed       2007 SAF
                                     enacted       budget    recommendations
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Forest and Rangeland Research        219.6        208.5          220.0
     \1\.........................
    Forest Inventory and Analysis         64.0         59.3           73.4
     Total \2\...................
    State and Private Forestry:
        Forest Health Management--        53.4         49.8           56.0
         Federal.................
        Forest Health Management--        46.9         34.5           49.0
         Cooperative.............
        State Fire Assistance....         32.9         27.0           32.9
        Volunteer Fire Assistance          5.9          5.9            5.9
        Forest Stewardship                34.2         33.9           37.0
         Program.................
        Forest Legacy Program....         56.5         61.5           61.5
        Urban and Community               28.5         26.8           28.5
         Forestry................
        International Forestry...          6.9          4.9            7.0
    National Forest System:
        Land Management Planning.         58.2         55.6           58.2
        Inventory and Monitoring.        167.7        154.1          154.1
        Forest Products..........        280.2        310.1          310.1
    Wildland Fire Management:
        Preparedness.............        666.1        655.9          655.9
        Fire Operations..........        690.2        746.2          746.2
        Hazardous Fuels..........        281.8        291.8      \3\ 291.8
        Rehabilitation and                 6.2          2.0            7.0
         Restoration.............
        Fire Research and                 22.9         20.1           22.9
         Development.............
        Joint Fire Sciences                7.9          4.0            8.0
         Program.................
        Forest Health Management--        14.8          6.8           15.0
         Federal.................
        Forest Health Management--         9.9          4.6           10.0
         Cooperative.............
        State Fire Assistance....         45.8         29.1           45.8
        Volunteer Fire Assistance          7.8          7.8            7.8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Totals do not include FIA funds which are broken out in the next
      line.
    \2\ Includes funding under State and Private Forestry and Research and
      Development.
    \3\ Funding would include $10 million for biomass utilization, see above
      narrative.

            FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year--
                                   -----------------------------------------
                Program                 2006         2007        2007 SAF
                                      enacted      proposed   recommendation
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wildland Fire Management:
        Preparedness..............        268.8        274.8          274.8
        Suppression...............        230.7        257.0          257.0
        Hazardous Fuels...........        208.1        199.8          208.1
        State and Local Fire                9.9  ...........           10.0
         Assistance...............
        Joint Fire Science........          5.9          5.9            6.0
        Public Domain Forest               10.4         10.5           10.5
         Management...............
        OR and CA Grant Lands             108.6        112.4          112.4
         Total....................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Burns. Thank you this morning for your appearance
    before this committee. There will be other questions from other
    committee members. If you would respond to them and to the
    committee, we'd surely appreciate that. The record will be left
    open for a couple of weeks if you want to make further
    comments.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns

        Question. In an overall Forest Service budget that is cut by over
    $100 million, the agency proposes an increase of roughly $71 million in
    appropriated dollars to fully implement the Northwest Forest Plan that
    was created under the Clinton administration.
        The Committee is sympathetic to the communities that lost timber
    jobs in the Northwest, but in a budget that is so full of major cuts to
    core national programs, isn't this an awfully large increase for one
    region of the country?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2007 Budget reflects the President's
    commitment to providing the critical resources needed for our Nation's
    highest priorities: fighting the war on terror, strengthening our
    homeland defenses, and sustaining the momentum of our economic
    recovery. This has required difficult decisions to be made. Forest
    health is a priority for the administration and the Forest Service is
    committed to addressing the issue across the Nation. In this context,
    the administration is committed to fully funding the Northwest Forest
    Plan. The additional funding for the Northwest Forest Plan will allow
    the agency to offer 800 MMBF of timber volume, improve over 3,900 acres
    of terrestrial wildlife habitat and 120 miles of fisheries habitat,
    treat hazardous fuels in the wildland-urban interface and municipal
    watersheds, and address reforestation needs of recent large forest
    fires.
        Question. What is the impact on other Regions of the Forest
    Service?
        Since the overall budget is cut, will other Regions receive less to
    pay for this proposal?
        Answer. The agency is committed to funding all regions at similar
    levels to fiscal year 2006 through a combination of Hazardous Fuels and
    Forest Products funding. Forest health is a priority for the
    administration and the Forest Service is committed to addressing the
    issue across the Nation.
        Question. The timber sales program in this part of the country is
    especially controversial and many sales are challenged in court. Are we
    getting the best bang for the buck by putting so many additional
    dollars here, or are there other places where these funds could be
    spent and get more timber sales accomplished?
        Answer. The administration is committed to fully funding the
    Northwest Forest Plan. Cost efficiency is not the only consideration in
    allocating the Forest Products line item. For example, increasing
    timber sales increases the amount of receipts shared with the States
    and reduces outlays from the Treasury for payments authorized for the
    Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. The Forest
    Products line item is an important source of funding in meeting
    resource needs, addressing forest health and community protection
    issues, contributing to local economies and maintaining local industry
    infrastructure. The allocation of the Forest Products line item takes
    into consideration these resource and community concerns and the
    allocation of other line items. Forest health is a priority for the
    administration and the Forest Service is committed to addressing the
    issue across the Nation.
        Question. There is a real problem with a backlog of expiring
    grazing permits that need to be renewed. Congress put a schedule in
    place for the renewal of these permits in the 1995 Rescissions Act.
    Your budget justification says that you're only getting done 50 percent
    of the work that you need to do each year to comply with the schedule.
    The schedule requires all allotments to be completed by 2010.
        The agency's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal reduces the grazing
    program by $8.5 million and the number of grazing allotments processed
    declines by 34 percent--from 484 allotments this year to 321 next year.
    Why is that a good idea when we still have over 3,200 allotments
    needing to be processed?
        Answer. In 1996, the Forest Service established a 15-year schedule
    for completing NEPA on all allotments where it was not current, in
    compliance with the Rescissions Act of 1995. It was an ambitious
    schedule that the agency had wanted to expeditiously complete. Due to a
    number of issues, such as appeals and lawsuits, the agency has not been
    able to maintain pace with the 1996 schedule. At this point, the agency
    has completed nearly 54 percent of the NEPA needs. In 2005, Congress
    authorized the Forest Service to use Categorical Exclusions on 900
    allotments, to expedite the NEPA work. This new authority will speed
    the progress towards achieving the agency's obligations as set forth in
    the allotment schedule.
        Question. In the fiscal year 2005 Interior appropriations bill, the
    committee provided additional funds to address the backlog of
    allotments and also provided a Categorical Exclusion from NEPA for
    grazing allotments that met certain conditions. There was a cap of 900
    allotments on this authority.
        How many allotment decisions have been made using this authority so
    far?
        Answer. The Forest Service has used this authority for 44
    allotments since its initiation. The agency anticipates using this
    authority to complete another 100-200 by the end of fiscal year 2006.
        Question. Is this authority helping to speed up the process?
        Answer. Yes, this authority has helped speed up the process. On
    those allotments where we have not proposed changes to the management
    and the conditions are either meeting or moving towards what is
    described in our land management plans, it reduces the amount of time
    needed to go through the analysis and decision making process to get a
    decision.
        Question. Does this cap need to be raised so you can get more
    allotments processed that meet the standard for use of this authority?
        Answer. No, not at this time. Forest Service staff is assessing
    what the agency can do in using the CE authority in fiscal year 2006
    and fiscal year 2007. Based upon preliminary information, it is highly
    unlikely that we will need to have the cap raised.
        Question. The administration has proposed extending the Secure
    Rural Schools Act--the last payment will be made under the act in
    December 2006--by selling roughly 310,000 acres of National Forest
    System lands to generate $800 million in revenue. In Montana, 13,948
    acres are eligible for sale. The administration's proposal would
    gradually phase out payments over a 5 year period.
        Doesn't the agency think it's unwise to sell our National Forest
    System lands to fund a program that deserves funding on its own?
        Answer. The original Secure Rural Schools (SRS) legislation was
    designed to be a transitional measure to allow States and counties to
    readjust their priorities and programs so that they are no longer
    dependent on a higher level of funding from national forest receipts.
    Currently there are counties at different stages of making this
    transition. Consistent with this situation and need, the administration
    is proposing to provide a funding source for the next 5 years to enable
    a longer period for States and counties to make the transition before
    the program is phased out as originally contemplated.
        Conveyance of a limited number of National Forest System acres will
    offset payments for the Secure Rural Schools program if reauthorized.
    This focused approach will provide an adequate revenue source to
    support Secure Rural Schools. Baselines of both the Congressional
    Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget reflect the end
    of this program, so in order to provide the necessary offset to the
    Treasury to extend this program, any proposal to extend it would have
    to provide a suitable offset that would ``score'' by either reducing
    direct spending from the Treasury or by providing a new source of
    receipts to the Treasury. The proposal was sent to both the Senate and
    the House on March 22, 2006 for consideration by the Congress.
        Question. Since over 75 percent of the money under the Secure Rural
    Schools Act goes to Oregon, California, and Washington, why would
    people in other States want to sell off their public lands when most of
    the proceeds wouldn't even stay in their States?
        Answer. The Budget underscores the President's commitment to States
    and counties impacted by the ongoing loss of receipts associated with
    lower timber harvests on Federal lands--not only in the Pacific
    Northwest but throughout the United States. Counties throughout the
    United States have received payments under the current County Payments
    Act and would continue to do so in the Budget's legislative proposal,
    so it is reasonable to identify parcels nationally that could be
    eligible for sale. Regardless of location, sales will be limited to
    those parcels identified as suitable for conveyance, because they are
    isolated or inefficient to manage, in existing national forest plans
    which were subject to public review and comment. These do not include
    parcels of high environmental value such as wilderness, wild and scenic
    rivers, or habitat for threatened or endangered species.
        The initial list of potentially eligible parcels for conveyance
    under the proposed authority is approximately 300,000 acres. The actual
    number of acres will not be known until specific properties are
    identified, appraised, and conveyed and parcels have gone through the
    public review process outlined in the Federal Register. Based upon
    average land values, it should require the sale of approximately
    200,000 acres to provide $800 million in receipts that the proposal
    identified to fund the Secure Rural Schools program for an additional
    five years.
        Question. Given budget constraints that the Congress has to deal
    with, future acquisitions of public land will have to rely more on land
    exchanges rather than through appropriated dollars from the Federal
    Government. Wouldn't getting rid of many of these isolated parcels take
    away a key bargaining chip for doing future land exchanges?
        Answer. The tracts identified as potentially eligible for sale
    could also be considered for exchange. However, many field units forego
    land exchange opportunities unless they expect to achieve significant
    gains in resource quality and protection. Selling many of the types of
    parcels identified can provide for a lower cost method of achieving the
    benefits associated with the disposal of isolated tracts, in
    particular, a reduction of boundary survey and maintenance costs and
    expenses related to encroachment resolution. There will still be many
    opportunities for land exchanges involving other National Forest System
    lands and, coupled with land purchases and donations, will still allow
    for the acquisition of high priority tracts within the National Forest
    System.
        Question. According to the agency's proposed budget, the Forest
    Service has a backlog of deferred maintenance of over $8 billion. But
    your budget proposes to cut the overall Capital Improvement and
    Maintenance accounts by 12 percent. The Roads account alone is cut by
    over $39 million which is a 17.8 percent cut.
        Why is the agency cutting this account when the backlog of deferred
    maintenance needs is so high?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2007 Budget reflects the President's
    commitment to providing the critical resources needed for our Nation's
    highest priorities: fighting the war on terror, strengthening our
    homeland defenses, and sustaining the momentum of our economic
    recovery. This has required difficult decisions to be made. In this
    context, even though the amount of funds provided for deferred
    maintenance is not large, they provide a meaningful and direct benefit
    to the agency's priority activity of reducing deferred maintenance,
    particularly critical health and safety related deferred maintenance
    needs. The Budget also reflects funding generated through the use of
    authorities provided by the Congress to assess the costs of facilities
    maintenance and the sale of certain administrative sites. This will
    permit the agency to reduce its maintenance backlog by 25 percent by
    2010. The funds are slowing the rate of increase in deferred
    maintenance.
        Question. How are you planning to address this enormous backlog of
    deferred maintenance?
        Answer. The Forest Service is modernizing and realigning
    infrastructure to match its mission, organizational structure changes,
    and funding expectations.. To aid in the realignment and to minimize
    our backlog of deferred maintenance, the agency is using some important
    new tools:
        (1) The agency is using the Facilities Realignment and Enhancement
    Act authorities to dispose of unneeded buildings, and using the
    proceeds to reduce deferred maintenance or construct new buildings that
    meet current needs. The agency has planned $100 million in sales over
    the next 2 years.
        (2) The agency is using the cost pool methodology to give forests
    an incentive to reduce unneeded facilities.
        (3) We are working with States to improve our trails program
    through grants of funds provided by SAFETEA-LU's recreation trails
    program.
        (4) The November 9, 2005, Travel Management Rule provides a process
    to identify the minimum road system required considering the
    availability of resources for maintenance and administration of roads
    and trails proposed to be designated for motor vehicle use. The
    analysis will guide the optimum use of available funding, so that the
    highest priority roads and trails will be sustained or in some cases,
    improved. In some cases, roads and trails may be operated at a lower,
    less costly level. For example, many passenger vehicle roads will be
    converted to high clearance vehicle roads.
        Question. What are the impacts to recreational users and the
    firefighting program if we don't have the money we need to maintain the
    roads and provide access to our national forests?
        Answer. Each national forest conducts ongoing travel management
    analysis to guide the optimum use of allocated funding, so that the
    highest priority roads and trails will be sustained or improved.
    Recreation and fire suppression access needs are important components
    in determining the optimum transportation system to sustain with
    anticipated funding. Collectively, road operational standards will
    continue to decrease, and the overall consequences to the
    transportation system can be minimized through advanced planning and
    appropriate use of available funding.
        Question. A Federal District court in the Earth Island Institute v.
    Ruthenbeck case held that the Forest Service had to provide notice,
    comment, and appeal on projects implemented through the use of
    categorical exclusions. This judicially created requirement regarding
    CEs applies to no other agency in the Federal Government.
        The agency's budget justification indicates that this case delayed
    or canceled 723 fuels reduction projects affecting over 1 million
    acres. What is the status of this litigation?
        Answer. On September 4, 2005 the Government appealed the July 2,
    2005, decision from the Eastern District of California to the Ninth
    Circuit Court of Appeals.
        Question. Are you planning to appeal?
        Answer. On September 4, 2005 the Government appealed the July 2,
    2005 decision from the Eastern District of California to the Ninth
    Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is fully briefed and awaiting oral
    argument before the Circuit. Recently, a second court held that a
    categorically excluded decision must be subjected to notice, comment,
    and appeal. See Wilderness Society v. Rey, CV 03-119 DMW (D. Mont.
    Decided April 24, 2006). The deadline for filing an appeal in that case
    is June 23, 2006.
        Question. Is there anything you can do administratively to address
    this situation or is a legislative fix needed so that the Forest
    Service is treated like every other agency when it comes to the use of
    categorical exclusions?
        Answer. Sixteen cases have been filed challenging the Forest
    Service's promulgation or implementation of the 2003 regulations issued
    under the Appeal Reform Act. The Government is actively defending all
    pending cases and has appealed the Earth Island ruling.
        Question. The committee is concerned about the large cut ($28.9
    million which is equal to 23 percent) that is proposed in your budget
    for the Forest Health program. This program helps to monitor and treat
    millions of acres of State, Federal, and private lands for insects,
    diseases and invasive weeds.
        How many fewer acres will be treated as a result of these cuts?
        Answer. While the President's Budget for forest health activities,
    funded in the Forest Health Management budget lines and the National
    Fire Plan (Wildland Fire Management appropriation), reflects a decrease
    from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level, it is an increase of $11.9
    million over last year's President's Budget. Approximately 628,000
    fewer acres will be treated than the currently planned treatments in
    fiscal year 2006.
        Question. How many acres nationally need treatment for insects and
    disease?
        Answer. The latest revision of the National Insect and Disease Risk
    Map estimates that 56.6 million of the 748.7 million acres of forest
    land in the continental United States and Alaska is at risk from
    insects and diseases. Most of this hazard can be attributed to 44
    indigenous and 14 non-native (exotic) forest pest species already
    established in the coterminous United States. Many of these lands at
    risk will not be treated because of ownership, value, or designation
    such as wilderness.
        Question. Congress recently passed Healthy Forests legislation. If
    we're going to have a healthy forests program, doesn't that mean we
    need to put adequate funds into the agency's forest health programs
    rather than cut them?
        Answer. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) provides the
    land management agencies with needed authorities that will expedite
    treatments and thereby permits the Forest Service to be more efficient.
    The fiscal year 2007 Budget reflects the President's commitment to
    providing the critical resources needed for our Nation's highest
    priorities: fighting the war on terror, strengthening our homeland
    defenses, and sustaining the momentum of our economic recovery. This
    has required difficult decisions to be made. In this context, while the
    President's Budget for forest health activities, funded in the Forest
    Health Management budget lines and the National Fire Plan (Wildland
    Fire Management appropriation), reflects a decrease from the fiscal
    year 2006 Enacted level, it is an increase of $12.1 million over last
    year's President's Budget, and the Budget reflects the enhanced
    efficiencies provided by HFRA. The President's Budget recognizes the
    importance of maintaining forest health technical assistance to Federal
    and nonfederal land managers and maintaining forest health monitoring
    activities and meeting the highest priority pest suppression needs on
    Federal lands, while relying on nonfederal partners to continue to
    share more of the cost of pest suppression on State and private lands.
    Further, the Budget reflects significant increases elsewhere for other
    activities that improve the health and vitality of national forests.
    For example, funding for Forest Products increases by $30 million (+11
    percent) and Vegetation and Watershed Management increases by $6
    million (+3 percent). President Bush is allocating $610 million in the
    2007 budget to continue implementation of the Healthy Forests
    Initiative to reduce hazardous fuels and restore forest health. The
    budget proposal, more than a $12 million increase over 2006, takes an
    integrated approach to reducing hazardous fuels and restoring forest
    and rangeland health. Along with more than $301 million provided to the
    Department of the Interior, the 2007 budget provides a total of nearly
    $913 million to implement the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
        Question. The State fire assistance program is very important in
    providing grants for equipment and giving technical assistance to rural
    fire departments. The fiscal year 2007 budget request proposes to
    reduce this program by $22.7 million. This is a 25 percent reduction.
    To put this in more practical terms, this will reduce the number of
    communities receiving grants and technical assistance by over 5,300.
        Is this a wise cut when frequently it's the local firefighting
    forces that are first on the scene of a wildfire?
        Answer. The Forest Service supports efforts to improve firefighting
    readiness, and recognizes the primacy of State and local governments in
    providing these essential services to their citizens. In additional to
    Forest Service financial assistance, the Forest Service will continue
    to work with local communities and the State foresters with an emphasis
    on community wildfire protection planning and coordination on FEMA
    hazard mitigation plans, hazardous fuels treatments in the critical
    wildland-urban interface, and building fire preparedness at the State
    and local level remain priorities. The implications of reduced levels
    of funding in State Fire Assistance will vary from State to State.
    Generally, depending on the capability of each State, there may be less
    overall funding for preparedness at the State and local level to
    provide initial attack and extended attack assistance to Federal
    firefighting resources on Federal fires. Depending on the funding
    capabilities of the States and local communities, hazardous fuel
    treatments on the State and private portions of the wildland-urban
    interface may be reduced over prior years. Some of that reduction may
    be offset by proposed increases in hazardous fuel accomplishments on
    national forest acres in the wildland-urban interface.
        Question. Over the last several years, the committee has had some
    difficulty working with the agency on funding for the Fire Preparedness
    budget. This is the program that puts in place firefighters, engines,
    and other basic firefighting assets at the start of the fire season. In
    the budget for fiscal year 2007, you have reduced the program by over
    $10 million but your budget claims that you will still be able to
    suppress 99 percent of fires during initial attack- that is, before
    they get over 300 acres.
        With the rising costs of fuel and aviation assets, can the agency
    assure the committee that even with a $10 million cut in preparedness
    that you can maintain readiness in terms of the number of firefighters
    and engines at current levels?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2007, the Forest Service will maintain a
    level of readiness, including firefighters, comparable to that attained
    in fiscal year 2005 and planned for fiscal year 2006. The agency will
    achieve efficiencies through program leadership and a reduction in
    agency-wide overhead.
        Question. A number of fires have been in the news already this year
    in Texas, Arizona, and Colorado to name a few. Many places in the
    Southwest, like Arizona and New Mexico are really suffering from lack
    of precipitation.
        How severe do you expect this fire season to be based on what you
    know now?
        Answer.
       National Wildland Fire Outlook, National Interagency Fire Center,
               Predictive Services Group, Issued: April 12, 2006
               wildland fire outlook--april through august, 2006
        Fire potential is expected to be significantly higher than normal
    over portions of the West, Alaska, Great Plains, Gulf Coast and the
    East due to the following factors:
      --Above average rain and snow in northern and central portions of the
            West will temper fire potential in the forests. Conversely, a
            dry winter in the Southwest and Alaska has increased the risk
            of wildfires this spring and summer. In addition, the Southwest
            and Great Basin have abundant carryover fine fuels from the wet
            2004/2005 winter. This will elevate fire potential due to
            increased fuel loading and a continuous fuel bed for rapid fire
            spread. Long-term drought and associated bug-killed vegetation
            continue to elevate fire potential in portions of the West.
      --Very dry conditions in the Southern Plains, Southeast and Eastern
            States will keep fire potential high until summer thunderstorms
            provide ample rainfall to diminish the fire threat.
      --Alaska is expected to have another above normal fire season with
            the main areas for concern in the Southwest, western Kenai
            Peninsula and around the Delta Junction area southeast of
            Fairbanks.

        Question. How much money does the agency have available in its fire
    suppression accounts for firefighting this year?
        Answer. The Forest Service did not find it necessary to use the
    emergency reserves in 2005 and carried over a suppression balance of
    $501 million to fiscal year 2006. Along with the fiscal year 2006
    suppression appropriation of $698 million, the agency has an
    approximately total of $1.2 billion available for fiscal year 2006.
        Question. Would the agency expect that you may have to borrow
    against other non-fire accounts that caused so much disruption to
    agency programs a few years ago?
        Answer. For fiscal year 2006, the agency retained about $500
    million in fiscal year 2005 unobligated Wildland Fire Management funds.
    Those funds, in addition to the fiscal year 2006 appropriation of $690
    million provide a little less than $1.2 billion for fire suppression.
    Fire suppression costs have only exceeded $1.2 billion once in the last
    10 years, therefore the funding should be sufficient to fund this
    year's fire suppression needs.
        Question. The Chief has identified unmanaged recreation as one of
    the four major threats to our national forests. The subcommittee is
    hearing from the public in Montana that many local managers are locking
    gates on roads for seasonal closures but are not opening them back up
    when the closure expires. This is encouraging illegal use as folks are
    driving around closed gates that should be open.
        Has the agency heard anything about this problem?
        Answer. We are not aware of the problem as described. While we
    recommend that road closure issues be addressed at the local level, we
    are concerned about the problem as stated and request more specific
    information you can provide.
        Periodically, there are good reasons to extend a closure for safety
    or to protect resource values. Two common examples are unstable road
    surfaces during spring rains or late break-up and blocked access due to
    late snowpack in the high country. In such cases, the public needs to
    be notified in advance of extending the closure.
        Question. Is this something that the agency can look into and make
    sure that when seasonal closures expire that these roads are re-opened?
        Answer. As stated in the answer to question 25, there are cases
    where seasonal closures must be extended for public safety and resource
    protection reasons. In such cases, we expect that the public be
    notified in advance of the extension. If you have any more specific
    information on the situation described, we will be better able to
    pinpoint problems and develop a prompt solution.
        Question. There is a tremendous problem in Montana with bark beetle
    infestations. Recent figures indicate that since 1999 in Region 1, bark
    beetle infested acres have increased from 400,000 acres to more than
    1.7 million acres. This has caused enormous forest health problems and
    greatly increased fire danger.
        With this kind of massive epidemic of bark beetle infestations can
    you explain the rationale for cutting the money devoted to bark beetle
    management in half--from $32 million to $16 million?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2007 President's Budget includes $14
    million in the Forest Health Management budget lines for the control of
    western bark beetles ($7 million) and the southern pine beetle ($7
    million). Although funding for western bark beetle suppression projects
    in Western States, including Montana, is 28 percent less than the
    enacted budget for fiscal year 2006, it is more than 50 percent higher
    than the fiscal year 2006 President's Budget. At the proposed funding
    level, management projects for western bark beetles will be conducted
    on 33,500 acres of Federal and cooperative lands across the West.
    Efforts to mitigate beetle-caused mortality will include using
    environmentally sensitive strategies such as pheromones and preventive
    thinning of stands to reduce risk before an outbreak occurs. Further,
    the Budget reflects significant increases elsewhere for other
    activities that improve the health and vitality of national forests.
    For example, funding for Forest Products increases by $30 million (+11
    percent) and Vegetation and Watershed Management increases by $6
    million (+3 percent). President Bush is allocating $610 million in the
    2007 budget to continue implementation of the Healthy Forests
    Initiative to reduce hazardous fuels and restore forest health. The
    budget proposal, more than a $12 million increase over 2006, takes an
    integrated approach to reducing hazardous fuels and restoring forest
    and rangeland health. Along with more than $301 million provided to the
    Department of the Interior, the 2007 budget provides a total of nearly
    $913 million to implement the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
        Question. What will be the impact in other States with similar bark
    beetle problems?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2007 President's Budget includes $7 million
    in the Forest Health Management budget lines for the control of western
    bark beetles and another $7 million for southern pine beetle. Although
    this funding level is 47 percent less than the enacted budget for
    fiscal year 2006, it is 75 percent higher than the fiscal year 2006
    President's Budget. At the proposed funding level, management projects
    for bark beetles will be conducted on approximately 105,000 acres of
    Federal and Cooperative lands. Efforts to mitigate beetle-caused
    mortality will include using environmentally sensitive strategies such
    as pheromones and preventive thinning of stands to reduce risk before
    an outbreak occurs.
        Question. Chief you were kind enough to join me in Montana for a
    field hearing back in December regarding forest planning in Region 1.
    As you know, we've got 5 forest plans covering over 11 million acres in
    Montana that are being revised.
        We received a lot of comments from folks during that hearing that
    were concerned about public access and motorized use being further
    limited on the forests in Montana. Can you tell us how you are taking
    these concerns of citizens into account in drafting these new plans?
        Answer. The five land management plans (LMPs) currently being
    revised in Montana are on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bitterroot, Lolo,
    Flathead, and Kootenai National Forests (NFs).
        The Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF's comment period on its draft plan and
    environmental impact statement (EIS) ended on October 31, 2005. The
    Forest is analyzing those comments and preparing a final plan and EIS.
    The Forest continues to work with all interest groups, including both
    summer and winter recreation groups to address their concerns. The
    final plan will identify areas where motorized use is emphasized and
    areas where motorized use is not appropriate. As a result of public
    comment throughout the plan revision process, the Forest has identified
    several areas where motorized trails could be connected to form loops
    and facilities could be constructed to accommodate motorized use. The
    Ecosystem Research Group (ERG) has provided the Forest with a
    ``collaborative alternative'' to consider when preparing the final
    plan. The Forest continues to work with ERG to determine how best to
    consider that alternative in the final plan.
        The planning teams on the Bitterroot, Lolo, Flathead, and Kootenai
    NFs are in the final stages of developing proposed LMPs. These proposed
    LMPs will be released for a 90-day comment period. Public input from a
    series of public and collaborative meetings is incorporated into the
    draft LMPs. These draft LMPs will be released for a 90-day comment
    period.
        As a result of this extensive public input, the Bitterroot,
    Flathead, and Lolo NFs have added motorized loop routes as a component
    of desired conditions in their LMPs. The Bitterroot and Lolo NFs
    identified backcountry areas (labeled ``Management Area 2.2'' within
    the LMP) as generally suitable for limited motorized use. These LMPs
    also identify desired conditions for motorized and non-motorized
    activities. The public will be able to comment on these proposed LMPs
    during the 90-day comment period. The Forests intend to convene a
    series of public meetings during this comment period to explain the
    proposed LMPs.
        The Kootenai NF has developed several management areas to address
    comments associated with travel management. The Forest will continue
    working with user groups to identify areas best suited for motorized
    use.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

        Question. The 2004 fire season was the worst Alaska has ever seen.
    Alaska had 703 fires and over 6.6 million acres burned. Alaska's 2005
    fire season was almost as destructive. 624 fires and close to 5 million
    acres burned. Though these numbers are staggering, the Forest Service's
    fiscal year 2007 budget calls for sharp reductions in Alaska's
    allocation for programs that play a key role in implementation of the
    National Fire Plan and other programs focused on fire prevention and
    hazard mitigation. More specifically, Alaska's fiscal year 2007
    allocation for State & Private Forestry funds is a 17 percent reduction
    from 2006. Alaska's fiscal year 2007 allocation for Wildland Fire
    Management funds is decreased by 47 percent from 2006, including a 76.5
    percent reduction in State Fire Assistance Program funding.
        Given the number and acreage of fires in Alaska each fire season,
    how does the Forest Service justify such a drastic reduction in funds
    for fire management purposes? Do you feel the Forest Service budget has
    adequate resources for this upcoming fire season?
        Answer. Fiscal year 2006 funding provides the Forest Service with
    adequate resources for this upcoming fire season. The fiscal year 2007
    budget reflects the President's commitment to providing the critical
    resources needed for our Nation's highest priorities: fighting the war
    on terror, strengthening our homeland defenses, and sustaining the
    momentum of our economic recovery. The fiscal year 2007 budget aligns
    with the national priorities. The USDA and the DOI worked together
    closely to ensure the National Fire Plan programs would be funded at a
    level that would allow both departments to meet their planned readiness
    level.
        Question. The fiscal year 2007 budget for the Forest Service
    includes a proposal to extend the Secure Rural Schools and Community
    Self-Determination Act by selling 200,000 acres of National Forest
    System land to offset the act's $800 million cost. Sales receipts would
    go to States impacted by lower timber sales on Federal lands and
    payments would decrease and phase-out over 5 years. Justification for
    the proposal is that sale of national forest land and resulting
    development of the land would increase State and local tax base and
    reduce the need for Federal funds. The proposal has also been justified
    on grounds that regular receipt-sharing payments are sufficient to meet
    community needs. Secure Rural Schools Act payments are vital to
    communities in Southeast Alaska where the Tongass National Forest
    covers over 90 percent of the land and timber sale volume continues to
    be unstable and very low.
        How does the Forest Service justify reducing and eventually phasing
    out Secure Rural Schools Act payments to States such as Alaska where
    very little or no national forest land acreage is available for sale
    and regular receipt-sharing payments are low?
        Answer. The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
    Act of 2000 addresses the decline in revenue from timber harvest in
    recent years received on Federal land, that have historically been
    shared with counties under the 25 percent Act of 1908. The purpose of
    the act is to stabilize payments to counties to help support roads and
    schools, provide projects that enhance forest ecosystem health and
    provide employment opportunities, and improve cooperative relationships
    among Federal land management agencies and those who use and care about
    the lands the agencies manage.
        For each year 2001-2006, the law allows States to receive a payment
    from the Federal Government based on the State's average of its top 3
    years of payments from national forest and BLM receipts from Federal
    lands from the period of 1986-1999.
        If the Secure Rural Schools existing legislation is not
    reauthorized, barring any other changes in authorizations, the States
    will continue to receive their share of 25 percent fund payments under
    the 1908 act. Funds are distributed to eligible States that received a
    25-percent payment during the eligibility period based on an amount
    equal to the average of the three highest 25-percent payments and
    safety net payments made to that eligible State for the period between
    1986-1999.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig

        Question. My first question is in regard to the new travel
    management rule. Does the Forest Service have an estimated number of
    miles identified for road and trail closers?
        Answer. The travel management rule itself does not open or close
    any road, trail, or area. Instead, the rule establishes national
    guidance for making designation decisions at the local level. Each
    national forest or grassland will assess its current travel management
    direction, involve the public, and determine whether changes are
    needed. Designations will be made with public involvement; coordination
    with Federal, State, county, tribal, and local governmental entities;
    and appropriate environmental analysis and documentation. The miles of
    road or trail that will be added to the forest transportation system or
    be closed will depend on the results of planning at the local level
    over the next 4 years.
        Question. Additionally, with the new rule, how does the Forest
    Service plan on funding such a large task with declining budgets?
        Answer. The Forest Service estimates that it will spend between $15
    and $35 million per year over the next 4 years on travel planning.
    These obligations will occur within existing and available budget
    authority, so no new funding is necessary. Travel planning serves
    multiple purposes, and funding may be derived from a variety of Forest
    Service appropriations depending on the primary purposes served at the
    local level. Among the principal budget line items associated with
    travel planning are Roads, Trails, Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness,
    Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management, and Vegetation and Watershed
    Management.
        Question. Along with that and new wilderness proposal areas, does
    the Forest Service agree that those agency-designated areas should
    remain accessible by both motorized and non-motorized recreationists?
        Answer. In accordance with agency policy, a roadless area being
    evaluated and ultimately recommended for wilderness or wilderness study
    is not available for any use or activity that may reduce the area's
    wilderness potential. Activities currently permitted may continue,
    pending designation, if the activities do not compromise wilderness
    values of the roadless area. This direction gives the local line
    officer discretion in evaluating such activities and determining
    whether or not to allow them to continue.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard

        Question. As I understand it, the President's Budget includes a $30
    million increase in the forest products line item, but that entire $30
    million increase plus an additional $11 million of forest products
    funding would go to the Pacific Northwest as increased funding for the
    Northwest Forest Plan.
        My question is this--will the increased funding for the Northwest
    Forest Plan be at the expense of dealing with the bark beetle problems
    in Colorado or is there room in this proposed budget to get more timber
    sale money to the national forests in Colorado to address the bark
    beetle problems?
        Answer. The agency is committed to funding all regions at similar
    levels to fiscal year 2006 through a combination of Hazardous Fuels and
    Forest Products funding. Forest health is a priority for the
    administration and the Forest Service is committed to addressing the
    issue across the Nation. The agency determines where Forest Products
    program funding should be allocated to best support forest management
    programs, while using Hazardous Fuels funding to address the highest
    priority fuels reduction needs.
        Question. The proposed Forest Service budget includes an $11
    million increase in Hazardous Fuels funding. I strongly support
    spending money proactively on hazardous fuels projects if it will
    reduce the risk of forest fires and the associated risks to watersheds,
    communities, and residents. However, I'm concerned that some of the
    acres treated aren't the highest priority acres.
        From your reviews of the hazardous fuels program, is there room to
    improve what's being done on-the-ground, and how are you working toward
    that objective?
        Answer. Each year our national fuels treatment program priorities
    are developed in cooperation with the Department of the Interior and
    transmitted to regions, forests, and districts. That guidance shapes
    prioritization decisions at the individual national forests and ranger
    districts, where fuels treatments are evaluated on a site-specific
    basis. In addition, other resource treatments for wildlife habitat
    improvement, watershed, vegetation management, and recreation are also
    being designed to address fuels treatment and vegetation management
    needs. Combining objectives can help address both fuel reduction and
    condition class improvement goals. The timing and placement of these
    treatments on the landscape are evaluated with our partners at other
    Federal agencies and at the State and local level. These partnerships
    are very well established and successful in some areas, and are still
    being formed in other locations.
        We are also improving the prioritization process and performance
    measures to focus on the right acres, at the right time, and in the
    right place. Wildfires do not recognize property boundaries or agency
    administration. For hazardous fuels treatments to be most effective,
    they must be designed to change the behavior of a wildfire. To fully
    protect communities and firefighters, private landowners in the
    wildland-urban interface must also take responsibility for reduction of
    hazardous fuels on their lands and around their homes and structures.
    The National Fuels funds allocation and prioritization methodology
    evaluates Regional fuels treatment needs using measures of efficiency,
    effectiveness, consequences, restoration opportunities and wildfire
    risk. These measures are evaluated and ranked by an interdisciplinary
    team with results presented geospatially to guide the National
    Headquarters Office allocation of hazardous fuels funding to the
    Regions.
        Question. In addition, how successful has the Forest Service been
    at integrating multiple budget line items, for instance hazardous
    fuels, forest health, and timber sales funding, into individual
    projects and getting ``more bang for your buck?''
        Answer. Multiple budget line items are being effectively used to
    address forest health, watershed health, and community protection
    issues, while also contributing to local economies and maintaining
    local industry infrastructure. The Forest Service collaborates with
    other Federal agencies, as well as State, local, and tribal partners
    and the general public in the creation of Community Wildfire Protection
    Plans, to prioritize treatments of hazardous fuels at the wildland-
    urban interface. The Forest Service will treat more than 1.5 million
    acres within the wildland-urban interface during fiscal year 2007. The
    allocation of various budget line items, such as Forest Products,
    Vegetation and Watershed Management, Forest Health, and Hazardous Fuels
    take into consideration these resource and community concerns. Forest
    health continues to be a priority for the administration, and the
    Forest Service is committed to addressing the issue across the Nation.
        Question. Colorado alone has 800,000 acres of NEPA ready land that
    could be treated if funding were available. How effective a use of
    limited Forest Service dollars is it to fully fund the Pacific
    Northwest Forest Plan when that area of the country has the highest
    rate of lawsuits and therefore dollars spent often don't result in
    implementation?
        It seems to me that a more worthwhile use of funding would be to
    re-apportion a fair amount of funding to Colorado to reduce the fire
    danger this year rather than send it to an uncertain fate in the
    Pacific Northwest.
        Answer. The administration is committed to fully funding the
    Northwest Forest Plan. Cost efficiency is not the only consideration in
    allocating the Forest Products line item. For example, increasing
    timber sales increases the amount of receipts shared with the States
    and reduces outlays from the Treasury for payments authorized for the
    Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. The Forest
    Products line item is an important source of funding in meeting
    resource needs, addressing forest health and community protection
    issues, contributing to local economies, and maintaining local industry
    infrastructure. The allocation of the Forest Products line item takes
    into consideration these resource and community concerns and the
    allocation of other line items. Forest health is a priority for the
    administration and the Forest Service is committed to addressing the
    issue across the Nation.
        The additional funding for the Northwest Forest Plan will allow the
    agency to offer 800 MMBF of timber volume, improve over 3,900 acres of
    terrestrial wildlife habitat and 120 miles of fisheries habitat, treat
    hazardous fuels in the wildland-urban interface and municipal
    watersheds, and address reforestation needs of recent large forest
    fires. The USDA Forest Service strongly supports the timber sale
    program on the Colorado national forests, and the agency is committed
    to allocating a combination of Forest Products and Hazardous Fuels
    funding to each region that is not less than the fiscal year 2006
    allocation. This is necessary to ensure that critical vegetation
    management program continuity is maintained. The Forest Service
    determines within each region where the Forest Products funding should
    be allocated to best support forest management programs, while using
    Hazardous Fuels funding to address the highest priority fuel reduction
    needs.
        Question. Can you provide me with the percentage and dollar amounts
    of the total funding that was appropriated for the purposes of Fire
    Preparedness and Fire Suppression that actually ``reach the ground?''
    By ``reach the ground,'' I mean the amount that is actually used at the
    lowest level to fund temporary hires, permanent positions, purchase
    equipment, let contracts, etc to deal with the upcoming fire season.
        Please provide nation-wide information, as well as numbers
    specifically relating to my home State of Colorado.
        Answer. Fire Preparedness.--The Forest Service has $666 million of
    Appropriated Fire Preparedness funds for fiscal year 2006. Fifty five
    percent or $369 million will be available to fund firefighting
    capability and operations including temporary hires, permanent
    positions, purchase equipment, dispatchers, and contracting resources.
        Within the State of Colorado, the Forest Service will spend
    approximately fifty percent or $13 million on Preparedness capability
    and operations.
        Fire Suppression.--The Forest Service has $690 million of
    Appropriated Fire Suppression funds for fiscal year 2006. Seventy
    percent, or $481 million, are available to fund temporary hires,
    permanent positions, purchase equipment, contracts, etc. for the
    upcoming fire season. The funds are available on an as-needed basis.
    Through April 30, 2006, the Forest Service has expended approximately
    $2.6 million in Colorado.
        Question. Forest Service Region 2, where Colorado is located, has
    more visitors to its national forests than any other region. Fully 32.5
    million people visited there last year. This is a good thing because we
    want people to come, to get out, and to enjoy the great resources that
    are our forests. What is confusing though is that while the number of
    forest visitors is the highest the recreation funding it receives is
    not. In fact when you look at recreation funding, Region 2 gets less
    funding per visitor than any other region. Could you explain to me why
    this is the case?
        Answer. The Forest Service continues to direct available resources
    towards meeting long-term strategic goals and providing increased
    support to programs that advance sustainable resource management, which
    includes providing outdoor recreational opportunities. Available
    recreation and trails program resources continue to be focused on
    efforts that maximize program delivery, emphasize delivery of services
    to the public, and strengthen partnerships which are vital to
    accomplishing stewardship work on the ground. The Rocky Mountain Region
    (Region 2) has taken several steps to reduce costs and improve the
    value of services to the taxpayer, including implementing the
    recreation sites facility master planning process, pursuing grants and
    matching funds, and actively engaging our partners in the management of
    the national forests. Given overall budgetary constraints, Region 2
    will be working with other regions to similarly improve efficiencies.
        Question. I'm interested in ways the Forest Service can reduce
    costs of management, and thereby be more efficient with the funds that
    we in Congress appropriate. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act
    contained a pre-decisional objection process and a streamlined judicial
    review process. How well are those working from the perspective of
    allowing the Forest Service to more effectively address or resolve
    conflicts, and how well are those working from the perspective of
    reducing costs?
        Answer. The project level pre-decisional objection process used for
    hazardous fuels reduction projects authorized under the provisions of
    the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 encourages upfront
    participation by the public while preserving the opportunity to
    challenge a project and influence a decision before it is made. A pre-
    decisional process serves the public by encouraging efforts to resolve
    differences collaboratively, before a decision document is signed,
    rather than by addressing issues after a decision is made. Furthermore,
    better resource decisions with fewer legal challenges could result if
    interested citizens and organizations work with the agency to resolve
    concerns before a decision is made. The Forest Service is beginning to
    monitor planning and implementation of Healthy Forests Restoration Act
    projects along with all other projects through its new Planning,
    Appeals, and Litigation System (PALS) database. Fiscal year 2005 was
    the first full year of implementation for the planning portion of this
    tracking system. As data for fiscal year 2005 are still being reviewed,
    no statistical conclusions concerning efficiency may yet be made. The
    appeals and litigation portions of this tracking system are still being
    developed.
        Question. How much does the USFS anticipate the Travel Management:
    Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use to cost to fully
    implement nationwide? Specifically, from what budgets within the USFS
    will funds be allocated in order to implement the Travel Management:
    Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use?
        Answer. The Forest Service estimates that it will spend between $15
    and $35 million per year over the next 4 years on travel planning.
    These obligations will occur within existing and available budget
    authority, so no new funding is necessary. Travel planning serves
    multiple purposes, and funding may be derived from a variety of Forest
    Service appropriations depending on the primary purposes served at the
    local level. Among the principal budget line items associated with
    travel planning are Roads, Trails, Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness,
    Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management, and Vegetation and Watershed
    Management.
        Question. Currently, how many individual forests and/or forest
    districts functionally meet the requirements of the Travel Management:
    Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use and will have to only
    take minor actions (for example provide OHV travel maps) to be in full
    compliance?
        Answer. The following units, comprising approximately 42 million
    acres, or 22 percent of the National Forest System, report that they
    already manage motor vehicles on a designated routes basis. These units
    will require relatively less in the way of new planning and decision-
    making to implement the travel management rule than those forests that
    are open to unregulated cross-country motor vehicle use.
    Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2)
        Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest--Sulphur and Canyon Lakes Ranger
    Districts and Pawnee National Grassland; Grand Mesa National Forest;
    Uncompahgre National Forest; Routt National Forest; and Shoshone
    National Forest.
    Southwestern Region (Region 3)
        Coronado National Forest; Lincoln National Forest; Prescott
    National Forest; and Tonto National Forest--Cave Creek, Globe, Mesa,
    and Tonto Basin Ranger Districts.
    Intermountain Region (Region 4)
        Boise National Forest--Lowman and Cascade Ranger Districts;
    Bridger-Teton National Forest--Pinedale Ranger District; Caribou
    National Forest; Manti-La Sal National Forest--Ferron, Monticello,
    Price, and Sanpete Ranger Districts; Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest--
    Carson Ranger District and Spring Mountains; National Recreation Area;
    Sawtooth National Forest--Sawtooth National Recreation Area; Uinta
    National Forest; and Wasatch-Cache National Forest.
    Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5)
        Los Padres National Forest; Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit;
    Sequoia National Forest--Tule River, Hot Springs, and Hume Lake Ranger
    Districts; and Stanislaus National Forest--Summit Ranger District.
    Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6)
        Umatilla National Forest--North Fork John Day, Pomeroy, and Walla
    Walla Ranger Districts.
    Southern Region (Region 8)
        Caribbean National Forest; Cherokee National Forest; Chattahoochee-
    Oconee National Forests; Daniel Boone National Forest; Francis Marion &
    Sumter National Forests; National Forests in Alabama; National Forests
    in North Carolina; Ozark-St. Francis National Forests; George
    Washington and Jefferson National Forests; Land Between the Lakes
    National Recreation Area; Caddo National Grassland; Lyndon B. Johnson
    National Grassland; Sam Houston National Forest; and Delta National
    Forest.
    Eastern Region (Region 9)
        Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests; Finger Lakes National Forest;
    Hiawatha National Forest; Hoosier National Forest; Mark Twain National
    Forest; Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie; Monongahela National
    Forest; Shawnee National Forest; Wayne National Forest; and White
    Mountain National Forest.
    Alaska Region (Region 10)
        Chugach National Forest.
        Question. We have several mills in western Colorado that
    manufacture aspen paneling and aspen excelsior. They depend on the
    national forests for aspen timber sales. We have a lot of aspen on the
    national forests in western Colorado, and it's important to manage our
    aspen stands. For some reason the Forest Service hasn't been selling as
    many aspen timber sales the last couple years. These small family owned
    businesses are on the edge of not surviving. I don't think the Forest
    Service can afford to lose any more of the forest products companies
    that help you manage the national forests. These companies are
    important to western Colorado and they're important to me. Can you tell
    me if there is sufficient funding in the proposed fiscal year 2007
    budget to fund aspen timber sales in Colorado?
        Answer. There is sufficient funding for the aspen program. There
    are three mills that primarily use aspen--Delta Timber in Delta, CO;
    Western Excelsior in Mancos, CO; and Aspen Wall Wood in Dolores, CO.
    Most of the commercial aspen the agency sells comes from the San Juan,
    White River, and Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National
    Forests.
        The aspen sold in Region 2 over the last few years has been 2.6
    MMBF in fiscal year 2005, 0.7 MMBF in fiscal year 2004, and 4.8 MMBF in
    fiscal year 2003. From those forests, we plan to offer approximately 10
    MMBF in fiscal year 2006. For fiscal years 2007-2010, our planned offer
    will vary from 5 to 9 MMBF per year, but could increase further to
    respond to the aspen mortality now occurring primarily on the San Juan
    National Forest.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

        Question. In fiscal year 2006, I continued $350,000 to fund leafy
    spurge activities on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands.
        What activities were funded? Which organizations received funding?
        Answer. The Dakota Prairie National Grassland is currently working
    on agreements with the organizations listed below to receive earmark
    funding for leafy spurge control, including herbicide treatment,
    release of biological control agents and mapping of infestations. The
    agreements are based on the available earmarked funds. The Dakota
    Prairie Grassland spends additional program dollars to inventory
    infestations, monitor prior treatments and conduct environmental
    analysis for additional treatments, but these funds are not reflected
    in the agreements or distributed to these organizations.
        Billings County; Golden Valley County; Grand River Grazing
    Association; Little Missouri Grazing Association; McKenzie County
    Grazing Association; Ransom County; Richland County; Sheyenne Valley
    Grazing Association; and Slope County.
        Question. What is the total number of acres that were treated in
    fiscal year 2006?
        Answer. Although the field work has not been completed, we expect
    accomplishments to exceed 15,000 acres in fiscal year 2006. The
    Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association alone is planning to conduct
    herbicide treatments on 13,000 acres and graze goats on an additional
    2,000 acres.
        Question. Your budget justification doesn't specify any set amount
    for leafy spurge control on the grasslands. I want to make sure this
    work is continued.
        How much funding in the President's Budget is available in total
    for leafy spurge eradication on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2007 President's Budget, relative to the
    fiscal year 2006 enacted budget, increases the Manage Noxious Weed and
    Invasive Plants activity by $1,276,000 (6 percent) and increases
    targeted outputs by 34,902 acres (43 percent). This increased program
    emphasis will provide additional funds for high priority treatments;
    however, unit-specific allocations have not been determined at this
    time.
        Question. Does your budget continue my $350,000 earmark for
    cooperative work with grazing associations and county weed boards?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2007 President's Budget does not include
    the earmark provided in fiscal year 2006. However, the unit will
    continue to work with the grazing associations and county weed boards
    to identify high priority treatment areas and to implement treatments
    through cost-effective cooperative agreements. The planned completion
    of a noxious weed treatment environmental analysis in fiscal year 2006
    will also increase the unit's flexibility to implement efficient
    treatment options, including continuation of existing partnerships.
        Question. GAO has now ruled twice that the Forest Service
    improperly awarded a $100 million contract for its National Recreation
    Reservation System and directed the agency to recompete the contract.
    This is after the agency attempted to initially sole-source the
    contract. The Forest Service has indicated that it will not abide by
    GAO's second determination, despite the fact that the Comptroller
    General again found significant errors in the contracting process and
    told the agency to recompete the contract.
        How often in the past 10 fiscal years has the U.S. Forest Service
    sought to have the Secretary of Agriculture grant a waiver under the
    Competition in Contracting Act to sole-source a contract? Please
    provide details on any such occurrences.
        Answer. The Forest Service competitively sources contracts whenever
    possible, using the Secretary's waiver under the Competition in
    Contracting Act to enable a sole-source acquisition only once in the
    last 10 fiscal years, and that was in connection with the intent to
    amend the existing national recreation reservation system contract with
    Reserve America in 2003 to provide for the addition of the National
    Park Service recreation sites to be incorporated into that contract. On
    June 24, 2003, USDA Secretary Ann Veneman approved the determination,
    in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-7, that it was
    in the public interest to modify, on a noncompetitive basis, the
    Reserve America, Inc. contract to integrate a portion of the Department
    of the Interior recreation reservation requirements with those of the
    USDA Forest Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This action
    was taken to implement direction from the OMB Director in 2002 to the
    Department Secretaries of USDA and DOI and the Director of the USACE to
    consolidate various recreation reservation systems into one system. The
    National Park Service units incorporated into the Reserve America
    contract under this action were those which were not covered under an
    existing DOI contract, and in anticipation of the award of an
    integrated national recreation reservation system contract in 2005.
    This action was challenged in the U.S. Court of Claims and was upheld.
        Question. How often in the past 10 fiscal years has the U.S. Forest
    Service failed to abide by a procurement recommendation by the GAO?
    Please provide details of any such occurrence.
        Answer. The current determination not to follow the recommendation
    of GAO concerning the protest of the award of the integrated national
    recreation reservation system contract is the only instance where the
    Forest Service has decided not to follow the recommendation of the GAO.
        Question. Mr. Rey indicated that he thought it was ``not uncommon''
    for other agencies not to follow GAO's recommendations on procurement
    cases. Please provide a list of any instances where other agencies have
    overridden GAO's recommendation on procurement cases in the last 10
    fiscal years?
        Answer. The Forest Service does not possess specific information
    regarding instances where other agencies have declined to follow GAO
    recommendations. However, it is known that there are other cases where
    Federal agencies have declined to follow GAO recommendations. Specific
    information on these cases would need to be obtained from the GAO.
        Question. Has the USDA Inspector General examined the NRRS
    contracting dispute? If not, why not?
        Answer. To our knowledge, the USDA Office of the Inspector General
    (OIG) has not reviewed, or has not otherwise been involved in review of
    the source selection process or litigation concerning award of the
    national recreation reservation system contract. The dispute and
    adjudication venues in the Federal acquisition process are well
    defined, and those venues do not include the OIG. No whistleblower
    complaint, allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse. or other allegation
    which may trigger an OIG investigation, has taken place. OIG determines
    which audits and reviews it conducts independently of the Forest
    Service, and we respectfully defer to them any questions regarding
    their work.
        Question. Your budget says the agency will have to spend $52
    million to cover the costs of pay inflation in the fiscal year 2007
    budget. That doesn't even include funding for non-pay inflation for
    things like rent and utilities.
        What is the total amount of unfunded fixed costs that will absorb
    in fiscal year 2007?
        Answer. Forest Service costs for the 2.3 percent pay increase would
    be about $52 million. In addition, non-pay costs assuming a 2.3 percent
    inflation factor would be about $41 million--for a total of $93
    million.
        Question. What is the total amount of fixed costs that you estimate
    that the Forest Service has been forced to absorb over the past five
    years?
        Answer. The cost of pay raises between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal
    year 2007 (inclusive) total $392 million. Non-pay inflation is
    estimated to be about $273 million. In order to address these costs,
    the Forest Service is currently conducting organizational efficiency
    studies and will have specific recommendations in the fiscal year 2008
    President's Budget.
        Question. Your budget claims $39 million in saving from ``program
    efficiencies'' from business restructuring and other reforms.
        How are you tracking savings to make sure they are true
    ``efficiencies'' and not cuts to programs?
        Answer. Performance Work Statements (PWS) for A-76 competitions are
    crafted to ensure the full program is included within the scope. Actual
    performance is measured against the PWS requirements.
        Cost reductions for the business process re-engineering efforts are
    tracked in the financial system against a baseline of costs included in
    the respective business case. The business cases outlined how the
    programs would be structured and implemented under a revised structure.
    Each program area has service-level agreements to help ensure the
    quantity and quality of service meets needs outlined by the agency.
        Question. Your budget contains a 30 percent cut in State fire
    assistance. States like North Dakota depend heavily on Federal
    resources to help them train and equip their fire fighters--fire
    fighters that are often first responders to thousands of fires each
    year on Federal land.
        How do you expect State and local governments make up the
    difference of these cuts?
        Answer. The Forest Service supports efforts to improve firefighting
    readiness, and recognizes the primacy of State and local governments in
    providing these essential services to their citizens. In additional to
    Forest Service financial assistance, the Forest Service will continue
    to work with local communities and the State foresters with an emphasis
    on community wildfire protection planning and coordination on FEMA
    hazard mitigation plans. Hazardous fuels treatments in the critical
    wildland-urban interface and building fire preparedness at the State
    and local level remain priorities.
        Question. Since State and local firefighters are often the first
    responders to Federal lands, are we shortchanging our own readiness?
        Answer. The implications of reduced levels of funding in State Fire
    Assistance will vary from State to State. Generally, depending on the
    capability of each State, there may be less overall funding for
    preparedness at the State and local level to provide initial attack and
    extended attack assistance to Federal firefighting resources on Federal
    fires. Depending on the funding capabilities of the States and local
    communities, hazardous fuel treatments on the State and private
    portions of the wildland-urban interface may be reduced from prior
    years. Some of that reduction may be offset by proposed increases in
    hazardous fuel accomplishments on national forest acres in the
    wildland-urban interface.
        Question. Though you list improving forest health as one of your
    top activities, your budget cuts total Forest Health grants by 23
    percent. The budget includes a $7 million cut to programs that combat
    gypsy moth infestation. You also have cuts to your gypsy moth research
    program.
        Why did you target the gypsy moth program for cuts? How many fewer
    acres will be treated with under this budget proposal, as compared to
    fiscal year 2006?
        Answer. When gypsy moths first move into an area, there are often
    significant impacts on both tree mortality and nuisance to humans.
    After many years, forests recover and introduced predators, parasites,
    and disease reduce gypsy moth population growth. The President's Budget
    redirects resources from insect suppression projects in the generally
    infested areas that have had gypsy moth for many years to projects for
    slowing the spread of the gypsy moth in the highest priority areas
    along the leading edge of the advancing infestation, as well as the
    eradication of new infestations outside the generally infested area.
    The President's budget also focuses resources on the detection and
    eradication of new invasive species such as the Sirex woodwasp, emerald
    ash borer, and others which pose serious threats to the Nation's rural
    and urban forests. Approximately 340,000 acres are planned for
    treatment to suppress, eradicate, and slow the spread of the gypsy moth
    in fiscal year 2007 compared to approximately 700,000 in fiscal year
    2006.
        Question. The Forest Service and Interior Department should be
    working together on an interagency approach to fight fires. But, it
    appears that no one is talking to each other when you plan your
    budgets. For example, you increase funding for fuels treatments by $10
    million, while DOI's is cut by the same amount; your volunteer fire
    assistance is flat, while they zero out their Rural fire program.
        Why are the Forest Service and DOI fire budgets inconsistent?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2007 budget reflects the President's
    commitment to providing the critical resources needed for our Nation's
    highest priorities: fighting the war on terror, strengthening our
    homeland defenses, and sustaining the momentum of our economic
    recovery. The fiscal year 2007 budget aligns with the national
    priorities and recognizes differences in statutory authority provided
    to the agencies by the Congress. The USDA and the DOI worked together
    closely to ensure the National Fire Plan programs would be funded at a
    level that would allow both departments to meet their planned readiness
    level.
        Question. The Interior bill limits the agency's spending on
    ``competitive sourcing and related activities.'' For fiscal year 2006,
    you have a $3 million limit. In fiscal year 2005, it was $2 million.
    You are also required to report to Congress on ``incremental costs''
    that you are spending on these programs. As far as I know, Congress
    have not received a report that details your competitive sourcing costs
    for fiscal year 2005 as called for in the law, and we have no idea what
    you plan to spend in fiscal year 2006.
        How much did your agency spend on its competitive sourcing and
    related activities in fiscal year 2005? What amount do you plan to
    spend in fiscal year 2006?
        Answer. The Competitive Sourcing Program Office (CSPO) operational
    expenses for fiscal year 2005 were $1.2 million; key activities were
    post-study reviews of the process and decisions of the Forest Service
    A-76 competitions of Region 5 privatization of fleet maintenance and
    road maintenance. Feasibility study follow-up analysis and review of
    decisions are management activities similar to those required for
    oversight of any Forest Service program of work. In fiscal year 2005,
    the communications program feasibility study was performed and there
    were no A-76 competitive sourcing studies initiated or implemented.
        As defined in Public Law 109-54, in fiscal year 2006, the total
    CSPO budget is $1,615,863 which includes $1,042,976 allocated for
    contractor support; the CSPO is funded at $572,887. As feasibility
    studies are completed, additional funding may be added to implement the
    recommendations. Total funds expended in the program in fiscal year
    2006 will not exceed the $3 million cap.
        Question. How is the agency sure you are complying with the $3
    million spending limitation for fiscal year 2006? How are you tracking
    expenses?
        Answer. In order to comply with congressional direction and to
    better manage the USDA Forest Service Competitive Sourcing Program, the
    Competitive Sourcing Program Office instituted tracking by activity of
    all resources expended by its contractor support, including A-76
    competitions, feasibility studies, and the FAIR Act Inventory. As there
    were no new A-76 competitions in fiscal year 2005 and that the costs to
    monitor post competition activity for the purposes of OMB Circular No.
    A-76, the USDA Forest Service tracking of expenditures was compliant
    with Congressional direction in its intent and effectiveness.
        Question. You list a number of ``feasibility studies'' underway or
    planned in your budget justification, but you don't say how much these
    are costing.
        How much are you spending in feasibility studies in fiscal year
    2006? How much do you propose to spend in fiscal year 2007?
        Answer. Although the process for the USDA feasibility studies has
    been prescribed by the USDA OCFO, every function and organization is
    different, and therefore predicting a total cost with any reliability
    would not be possible. As the USDA Forest Service moves forward, all
    costs will be developed and captured in a proposed action plan subject
    to leadership approval. It is estimated that from $400,000 to $700,000
    will be spent on feasibility studies during fiscal year 2006. Spending
    in fiscal year 2007 will depend on the outcome of the fiscal year 2006
    studies.
        Question. Are you counting the costs of these studies toward the
    annual spending cap?
        Answer. As stewards of America's national forests and grasslands,
    it is essential for the Forest Service to regularly assess
    organizational effectiveness to ensure that finite resources are
    optimally applied to performance of the agency mission. Feasibility
    studies are a management tool specifically designed to objectively,
    comprehensively, and transparently identify opportunities for
    improvement in agency programs that could be achieved in a variety of
    ways. Forest Service feasibility studies are completed to determine if
    competitive source competitions should be carried out and are guided by
    specific agency contractors. Feasibility study contractor costs are
    tracked by the Competitive Sourcing Program Office and are counted
    under the congressionally mandated funding cap.
        Question. You claim $20 million in savings in fiscal year 2005 from
    your competitive sourcing activities.
        How are you tracking costs to make sure you can back those savings
    up?
        Answer. Contracting officers overseeing the various contracts are
    tracking the contractual costs of activities which have been outsourced
    to the private sector. This information is clearly tracked in the
    Integrated Acquisition System. Private sector contract costs are
    tracked through the routine contractor billing payment process as would
    occur with any private sector contract. The Competitive Sourcing
    Activities Savings and Performance Update (Section 647 Report) shows
    total accrued savings. This report is completed by comparing the actual
    performance costs with the projected costs of in-house performance.
        For Letters of Obligation (LOO) that went to Government Most
    Efficient Organizations (MEOs), the MEOs (pursuant to agency policy and
    the terms of the LOO) are required to report actual costs on a
    quarterly basis. Specific job codes are used to capture these costs as
    per agency policy. To date, the Forest Service only has one MEO, the
    Information Solutions Organization (ISO).
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl

        Question. The products that come off our Nation's forest are key to
    the economy of Wisconsin. My State is one of the leader's in forest and
    paper products. I am concerned that the administration is not taking
    the forest products industry seriously by failing to adequately fund
    research into improving paper and wood products technology. Since the
    mid-1990s the funding for the Forest Products Lab (FPL) in Madison has
    failed to keep pace with inflation, and it has not risen with increased
    budgets for forest research. The research conducted at FPL is key to
    maintaining our international competitiveness in paper and construction
    materials. The administration's decision to fund the FPL at $19.365
    million this year indicates that the Forest Service does not value the
    thousands of jobs in my State that depend on a vibrant and
    technologically advanced forest products industry.
        Why has the funding for the Forest Products Lab failed to keep pace
    with the growth in the Forest Research account?
        Answer. Growing needs in fire, watershed, and invasive species
    research emerged as agency priorities during the 1990s, and as a
    result, forest products utilization research did not grow as rapidly.
    Since fiscal year 2005, Forest Inventory and Analysis has received the
    highest priority for funding, leaving non-FIA research flat to
    declining in inflation-adjusted dollars. However, the future for
    research at the Forest Products Laboratory is bright. The FPL has
    refocused its program on the key areas critical to paper and wood
    related products with significant potential spin-off benefits for air,
    water, and fire technology development as well. Research into
    nanotechnology, advanced structures, advanced composites, bio-refining
    and small diameter tree utilization positions the FPL well for re-
    emergence as the world's premier forest-based materials science
    facility. The President's fiscal year 2007 Budget provides an
    appropriate balance between Federal wood utilization research and that
    of the private sector.
        Question. Is it the administration's long-term vision that timber
    be harvested in the United States but processed elsewhere as the
    domestic industry becomes outdated?
        Answer. The administration supports sustainable forest management
    and use, as well as the need to improve the U.S. forest products
    industry through balanced public and private sector investments in
    research, new technologically advanced equipment, and up-to-date
    product processing facilities. The Forest Products Laboratory in
    Madison, WI, with funds provided by Congress, is continuing to provide
    important new technology to make the U.S. forest products industry
    globally competitive.
        Question. Why has the administration continued to underfund
    research into improved paper technology and safer, stronger, and more
    durable building materials?
        Answer. Paper and building materials technology has not been a high
    priority for Federal research in recent years. While these areas of
    research are considered important enough to continue to fund them in
    times of decreasing Federal discretionary funding, other research
    programs, such as Forest Inventory and Analysis, and fire and invasive
    species research have received focused increases.
        Question. Can we expect this funding trend to reverse itself before
    more Wisconsin jobs are lost?
        Answer. While Federal research investments can provide important
    long-term contributions to the national economy, market forces that are
    well beyond the control of the Forest Service will have a much greater
    impact on the level of private sector employment in any given State
    than a given year's modest increase or decrease of Forest Service
    research funding. Phase I of the $45 million FPL modernization
    initiative is in the fiscal year 2007 President's Budget. In addition,
    the FPL is building strong partnerships with industry in the
    development of alternative fuels that will help our Nation reduce its
    dependency on oil imports. These partnerships will certainly help build
    support internally and externally for the FPL.
        Question. How does the Forest Service intend to fund the
    implementation of the new Designated Routes and Areas off-highway
    vehicle rule?
        Answer. On November 9, 2005, the Department of Agriculture
    published a final travel management rule (36 CFR parts 212, 251, 261,
    and 295) governing the use of motor vehicles on National Forest System
    lands. The Forest Service believes that this rule represents a critical
    step in addressing unmanaged recreation, which is one of the four key
    threats to national forests and grasslands.
        The travel management rule requires each national forest to
    designate those roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use by
    vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time of year. Decisions about
    which roads, trails, and areas should be designated will be made at the
    local level, with public participation and coordination with State,
    county, and tribal governments. The agency intends to complete route
    designation within the next 4 years. On most national forests, travel
    planning will require a substantial effort, including environmental
    analysis and documentation prepared in an open, collaborative process.
        Travel management is a key agency priority, and the Forest Service
    will prioritize its work and accomplish travel planning within the
    funds available. Travel management serves multiple purposes, and
    funding may be used from a variety of Forest Service appropriations
    depending on the primary purposes served at the local level.
        Question. Clearly the President's budget recommendation would
    severely decrease funding for the relevant Trails and Recreation
    budgets. What other sources of funding have been made available for the
    planning and implementation of this rule?
        Answer. The Forest Service estimates that it will spend between $15
    and $35 million per year over the next 4 years on travel planning.
    These obligations will occur within existing and available budget
    authority, so no new funding is necessary. Travel planning serves
    multiple purposes, and funding may be derived from a variety of Forest
    Service appropriations depending on the primary purposes served at the
    local level. Among the principal budget line items associated with
    travel planning are Roads; Trails; Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness;
    Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management; and Vegetation and Watershed
    Management.
        Question. I am also concerned about the Forest Service's effort to
    competitively source some of the jobs in the Service. I am concerned
    that the Service does not adequately track whether competitively
    sourcing jobs really saves the taxpayers money in the long run.
        How does the Forest Service track whether it saves money by
    competitively sourcing jobs?
        Answer. Contracting officers overseeing the various contracts are
    tracking the contractual costs of activities which have been outsourced
    to the private sector. This information is clearly tracked in the
    Integrated Acquisition System. Private sector contract costs are
    tracked through the routine contractor billing payment process as would
    occur with any private sector contract. The Competitive Sourcing
    Activities Savings and Performance Update (Section 647 Report) shows
    total accrued savings. This report is completed by comparing the actual
    performance costs with the projected costs of in-house performance.
        Question. Does the Service has a mechanism to allow government
    employees to compete for privately sourced jobs in the future, or is
    competitive sourcing a one way street?
        Answer. If a recompetition occurs for previous competed services
    under A-76 guidance and the recompetition is under A-76 guidance, then
    the agency could form a Most Efficient Organization (MEO) to compete,
    but this has not happened in the Forest Service to date.
        Question. How does the Service decide which jobs to compete, and
    how do you ensure that decisions that are inherently governmental are
    always made by government employees?
        Answer. At the USDA Forest Service, feasibility studies are used to
    determine what, if any, functional areas are likely to produce a
    significant performance or financial return on investment if submitted
    to further management analysis. The outcomes of such studies recommend
    whether or not to pursue a Business Process Reinvention (BPR), OMB
    Circular No. A-76 competition, some other business process improvement
    technique, or maintain the current status. The USDA Forest Service
    experience has shown that comprehensive feasibility studies offer the
    opportunity to identify holistic business units and the relationships
    they have with the entire organization. By looking at those commercial
    activities not yet examined in a collective fashion rather than piece
    by piece, the USDA Forest Service hopes to identify the best
    opportunities for improvement after all factors and impacts are
    considered. The feasibility studies, therefore, will take place over
    the period of the next several years, reviewing multiple program areas.
        Inherently governmental job activities that can only be performed
    by government employees are not competed under OMB Circular A-76.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Burns. The subcommittee will stand in recess to
    reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, March 30, in room SD-124,
    Dirksen Senate Office Building. At that time we will hear
    testimony from the Honorable Lynn Scarlett, Deputy Secretary,
    Department of the Interior.
        [Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., Thursday, March 16, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday,
    March 30.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Senator Conrad Burns (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Burns, Allard, and Dorgan.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Office of the Secretary

    OPENING STATEMENT OF LYNN SCARLETT, DEPUTY SECRETARY,
                DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            THOMAS WEIMER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND
                BUDGET
            PAM HAZE, CO-DIRECTOR, BUDGET OFFICE

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

        Senator Burns. We will call the committee to order; Senator
    Dorgan may or may not show up. Depending upon what he figures
    the landscape is. I appreciate him and everything. I want to
    open up this morning, because in the Billings Gazette there's a
    story, and when I talk about public lands and why they're very
    important to us in Montana, and how they're handled and how
    they're managed, and all of this thing, one has to remember
    that the government would like to take credit for improved
    range conditions. But there was an organization that was
    started just after World War II, that was funded by the
    ranchers that had done most of the improvements on ground like
    BLM. It was called the Society for Range Management. Some of us
    will probably remember that organization and the work they did,
    conservation districts, and this type of thing, and they were
    primarily responsible for putting water in areas, where they
    had no water before, and improvements of the range and then
    they also established at that time range management studies at
    our Land grant colleges across the country. Anyway this morning
    there was a lady that had just passed away, in Garfield County.
    Garfield County is a huge county but it only has 900 hearty
    residents up there, in fact they only have one high school.
    That used to be a boarding school years ago, when you took your
    high school students to school on Monday morning you didn't see
    them until after the football game was over on Friday night.
    Now some folks would think that was a pretty good deal, but
    nonetheless when you live on ranches, you know you've got to
    have some help around, but they couldn't run buses because the
    county's so large and of course and very sparsely populated.
        But there was a lady who died she was 94 years old, in
    Garfield County, and I remember her and her mother, and even
    her father. Years ago they ranched out north of Sands Springs
    in the Missouri Breaks. When you were at the Pense Ranch you
    were outdoors. I mean it was just outside. When Mr. Pense died,
    he had a stroke, and was bedridden for 3 years. Their house had
    a dirt floor, they wet it down every morning, and swept it
    every morning, and in that huge kitchen was a big heat stove
    that sat on rocks, and a cooking range, and that was their
    heat. People say, well my gosh how cold in the winter it would
    get there, and I said well you know, basically it was warmer in
    that particular room, than in any room in any house you ever
    seen, because no cold air could get under it. Like if you had a
    floor and you had cold air under it, why your floor would get
    cold. I can remember those days as a kid on the farm. But
    basically it was very cozy and toasty, but I remember these two
    women, and how after Roy died how they carried on on that
    ranch. This is a pioneer family that is slowly slipping into
    our past, and they reach way back into the years where there
    was no electricity, there was no such thing as running water,
    or anything. They were really people of the land, and hearty
    people in a very very hard country as far as the elements were
    concerned. I don't think anybody has any appreciation; I used
    to do a lot of business with them when I was in Billings
    Livestock Commission Company, and Mrs. Pense would call you up,
    and she had lost her hearing, the mother had, and she used to
    call up and she used to just yell into the telephone, and we're
    sending you a load of cattle, when I at Billings Livestock
    Commission Company, now they couldn't ride horses, and they had
    no way, and they hired no one. So what they would do, what
    cattle they had on the ranch they would lure them into traps
    with feed, and then they'd close the gate, and call up a man
    that was in the trucking business in Jordan, Montana, and he'd
    come out, so whatever walked off of that truck was what you
    got. It was just anything and everything.
        But I just wanted to make note of that, and that it be in
    the record, because I was saddened by her passing. But 94 is a
    long life, and especially under the conditions that those folks
    live in, up on the Missouri River, that runs across the
    northern part of the State, into the Missouri Breaks, what we
    call the Missouri Breaks. You'll remember there was a movie
    with Marlon Brando that come out years ago with that name, the
    Missouri Breaks, it was a horse story. It was horses--they used
    to bring a lot of horses out from Canada, across through the
    Missouri Breaks on their way to Mile City, because Mile City,
    Fort Keogh there was a remount station for the Army.
        So the history of that country is very interesting, but I'm
    sad to see that Little Rosie has passed on, and slipped into
    the past and so it's a passing of an era that we have to live
    with in Montana. It's kind of the history of our State.
        Thank you for coming this morning, subcommittee. We're to
    discuss the Interior's fiscal year 2007 budget.
        I'd like to welcome our three witnesses: Lynn Scarlett,
    Deputy Secretary of the Interior, nice to have you with us this
    morning; Thomas Weimer, Assistant Secretary for Policy,
    Management, and Budget; and of course Pam Haze Co-Director of
    the Budget Office. So we welcome you here this morning.
        The request for the Department totals about $10.5 billion--
    $9.6 billion of which is under this subcommittee's
    jurisdiction, this amounts to about a 1.8 percent decrease
    compared to the fiscal year 2006. Of course there are some of
    us on the committee that have a little bit of a problem with
    that, but I think we can work through it and still stay with
    what the President wants to do. It all boils down to
    priorities, where we spend our money, where we don't spend our
    money.
        In the context of the broader budget situation and our
    emphasis on defense and homeland security this reduction may
    not sound so dramatic but as we get into the details, it's
    obvious we're going to have some issues with the Department's
    budget as we go forward. For example, after years of ramping up
    the PILT program to get closer to its authorized level, this
    budget proposes to slash it by $35 million--from $233 million
    back to $198 million. That would be the lowest level of funding
    for this program since fiscal year 2000. As a former county
    commissioner myself, I can tell you that is going in the wrong
    direction.
        There are a number of other reductions that concern me. The
    Construction accounts of the Park Service and Fish and Wildlife
    Service have been cut by $85 million and $26 million,
    respectively. Funding for Indian school construction has been
    cut by $49 million.
        In the Wildland Fire budget, the fuels reduction program is
    proposed to be cut by $8.3 million and the rural fire
    assistance program that gives grants and technical assistance
    to local firefighting departments is reduced by $10 million. I
    think that is short-sighted, and I'll tell you why these local
    departments are frequently the first ones to arrive at a fire
    and they often put them out before they turn into disasters
    that can cost tens of millions of dollars. I'm happy to see
    that some important programs in the budget are proposed to
    receive significant increases.
        For example, $26.5 million in the Bureau of Land Management
    and $11.3 million in the Minerals Management Service--both for
    the purpose of enhancing domestic oil and natural gas
    production, on and offshore. I know that the BLM has had an
    enormous increase in the number of Applications for Permits to
    Drill (APD's) over the last few years so I think it's wise that
    you've added money to address this workload. By processing more
    APD's we not only provide more oil and gas to the marketplace
    but also provide more royalties to the States and the Federal
    Treasury. I think a lot of folks don't realize how important of
    a money maker minerals management is. In fact it's about the
    only one in the Federal Government that does make money. So the
    investment there is welcomed and I think it's important.
        Other important program increases include $25.4 million for
    Indian land consolidation to reduce the growing fractionation
    of Indian interests in lands. If we don't begin to get control
    of this dramatic increase, the Federal Government will continue
    to struggle in meeting its trust responsibilities to the Indian
    community.
        Finally, the fire suppression budget is proposed to receive
    an increase of $26.3 million. While I believe it is wise to
    budget for the 10-year average for fire suppression costs as
    the Department has done, I'd like to see this number start to
    come down as we do more fuels reduction projects to reduce fire
    danger. I'd also like to hear what administrative measures you
    have put in place, or plan to put in place, to reduce our
    skyrocketing firefighting costs. I get the feeling every now
    and again that that's a cottage industry, that just--that is
    just skyrocketing out of control.
        Before I conclude my remarks, I'd like to thank the folks
    at the Department of the Interior who are helping us deal with
    a serious problem we have with wolf predation in Eastern
    Montana. Wolves have recently killed or wounded dozens of sheep
    in McCone and Garfield Counties. We just can't afford that. I
    mean when you lose 40 or 50 head of sheep you know, one wolf, I
    think there's got to be two, but I'm guessing, that's purely
    speculation, why we think we've got a big problem. In other
    words, ranching business is tough enough without taking a loss
    like that.
        I sent a letter to the Secretary asking for help in dealing
    with this problem. The Department clarified that State wildlife
    officials and affected ranchers had the authority to shoot
    those predators that are preying on livestock. I appreciate how
    quickly the Department responded to my request and how well
    your people have worked with State and local officials, as well
    as the ranching community, to address this issue. I really
    appreciate that.
        We have a busy committee schedule this morning, so I'll
    stop here and simply say thank you all for appearing here
    today. I look forward to hearing your testimony and discussing
    the Department's 2007 budget with you. Ms. Scarlett, thank you
    very much and we're looking forward to your testimony. Oh I'm
    sorry. Senator Allard, you're pretty stealthy this morning.
        Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I snuck in while you had your
    back turned.
        Senator Burns. That's the way it always happens.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

        Senator Allard. I just have a brief comment or two, first
    of all I want to thank you for holding the hearing today, Mr.
    Chairman. I am also pleased to have a chance to discuss the
    budget for the Department of the Interior, and even though
    she's not with us here today, I would also like to recognize
    Secretary Gale Norton, and her efforts at the Department and
    under her guidance, the Department has made many strides
    forward. I think she has done an exceptional job in handling an
    agency that's very important to Colorado and the Nation.
    Specifically I want to thank her for the work that she and the
    rest of the administration has done to protect State water
    rights and to foster an atmosphere of cooperation and
    impressive mandates.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I think that we're all aware that this is going to be
    another tough budget year Mr. Chairman, and that's why hearings
    such as this are so important. So I look forward to working
    with you and the rest of the committee again this year, Mr.
    Chairman, to see that worthy projects and programs continue to
    be funded in a responsible manner. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Senator Wayne Allard

        Thank you, Chairman Burns, for holding this important hearing.
    Colorado's abundance of forests make this a very significant hearing to
    me.
        Undersecretary Rey and Chief Bosworth, I thank you for your
    appearance before the subcommittee today, it is good to see both of you
    again. The role the Forest Service plays in managing our public lands
    is of particular interest to the people of Colorado.
        I hope the committee will indulge me as I am about to brag about my
    home State for a moment. I think that I am one of the luckiest people
    in Washington D.C. Not only do I get to serve the people of Colorado,
    but I am fortunate enough to have incredibly beautiful and unique lands
    in my home State. Colorado is home to 13 National Forests. This is more
    than almost any other State. These forests provide countless scenic
    vistas, unequaled hunting, fishing, and camping opportunities, and the
    Nation's most popular skiing. In fact not only does the nation's most
    visited ski resort lie in Colorado, but 3 of the top 5 most visited ski
    areas call Colorado home.
        But the importance of Colorado's forests goes far beyond
    recreational opportunities. Our National Forests are a cornerstone of
    Colorado's economy. Hunting and fishing alone contribute over $1
    billion to Colorado's economy every year, with much of this money going
    to rural communities. This and other forest related industries pump
    billions of dollars into Colorado's economy and employ one of the
    states largest segments of the workforce.
        But perhaps the most important thing is that Colorado's forests
    also contain 4 major watersheds, the Arkansas, Upper Colorado, Rio
    Grande and Missouri (or South Platte), that supply water to 19 western
    states. Colorado can truly be called the Headwaters State. With the
    obvious exception of Hawaii it is the only State where all of the
    rivers flow out of the State's borders.
        Now I have to turn to the bad news. Areas of the State continue to
    suffer from drought conditions, and the potential for catastrophic
    fires is very high again this year.
        To compound this problem Colorado currently has 1.5 million acres
    that are suffering from the effects of beetle kill.
        Timber sales are thought by many resource managers to be the single
    most effective tool available to the Forest Service to mitigate
    against--or treat during--episodes like bark beetle epidemics. But the
    Forest Service doesn't seem to be getting enough money to the national
    forests in Colorado to combat the problem. We've got a sawmill in
    Montrose that's running at half capacity and another one just across
    the State line in Saratoga, Wyoming, that's closed because they don't
    have enough timber.
        That said, I support the proposed increase in the forest products
    line item and applaud the emphasis on forest plan implementation. I
    will have a question regarding this matter when we get to that portion
    of this hearing.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

        Senator Burns. Now we'll hear from Ms. Scarlett though,
    thank you very much for coming this morning we look forward to
    your testimony.

                    SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. LYNN SCARLETT

        Ms. Scarlett. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for this opportunity to present the President's 2007
    budget for the Interior Department. I thank you for accepting
    my testimony on behalf of Secretary Gale Norton, tomorrow will
    be her last day at the Interior Department. I would also like
    to acknowledge her outstanding leadership and service to the
    American public and this Nation. As we look forward to the
    confirmation of our next Secretary of the Interior, I want you
    to know that I will do my best in the interim to guide the
    Department, fulfill its responsibilities and work with the
    Congress to serve the public.
        I have with me today, Assistant Secretary for Policy,
    Management, and Budget Tom Weimer, and also Pam Haze our Deputy
    Budget Director, who will be taking the place of John Trezise
    who announced he will be retiring after 35 years with the
    Department.
        Mr. Chairman, Interior's responsibilities are vast and
    varied. We face challenges that come with the obligation to
    provide energy, recreation opportunities, water, stewardship of
    this Nation's unique natural, cultural and historic places. We
    face the complexities of Indian Trust Management and the
    fulfillment of our Indian Trust Responsibilities.
        Our budget request for programs funded in the Interior
    Appropriations Act is $9.6 billion. This is $191 million or 1.9
    percent below the 2006 enacted level. Amidst this set of
    complex and extensive responsibilities we set several key goals
    in our budget. First, recognizing the importance of fiscal
    prudence, we are striving to restrain budget spending to help
    halve the deficit by 2009 as President Bush has pledged.
        Within these constraints we propose to fund $126 million
    for fixed cost increases which covers 70 percent of anticipated
    2007 pay raises. Second we seek to implement Energy Policy act
    provisions and help meet the energy needs of the nation. Our
    budget includes $68 million for energy programs--that is a $44
    million increase over 2006.

                                     ENERGY

        As you are aware we have seen a doubling of natural gas
    spot prices since 2004, resulting for farmers in a 100 percent
    increase in their fertilizer costs. One of the best
    opportunities in the near term to augment domestic natural gas
    supplies is on Bureau of Land Management lands. Basins in five
    western States contain an estimated 139 trillion cubic feet of
    natural gas--enough to heat 55 million homes for almost 30
    years. A $9 million increase for the Bureau of Land Management,
    coupled with improved management will enable the Bureau of Land
    Management to improve inspection and monitoring and process a
    record 12,000 applications for permits to drill, that is more
    than double the number received in 2003.

                            COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION

        Mr. Chairman, the Interior Department also holds
    significant conservation responsibilities; we propose to
    maintain a strong conservation commitment through cooperative
    conservation, placing partnerships and citizen stewardship at
    the center of our efforts. Our 2007 budget includes $322
    million for Cooperative Conservation programs. That is an
    increase of $10 million over 2006. We believe these grant
    programs are not simply nice to do, they are essential if we
    are to fulfill our endangered species act responsibilities and
    achieve the Nation's conservation goals.
        Over 80 percent of species reside on non Federal lands.
    Water flows across public and private lands, invasive weeds
    know no jurisdictional boundaries. These grants make a big
    difference, our Private Stewardship and Landowner Incentive
    grants have funded some 900 projects with 1,500 partners. We
    propose to fund these two programs at $34 million. In addition
    to joining with citizen stewards to protect wildlife and
    habitat, Interior is steward of our Nation's historic and
    cultural legacy. The 2007 budget includes $32 million for
    locally focused historic preservation and heritage tourism. We
    propose combining the Preserve America program, Save America's
    Treasures and the Heritage Partnership program under a unifying
    theme.

                            INDIAN TRUST MANAGEMENT

        A third priority is to improve Indian Trust Management and
    fulfill our trust responsibilities to Indian Country. From 2001
    to 2006, Interior will have invested $3.4 billion to manage,
    reform, and improve Indian Trust programs. This investment is
    making a difference. We re-engineered trust business practices,
    and in addition, are generating the first comprehensive rewrite
    of regulations in at least 30 years.
        The 2007 budget will invest an additional $537 million in
    trust programs. That is a net program increase of $30 million
    over the 2006 appropriation. This request includes an increase
    to reduce the backlog in probate cases, and it also increases
    our ability to make improvements in the cadastral survey of
    Indian lands. The budget includes an increase of $25 million in
    the Indian Land Consolidation program bringing the total of
    that program to $60 million.
        We are targeting that program to our most highly
    fractionated tracts at 10 specific locations. We also are
    continuing to improve our work on historical trust accounting.
    We have ample evidence that most monies collected for
    individual Indians were distributed in the correct amounts to
    the correct recipients.
        The budget requests $56 million for Historical Accounting--
    that is the same as was appropriated in 2006. The ability of a
    Tribe to contract or compact for Bureau of Indian Affairs
    operated programs is a key factor in strengthening Indian self-
    determination. Tribes indicate that lack of full funding for
    administrative and management costs is a deterrent to
    contracting.
        To address this concern the 2007 budget includes a $19
    million increase to fully fund indirect contract support costs.

                                    HAZARDS

        One additional priority merits special attention.
    Recognizing the many challenges presented by natural hazards,
    we propose to enhance hazards information, relevance, and
    dissemination. More Americans are now at risk of experiencing
    severe impacts of natural hazards than at any other time in our
    Nation's history. The budget for USGS includes a multi-hazards
    pilot initiative funded by a $2 million increase and a $4
    million redirection through workforce restructuring.

                                   LANDSAT 8

        The 2007 budget also includes a $16 million increase to
    complete the design and start work on development on the ground
    system for a new earth observing satellite, Landsat 8.
        As I conclude, let me underscore that fulfilling our
    responsibilities is not simply about more dollars, it is about
    better management.

                                   MANAGEMENT

        Management remains a major focus with significant progress.
    In the realm of information technology for example, despite
    some reports in the media, we have made major progress. We
    hired an outside entity to rate us and the results of that
    report were that our security was adequate. We are however
    continuing to work with our Inspector General to focus on
    additional priority areas of concern that he has identified.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman, Senator Dorgan and other members of this
    subcommittee I look forward to working with you and would be
    happy to answer any questions.
        Senator Burns. Thank you very much. Are you the only one
    that's going to make statements this morning?
        Ms. Scarlett. Yes.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Hon. Lynn Scarlett

        Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to discuss the fiscal year
    2007 budget for the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the
    opportunity to highlight our priorities and key goals.
        Through its multi-faceted mission and geographically dispersed
    services, Interior maintains and improves the Nation's natural and
    cultural resources, economic vitality, and community well being.
    Interior's 70,000 employees and 200,000 volunteers live and work in the
    communities, large and small, that they serve. They deliver programs
    through partnerships and cooperative relationships that engage and
    include States, Tribes, local communities, citizens, groups, and
    businesses.
        The challenges of the Interior Department cut a broad swathe, with
    their breadth indicative of the complexity and extent of Interior's
    mission. They are also indicative of Interior's presence at 2,400
    locations from which we manage one in every five acres of the United
    States.
        We face the complexity of working with seven states to manage
    Colorado River waters. We encounter the inevitable challenges of
    providing recreation opportunities, access to energy resources, and
    preservation of the Nation's unique natural, cultural and historic
    resources. We work with 561 Indian tribes. We respond to emergencies
    such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, applying the expertise of our
    incident command teams coordinated out of the National Interagency Fire
    Center. We face the challenges that come from transitioning away from
    costly, duplicative financial and business management systems that
    include over 107 real property data bases, 16 financial systems, and 27
    acquisition systems.
        Facing these challenges requires more integrated management and an
    integrated strategic plan. The plan defines four mission categories-
    resource protection, resource use, recreation, and serving communities.
    Partnerships, management excellence, and science provide the
    foundations for achieving our four mission goals and serving the public
    well.
        Using the strategic plan as a road map, the Department met or
    exceeded goals for 69 percent of its annual performance measures in
    2005. Since 2001, the Department has:
      --Completed nearly 6,000 national park facility improvements and
            maintained high park visitor satisfaction rates, according to
            surveys;
      --Helped meet the Nation's energy needs by nearly doubling annual
            energy permit processing on Federal lands;
      --Advanced cooperative conservation through Private Stewardship and
            Landowner Incentive grants that have funded 943 projects with
            1,466 partners;
      --Protected habitat on 8.8 million acres managed through
            partnerships; and
      --Improved forest health on 5.6 million acres of Interior-managed
            lands through the Healthy Forests Initiative, a 108 percent
            increase over the previous five years.
        We crafted our 2007 budget through a broad analysis of base
    programs, consideration of cost and performance information, financial
    information, staffing, and the budgetary benefits of more effective and
    efficient utilization of resources. These efforts shaped the budget by
    highlighting the effect of resource allocation decisions on strategic
    goals and identifying opportunities to realign priorities and improve
    efficiency.
        The 2007 budget seeks to maintain performance across the
    Department's strategic plan goals and improve performance in areas that
    are high-priority Administration initiatives, within the context of the
    President's commitment to reduce the deficit by more than half by 2009.
    The 2007 budget incorporates Program Assessment Rating Tool reviews and
    program evaluations that assess whether programs are well-managed and
    have clear goals.
        Although the details of the respective missions of Interior's
    bureaus and offices differ, the central focus is the same. A focus on
    excellent performance requires mission clarity, good metrics, and
    management excellence. Management excellence requires a focused
    approach to maintaining and enhancing program results, making wise
    management choices, routinely examining the effectiveness and
    efficiency of programs, finding effective means to coordinate and
    leverage resources, and continuously introducing and evaluating process
    and technology improvements.
        The 2007 budget reflects the Department's commitment to these
    management strategies and management excellence.

                                BUDGET OVERVIEW

        The 2007 budget request for current appropriations is $10.5
    billion. Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of
    existing legislation without further action by the Congress will
    provide an additional $5.6 billion, for a total 2007 Interior budget of
    $16.1 billion.
        The 2007 current appropriations request is a decrease of $392.2
    million, or 3.6 percent below the 2006 funding level. If emergency
    hurricane supplemental funding is not counted, the 2007 request is a
    decrease of $321.9 million or 2.9 percent below the 2006 level.
        For programs funded by this Subcommittee, the 2007 request includes
    $9.6 billion, a decrease of $190.9 million, or 1.9 percent from the
    2006 level, excluding the emergency hurricane supplemental.
        Receipts collected by the Department in 2007 are projected to be
    $17 billion, an increase of $99.4 million over 2006. That amount is
    $6.5 billion more than Interior's current appropriations request and
    nearly $1 billion more than the total 2007 Interior budget.

                                2005 HURRICANES

        In addition to the funds requested in the budget, on February 16,
    2006, the President sent the Congress a supplemental funding request
    for hurricane recovery. The supplemental includes $216 million for
    Interior agencies. With these funds, Interior's agencies will conduct
    clean-up and debris removal and repair and reconstruction of facilities
    at park units, refuges, and USGS science facilities. The request
    includes funds to repair levees, dikes, and water control structures
    that provide wildlife habitat and support flood control for New
    Orleans. These actions will allow us to open roads, bridges, and trails
    to the public, repair visitor centers and exhibits, and reconstruct
    water control structures to host migratory bird populations and other
    wildlife. The supplemental also includes funding for MMS to restore its
    operations in New Orleans.

                           MAINTAINING CORE PROGRAMS

        The Department manages over 500 million acres and some 40,000
    facilities at 2,400 operating locations. These responsibilities engage
    Interior as a principal manager of real property and other assets that
    require ongoing maintenance, direct services to public lands visitors,
    and ongoing activities to ensure public access, use, and enjoyment.
        In order to deliver these services, the 2007 budget includes
    funding for pay and health benefits, other nondiscretionary cost
    increases for workers, unemployment compensation payments, rental
    payments for leased space, and operation of centralized administrative
    and business systems. Providing for these costs will allow the
    Department to maintain performance across strategic goals, improve
    performance in priority areas, and effectively serve the public.
        The budget includes $125.9 million for nondiscretionary, fixed cost
    increases. Of this total, two-thirds, or $82.5 million, will cover 70
    percent of anticipated 2007 pay raises. The budget assumes a January
    2007 pay increase of 2.2 percent.
        In addition to paying for nondiscretionary fixed costs, the budget
    includes focused investments for tools to enable the department's
    employees to do their jobs more efficiently and generate long-term cost
    savings, including implementation of standardized systems and
    streamlined business practices. One of these investments is the
    Financial and Business Management System. The 2007 budget includes
    $22.2 million to continue deployment of this integrated financial and
    business management system that will facilitate the retirement of
    duplicative, outdated legacy systems.

                            PROGRAMMATIC HIGHLIGHTS

        The 2007 budget maintains and improves performance across the
    Department's strategic goals to achieve healthy lands and water,
    thriving communities, and dynamic economies throughout the Nation. Key
    goals for 2007 include:
      --Enhancing America's energy supplies through responsible energy
            development and continued implementation of the Energy Policy
            Act;
      --Building on successful partnerships across the country and
            expanding opportunities for conservation that leverage Federal
            investments;
      --Continuing to advance trust reform;
      --Coordinating existing efforts under a unified program that focuses
            on high-priority historic and cultural protection under the
            Preserve America umbrella;
      --Preventing crises and conflicts over water in the West through
            Water 2025;
      --Continuing to reduce risks to communities and the environment from
            wildland fires; and
      --Providing scientific information to advance knowledge of our
            surroundings.
        As part of the President's effort to reduce the budget deficit by
    half over five years, the 2007 budget for the Department makes
    difficult choices to terminate or reduce funding for programs that are
    less central to the Department's core missions, have ambiguous goals,
    duplicate activities of other agencies, or require a lower level of
    effort because key goals have been achieved. Terminations and
    reductions include lower priorities and earmarks enacted in 2006. For
    example, the 2007 budget reduces funding for the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund State Assistance Grant program. These grants support
    State and local parks that have alternative sources of funding through
    State revenues and bonds. In addition, a PART review found the current
    program could not adequately measure performance or demonstrate clear
    results.

                               ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

        The Department's energy programs play a critical role in providing
    access to domestic oil, gas, and other energy resources. To enhance
    domestic production, the 2007 budget proposes an increase of $43.2
    million to implement the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and continue
    progress on the President's National Energy Policy. In total, the
    budget includes $467.5 million for the Department's energy programs.
        APD Processing--In 2003, under Energy Policy and Conservation Act
    requirements, the Department issued a report identifying five basins in
    Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico as containing the
    largest onshore reserves of natural gas in the country and the second
    largest domestic resource base after the Outer Continental Shelf. These
    onshore basins contain an estimated 139 trillion cubic feet of natural
    gas, enough to heat 55 million homes for almost 30 years. These
    resources offer the best opportunity to augment domestic energy
    supplies in the short term-an important step to moderating the doubling
    we have seen in natural gas spot prices since 2005. Those price
    increases have resulted in 100 percent increases for farmer's
    fertilizer costs; over 20 percent increases in transportation costs for
    some schools; and have deterred investment by some high-paying
    manufacturers in the United States.
        Before any leasing for oil and gas production can occur on the
    public lands in these areas, the Bureau of Land Management must have a
    land-use plan in place. Beginning in 2001, with the support of
    Congress, BLM initiated the largest effort in its history to revise or
    amend all of its 162 resource management plans. Within areas designated
    in plans as appropriate for mineral development, BLM has made a
    concerted effort to bring additional oil and gas supplies to market. In
    2002, 2.1 Tcf were produced from Federal, non-Indian lands. In 2003 and
    2004, 2.2 Tcf and 3.1 Tcf, respectively, were produced from these
    lands.
        The BLM is experiencing a steady increase in the demand for
    drilling permits. In 2000, BLM received 3,977 applications for permits
    to drill. In 2005, BLM received 8,351 APDs. The bureau estimates that
    in 2006, it will receive in excess of 9,300 permit applications, more
    than double the number processed five years ago. To address this
    demand, BLM has taken steps to ensure that drilling permit applications
    are processed promptly, while at the same time ensuring that
    environmental protections are fully addressed. These measures, along
    with increased funding, have allowed BLM to make significant progress
    in acting on permit applications. In 2005, BLM processed 7,736
    applications, nearly 4,000 more than it was able to process in 2000.
        Section 365 of the Energy Policy Act established a pilot program at
    seven BLM field offices that currently handle 70 percent of the
    drilling permit application workload. The pilot program is testing new
    management strategies designed to further improve the efficiency of
    processing permit applications. The Energy Policy Act provides enhanced
    funding for the pilot offices from oil and gas rental receipts. During
    2006, with more efficient processes and authorities and funding
    provided through Section 365, BLM anticipates processing over 10,000
    permits.
        The efforts of BLM have achieved significant results. Almost 4,700
    new onshore wells were started in 2005. This level of activity is 56
    percent higher than in 2002.
        For 2007, the budget proposes an increase of $9.2 million to focus
    on the oil and gas workload in BLM's non-pilot offices, which are also
    experiencing a sharp and sustained increase in the demand for APDs.
    This increase will provide $4.3 million for drilling permit processing
    and $2.8 million for inspection and enforcement activities. It will
    also provide $2.1 million for monitoring activities. The budget also
    includes $471,000 for the Fish and Wildlife Service to increase
    consultation work with the non-pilot offices.
        With the funding proposed for 2007, we expect that BLM pilot and
    non-pilot offices will collectively be capable of processing nearly
    12,000 APDs and conducting over 26,000 inspections in 2007.
        The budget assumes continuation through 2007 of the enhanced
    funding for pilot offices from oil and gas receipts to facilitate a
    smooth transition to funding from drilling permit processing fees,
    effective September 30, 2007. Legislation to be proposed by the
    Administration will allow a rulemaking to phase in full cost recovery
    for APDs, beginning with a fee amount that will generate an estimated
    $20 million in 2008, fully replacing the amount provided by the Energy
    Policy Act.
        Alaska North Slope--The most promising area for significant long-
    term oil discoveries and dramatic gains in domestic production in the
    United States is the Alaska North Slope. The U.S. Geological Survey
    estimates a 95 percent probability that at least 5.7 billion barrels of
    technically recoverable undiscovered oil are in the ANWR coastal plain
    and five percent probability of at least 16 billion barrels. USGS
    estimates the mean or expected value is 10.36 billion barrels of
    technically recoverable undiscovered oil. At $55 a barrel, more than 90
    percent of the assessed technically recoverable resource estimate is
    thought to be economically viable. At peak production, ANWR could
    produce about one billion barrels of oil a day, about 20 percent of our
    domestic daily production and more oil than any State, including Texas
    and Louisiana.
        The 2007 budget assumes the Congress will enact legislation in 2006
    to open ANWR to energy exploration and development with a first lease
    sale held in 2008 and a second in 2010. The budget estimates that these
    two lease sales will generate a combined $8.0 billion bonus revenues,
    including $7.0 billion from the 2008 lease sale.
        The 2007 budget includes an increase of $12.4 million for BLM
    energy management activities on the Alaska North Slope. The additional
    funds will support the required environmental analyses and other
    preparatory work in advance of a first ANWR lease sale in 2008. The
    requested increase will also support BLM's leasing, inspection, and
    monitoring program in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and BLM's
    participation in the North Slope Science Initiative authorized by the
    Energy Policy Act. In addition, a significant share of the $12.4
    million increase will be used by BLM to respond to the environmental
    threat posed by abandoned legacy wells and related infrastructure on
    the North Slope.
        Outer Continental Shelf Development--Deepwater areas of the Gulf of
    Mexico currently account for 17 percent of domestic oil and six percent
    of domestic gas production. However, over the next decade, oil
    production in the Gulf is expected to increase by 43 percent and
    natural gas by 13 percent. The increase will come from deepwater and
    greater depths below the ocean floor. The 2007 budget includes an
    increase of $2.1 million for OCS development, to allow MMS to keep pace
    with the surge in exploration and development in the deepwater areas of
    the Gulf and $1.5 million for OCS environmental impact statements on
    future lease sales.
        New Innovations in Energy Development--The 2007 budget includes an
    increase of $6.5 million for MMS's new responsibilities under the
    Energy Policy Act for offshore renewable energy development. MMS will
    establish a comprehensive program for regulatory oversight of new and
    innovative renewable energy projects on the OCS, including four
    alternative energy projects for which permit applications were
    previously under review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
        Oil shale resources represent an abundant energy source that could
    contribute significantly to the Nation's domestic energy supply. Oil
    shale underlying a total area of 16,000 square miles in Colorado, Utah,
    and Wyoming represents the largest known concentration of oil shale in
    the world. This area may contain in place the equivalent of 1.2 to 2
    trillion barrels of oil, several times the proven oil reserves of Saudi
    Arabia. The budget proposes a $3.3 million increase, for a total
    program of $4.3 million, to enable BLM to accelerate implementation of
    an oil shale development program leading to a commercial leasing
    program by the end of 2008, in compliance with section 369 of the
    Energy Policy Act. This request is accompanied by $500,000 budgeted for
    USGS to determine the size, quality, and quantity of oil shale deposits
    in the United States.
        Gas hydrates, found in some of the world's most remote regions such
    as the Arctic and deepwater oceans, could dramatically alter the global
    balance of world energy supply. The estimated volume of natural gas
    occurring in hydrate form is immense, possibly exceeding the combined
    value of all other fossil fuels.
        The 2007 budget includes a $1.9 million package of increases for
    gas hydrate research and development by MMS, BLM, and USGS. This will
    fund a coordinated effort in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Slope of
    Alaska to accelerate research, resource modeling, assessment, and
    characterization of hydrates as a commercially viable source of energy.

                          PARTNERSHIPS IN CONSERVATION

        The 2007 budget proposes $2.6 billion for resource protection
    activities that improve the health of natural landscapes, sustain
    biological communities, and protect cultural and heritage resources.
    Key initiatives in resource protection include:
        Cooperative Conservation Programs--At field locations throughout
    the country, bureau employees and volunteers are learning by doing,
    working side-by-side with neighbors, and tapping into best practices
    from others working on similar issues. By working with local
    communities, Interior employees benefit from local knowledge, ideas,
    and assistance to achieve conservation results that can transcend
    jurisdictional boundaries. At the national level, conservation
    partnerships leverage resources, broaden our knowledge base, and help
    coordinate actions to achieve strategic goals. These grants are a
    central conduit for implementing the Department's ESA responsibilities,
    since over 80 percent of endangered and threatened species are found on
    non-federal lands.
        Under the broad framework of Executive Order 13352, the Chairman of
    the White House Council on Environmental Quality convened a White House
    Conference on Cooperative Conservation. The Departments of the
    Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Defense, and the Environmental
    Protection Agency co-hosted the event. On August 29-31, 2005,
    representatives from the public and private sectors convened in St.
    Louis, Missouri to discuss the advancement of this cooperative
    conservation vision. The conference emphasized the need to create a
    culture of responsibility to enhance opportunities for citizen stewards
    to work together. To improve its partnering efforts in cooperative
    conservation, the Department is developing and utilizing government
    tools that inspire and complement citizen stewardship and environmental
    entrepreneurship.
        From 2002 through 2006, Interior's conservation partnership
    programs have provided $2.1 billion. These programs leverage Federal
    funding, typically providing a non-Federal match of 50 percent or more.
    The 2007 budget includes $322.3 million to support continued
    partnership success through a suite of grant and technical assistance
    programs.
        The FWS administers natural resource grants to governmental,
    public, and private organizations, groups, and individuals that focus
    on at-risk species and their habitats. The Landowner Incentive and
    Private Stewardship programs are funded at a total of $33.8 million, an
    increase of $4.9 million from 2006. Through these programs, Interior
    employees work with States, Tribes, communities, and landowners to
    provide incentives to conserve sensitive habitats, while maintaining
    the fabric of the local communities and continuing traditional land
    management practices such as farming and ranching.
        The North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, the Cooperative
    Endangered Species Conservation Fund, and State and Tribal Wildlife
    grants program are funded at a total of $196.3 million, an increase of
    $9.4 million over 2006. This includes a $7.2 million increase for State
    and Tribal Wildlife Grants, which contains $5 million for a new
    competitive component of the program.
        Challenge cost share programs in the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
    National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management are funded at
    $20.3 million. These cost share programs give the land management
    agencies opportunities to work together and with adjacent communities,
    landowners, and other citizens to achieve common conservation goals.
    The 2007 proposal represents an increase of $1.6 million.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service budget also includes $11.8 million,
    an increase of $1.0 million, for joint ventures. The increase will
    result in a 1.1 million acre increase in the number of acres of
    landscapes and watersheds managed through partnerships and networked
    lands. The budget includes $13.0 million for the Coastal program,
    providing an increase of $604,000 for general program activities to
    address the growing demand for habitat conservation activities for FWS
    trust species. In 2007, coastal program activities will also expand to
    address the decline of aquatic habitat in areas such as the Gulf Coast,
    affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
        Sustaining Biological Communities--The Department's 2007 budget
    request includes $60.0 million for invasive species and continues the
    government-wide, performance-based crosscut budget effort that began in
    2004. The budget provides an increase of $994,000 for work in three
    priority geo-regional areas: South Florida, the Northern Great Plains,
    and the Rio Grande River Basin. The 2007 budget will focus on invasive
    species that present significant threats to ecosystem health, including
    lygodium, leafy spurge, and tamarisk.
        National Fish Habitat Initiative--The Fish and Wildlife Service has
    brought together States, Tribes, and others to develop a coordinated
    plan to implement a geographically-focused, partnership effort to
    protect, restore, and enhance aquatic habitats and reverse the decline
    of fish and aquatic species. The 2007 budget includes $3.0 million for
    the National Fish Habitat Initiative, an increase of $2.0 million. This
    effort is modeled on the North American Waterfowl Management Plan Joint
    Ventures and will harness the energies and expertise of existing
    partnerships to improve aquatic habitat health.
        Klamath River Basin--The 2007 budget includes $63.4 million for
    Klamath Basin restoration activities, a $7.8 million increase over
    2006. Through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, FWS will
    restore stream channel and riparian habitat in the Upper Klamath Basin
    partnering with local landowners, conservation organizations, and other
    Federal entities to improve habitat for species such as bull trout and
    restore lakeshore wetlands for Lost River and shortnose suckers.
        In 2007, through its Partners program, FWS will begin a new $2.0
    million Lower Klamath Basin initiative. Funding will be used to provide
    fish passage on tributaries; fencing for riparian areas along streams;
    assessment and monitoring of disease, particularly in juvenile fish;
    and restoration of stream channels from former mining excavations. The
    2007 budget also includes $3.5 million to acquire and restore
    agricultural lands adjacent to Upper Klamath Lake to provide quality
    habitat for larval and juvenile suckers and a host of native
    waterbirds, improve water quality for the lake and downstream
    anadromous fish, and increase water storage in the lake.

                                INDIAN PROGRAMS

        Trust Responsibilities--The budget provides $536.0 million to
    continue the Department's ongoing efforts to reform management of its
    fiduciary obligations to Tribes and individual Indians, to continue
    historical accounting efforts for trust funds, and to reduce the
    exponentially growing costs of maintaining fractionated interests of
    Indian lands.
        The 2007 budget continues funding for efforts initiated in 2002 to
    re-engineer trust business processes. The comprehensive changes
    underway are intended to bring about dramatic improvements in the
    management of fiduciary trust assets and better meet the needs of
    individual Indians and Tribes. A comprehensive and systematic plan
    known as the Fiduciary Trust Model is guiding reform efforts, including
    reorganization of Interior's fiduciary trust offices to improve service
    delivery and enhance accountability of trust operations. Working in
    partnership with beneficiaries to implement the FTM, Interior has
    implemented changes in operations and staffing at agencies and many
    other changes to ensure fulfillment of fiduciary trust goals and
    objectives. Implementation of integrated systems to support the FTM was
    completed at the Bureau of Indian Affairs Anadarko and Concho agencies
    in Oklahoma. These agencies now use the re-engineered trust processes
    and interfaced systems; trust data have been reconciled and validated,
    and numerous backlog cleanup projects have been completed.
        The greatest challenge facing successful fiduciary trust management
    is the fractionation, or continuing subdivision, of individual Indian
    interests in the land held in trust by the Federal government. Because
    individual Indian trust lands are subject to a permanent restriction
    against alienation, they are primarily transferred through inheritance.
    With each successive generation, individual interests in the land
    become further subdivided among heirs, each of whom holds a smaller and
    smaller interest in the land. The ownership of many disparate, small
    interests generates significant management costs, benefits no one in
    Indian Country and creates an administrative burden that drains
    resources away from other Indian programs.
        The Department currently administers and manages more than 3.2
    million undivided interests in these lands owned by 223,245 individual
    Indian owners. In many cases, the cost to account for and probate
    highly fractionated tracts far exceeds either the revenue or the value
    of the underlying property. Interior has demonstrated success over the
    past several years acquiring these highly fractionated interests
    through the Indian Land Consolidation Program. Through December 31,
    2005, the Department has acquired 202,775 fractional interests in
    individual Indian allotted lands, 100 percent ownership in 166 tracts
    with over 1,142 owners, and 100 percent ownership of interests held by
    5,253 individuals.
        The 2007 budget includes $59.5 million, an increase of $25.4
    million, to acquire additional selected highly fractioned individual
    Indian land interests. The $59.5 million will fund an acquisition
    program of about 80,000 additional fractionated interests. In order to
    maximize the effectiveness of the program, the Department is
    transitioning to a new long-term strategy for acquisition of individual
    Indian interests. The strategy will use a tiered process to select
    which interests to acquire. As of March 2005, there are 2,173 highly
    fractionated tracts owned by 98,905 individuals. A focus on these
    tracts will begin in 2006 and target 1,557 of these tracts.
        Other trust increases include $6.5 million that would streamline
    and strengthen efforts to provide cadastral surveys for Indian land
    transactions, $3.0 million to continue efforts to address the backlog
    of unresolved probate cases, and $2.0 million to provide for BIA
    technical assistance and grants to Tribes for Indian energy resource
    development.
        The 2007 budget funds historical trust accounting at $59.4 million,
    including $39.0 million for Individual Indian Money accounting and
    $17.4 million for tribal accounting.
        Strengthening Indian Self-Determination--A key factor in
    strengthening Indian self-determination and fostering strong and stable
    tribal governments is the Tribes' ability to contract or compact for
    BIA operated programs. The Indian Self-Determination Act requires BIA
    to provide tribal contractors with contract support costs, which
    include payment of indirect costs, as determined through negotiation
    between tribal representatives and Interior's National Business Center.
    Contract support funds pay a wide range of administrative and
    management costs, including finance, personnel, maintenance, insurance,
    utilities, audits, communications, and vehicle costs. Full funding of
    contract support costs encourages tribal contracting and promotes
    progress in achieving Indian self-determination. The 2007 budget
    proposes a $19.0 million increase for BIA to fully fund indirect costs
    for contracting Tribes, a total funding level of $151.6 million.
        Improving Indian Education--Rigorous educational programs help
    ensure a viable and prosperous future for tribal communities. Providing
    Indian students with a quality education prepares American Indian
    children to compete in a dynamic economy. The BIA school system
    accommodates almost 48,000 Indian children in 184 elementary and
    secondary schools and dormitories, includes two schools of higher
    education, and administers operating grants for 24 tribal colleges. The
    BIA school system has experienced significant change in recent years
    with implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. The Act
    established an Adequate Yearly Progress accountability system that
    measures student proficiency in math, reading, and language arts. BIA
    is accountable for helping schools achieve AYP targets and achieving
    AYP in all BIA funded schools is a top objective of the BIA. Student
    performance at BIA schools, while improving, remains lower than
    national averages and in the school year 2004-2005, 30 percent of BIA
    schools met the AYP measure.
        Working with Tribes, BIA developed a Program Improvement and
    Accountability Plan to improve the effectiveness of the education
    services provided in the Bureau school system. The Plan identifies six
    major objectives such as achieving AYP and the tasks to achieve the
    objectives, including hiring, training, and retaining highly qualified
    staff. The 2007 budget includes an increase of $2.5 million to realign
    education offices and meet the staffing requirements identified in the
    Plan.
        The Indian education program also includes a new initiative to
    address the needs of juveniles detained in BIA funded detention
    centers, a segment of youth that has been underserved in the
    educational system. The request of $630,000 will be used to provide
    education services to students temporarily detained in the 20 BIA
    funded juvenile detention centers.
        From 2001 through 2006, BIA received $1.6 billion for the Indian
    education program to replace 37 schools and undertake major facility
    improvement and repair projects at 45 schools. The funding has resulted
    in significant improvements, increasing the number of schools in good
    condition. In 2001, 35 percent of the BIA schools were in good or fair
    condition. After completion of work funded through 2007, approximately
    65 percent of the schools will be in good or fair condition. To
    continue improvement of facility conditions at BIA schools, the budget
    includes $157.4 million for education construction. In order to focus
    on the 27 school replacement projects funded in previous years that are
    in the design phase or under construction, the education construction
    budget reflects a reduction of $49.3 million from 2006.
        Johnson-O'Malley--The budget proposes to eliminate the $16.4
    million Johnson-O'Malley grant program. These grants, identified in the
    Tribal Priority Allocations of some Tribes, are distributed by the
    Tribes to address Indian student needs in local public schools. The
    grants duplicate similar funding made available by other Federal and
    State assistance programs. The Department of Education, for example,
    provided $115.9 million in 2006 to public schools on or near Indian
    reservations. In addition, JOM grants do not address a focused goal for
    academic achievement, and lack a means to measure and report on its
    impact to student performance. Eliminating JOM grants allows BIA to
    strengthen its commitment to the BIA school system and avoid redundant
    Federal programs.
        Law Enforcement--Indian Country comprises 56 million acres of land
    and 1.6 million people. Indian Country has less than two law
    enforcement officers per thousand people served, as compared to more
    than four officers per thousand people in comparable rural communities.
    One of the largest challenges facing the BIA law enforcement program is
    violent crime. The violent crime rate in Indian Country is twice the
    national average. The 2007 budget proposes an increase of $1.8 million
    for law enforcement in Indian Country. An additional $2.7 million is
    requested to staff newly constructed tribal detention centers that will
    be operational in 2007.

                               CULTURAL RESOURCES

        The 2007 budget supports the leading role of the National Park
    Service in the preservation of nationally significant natural and
    historical resources. Through complementary historic preservation
    programs, NPS helps to protect heritage resources through initiatives
    to inventory, manage, and preserve artifacts and monuments and
    encourages community efforts to preserve local and regional cultural
    landscapes. The BLM is also a caretaker of significant cultural
    resources, managing what is perhaps the largest and most diverse
    collection of cultural properties in North America.
        American Heritage and Preservation Partnership--Through its
    Preserve America initiative, the Administration is encouraging
    community efforts to preserve our cultural and natural heritage. The
    goals of the initiative include a greater shared knowledge about the
    Nation's past, strengthened regional identities and local pride,
    increased local participation in preserving the country's cultural and
    natural heritage assets, and support for the economic vitality of our
    communities.
        The 2007 budget request for NPS includes $32.2 million for locally
    focused historic preservation and heritage tourism programs, as part of
    the Preserve America initiative. This budget presents a more seamless
    approach to these programs by combining Preserve America grants, Save
    America's Treasures, and the Heritage Partnership program, and
    operating these programs under a unifying theme.
        Preserve America grants help States and communities preserve their
    historic resources by incorporating them into their local economies.
    The 2007 budget includes $10.0 million, an increase of $5.1 million
    above the 2006 level, for grants to help communities develop resource
    management strategies and business practices for continued preservation
    of heritage assets.
        NPS Asset Management--The NPS is responsible for maintaining over
    7,500 facilities for more than 273 million visitors annually. Over
    previous decades, a backlog of maintenance accumulated in the parks.
    Starting with the 2002 budget, the Administration has invested $4.7
    billion and undertaken nearly 6,000 facility improvements within the
    parks, resulting in improved roads and trails, rehabilitated visitor
    centers, more accessible campgrounds, stabilized historic structures,
    and visitor satisfaction rates that are high.
        Ensuring the state of disrepair experienced in the past does not
    recur requires an asset management plan that addresses all phases of an
    asset's lifecycle and encompasses the total cost of ownership for each
    asset. Effective facility management requires a comprehensive inventory
    of needs, assessment, and a facility condition assessment survey
    process, which provides the necessary information for determining
    resources that are necessary to maintain facilities and infrastructure
    in acceptable condition. At the end of 2005, NPS had performed
    comprehensive condition assessments on 57 percent of its asset
    inventory and is on track to meet its goal of completing the first
    cycle of assessments by the end of 2006. The 2007 budget continues to
    support implementation of the NPS asset management program. Total
    construction and maintenance funding is $622.8 million, a decrease of
    $80.6 million from 2006, but still above the funding levels during any
    prior Administration. This reflects a return to sustainable funding
    levels after the completion last year of a five-year surge in funding.
    The budget request focuses on protecting and maintaining existing
    assets rather than funding new construction projects.
        Cultural Resource Protection--Thousands upon thousands of cultural
    properties have been reported in surveys of BLM public lands, including
    cliff dwellings, mines, ground figures, rock art renderings, military
    outposts and homesteads, and others. These resources represent the
    tangible remains of at least 13,000 years of human adaptation to the
    lands, and span the spectrum of human experiences since people first
    set foot on the North American continent. Many of these valuable and
    irreplaceable properties and artifacts are threatened by unauthorized
    use, theft, and vandalism. The 2007 budget proposes a $3.0 million
    initiative to improve the protection, preservation, access to, and
    interpretation of these cultural resources to enhance their economic,
    scientific, cultural, and educational value to all Americans.

                                  RESOURCE USE

        The Department's strategic goal for Resource Use includes programs
    that manage natural resources to promote responsible use and sustain a
    dynamic economy. Included in the $1.5 billion supporting this goal are
    programs focused on enhancing the Nation's energy security and
    availability, increasing timber production and improving forest health,
    and maximizing water availability through improved delivery and
    efficiency of water use. In addition to the energy initiatives
    discussed above, the following are the areas of emphasis in the 2007
    budget.
        Increasing Timber Products--Working in conjunction with the U.S.
    Forest Service, Interior manages timber tracts on public lands and
    follows the goals of the Northwest Forest Plan and forest management
    plans. The 2007 BLM budget will generate increased timber production
    with a $3.0 million increase in the Oregon and California Forest
    Management program that supports the commitments of the settlement
    agreement in the lawsuit American Forest Resource Council v. Clarke.
    The additional funding will focus on implementing the Northwest Forest
    Plan under commitments of the settlement agreement, which directs BLM
    to produce the allowable sale quantity of 203 million board feet and an
    additional 100 MMBF through the thinning of late- succession reserves.
    The increase will allow BLM to ramp up to meet the commitment level of
    303 MMBF by 2009. It will result in an additional 20 MMBF of timber
    offered in 2008 and 2009, which are projected to generate $6.5 million
    in additional timber receipts.
        Payments in Lieu of Taxes--The 2007 budget proposes $198.0 million
    for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program. PILT payments are made to
    local governments in counties, townships, and other jurisdictions where
    certain Federal land is located within their boundaries based on the
    concept that local governments incur costs related to maintaining
    infrastructure on Federal lands but are unable to collect taxes on
    these lands. The budget funds $197.6 million for PILT payments and
    $400,000 for program administration. Although this is $34.5 million
    below the 2006 record high level, it is comparable to historical
    funding levels.

                                 WILDLAND FIRE

        The Department's 2007 budget for the Wildland Fire Management
    program continues implementation of the National Fire Plan and the
    President's Healthy Forests Initiative. Interior's fire bureaus,
    working collaboratively with the Forest Service, will continue meeting
    the Department's Strategic Plan goal of reducing risks to communities
    and the environment from wildland fire. Since adoption of the National
    Fire Plan, significant investments in preparedness resources have
    strengthened initial attack capability and combined with improvements
    in management and operation, have led to improved firefighting
    capability. The Department's success rate for containing wildfires at
    initial attack was 92 percent in 2000. Interior anticipates that it
    will maintain at least a 95 percent success rate in 2007. The
    Department has also made substantial progress in addressing the threat
    posed by heavy fuels buildup and over the last five years, 2001-2005,
    has treated nearly 5.6 million acres. By contrast in the five years
    preceding the National Fire Plan, Interior treated few than 2.7 million
    acres. The management and effectiveness of the hazardous fuels
    reduction program have also improved. Treatments in the wildland-urban
    interface have grown from 22 percent of acres in 2001 to nearly 44
    percent in 2006.
        In 2007, Interior will maintain its high success rate for
    containing wildfires at initial attack through more effective and
    efficient use of preparedness and suppression resources. The Department
    will also continue to strategically implement hazardous fuels reduction
    projects to reduce risks to communities and improve forest and
    rangeland health. The 2007 budget proposes $769.6 million for the
    Wildland Fire management program. This includes an increase of $26.3
    million for fire suppression operations, to reflect the ten-year
    average cost of fire suppression.
        Rural Fire Assistance--The 2007 budget for Wildland Fire continues
    partnerships with local fire departments. Interior fire agencies will
    continue efforts begun in 2006 to use $1.9 million in preparedness
    funding to provide training and personal equipment to local
    firefighters to help build a ready-reserve of local firefighters that
    can support initial and extended attack on large forest and thereby
    improve the effectiveness of Federal cooperation with local
    firefighting agencies. The $9.9 million rural fire assistance program
    is proposed for elimination as a separate funding source because the
    types of equipment and basic training needs it provides will be met
    through the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Homeland
    Security.

                               SCIENCE PRIORITIES

        Science forms the foundation of Interior's land management
    decisions and strengthens the ability of land managers to address a
    range of issues. The U.S. Geological Survey serves as the Department's
    primary source of scientific research, earth and biological sciences
    data, and geospatial information. The 2007 budget includes $944.8
    million for USGS science related initiatives to protect lives and
    resources and provide scientific leadership through improved hazards
    detection and warning, improved energy research, streamgaging, and
    participation in the Landsat Data Continuity Mission.
        Multi-Hazards Pilot--The USGS is responsible for the assessment,
    monitoring, and prediction of geologic hazards. The 2007 budget
    proposes a multi-hazards initiative aimed at merging information about
    different hazards into integrated products to support land-use
    planning, hazards mitigation, and emergency response. The pilot will be
    funded by a redirection of base resources and, in addition, the budget
    calls for an increase of $2.2 million to enhance these resources.
        Landsat Data Continuity Mission--Landsat satellites collect data
    about the Earth's land surfaces for use in wildland fire management,
    detecting and monitoring invasive plant species in remote regions,
    assessing water volume in snow pack and large western aquifers,
    assessing the stewardship of Federal grazing lands, monitoring the
    land-use and land change in remote regions, global crop monitoring, and
    global mapping. USGS and NASA are partnering to build a new landsat
    satellite set to launch in 2010. The budget requests an increase of
    $16.0 million for USGS to finish designing and begin building a ground
    system to acquire, process, archive, and distribute data from the new
    satellite.
        Streamgages--The USGS operates and maintains approximately 7,000
    streamgages that provide long-term, accurate, and objective streamflow
    and water quality information that meets the needs of many diverse
    users. The 2007 budget includes an increase of $2.3 million to allow
    USGS to continue operations at high priority Federal interest sites as
    well as increase the number of streamgages reporting real-time data on
    the Internet.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The budget plays a key role in advancing our vision of healthy
    lands, thriving communities, and dynamic economies. Behind these
    numbers lie people, places, and partnerships. Our goals become reality
    through the energy and creativity efforts of our employees, volunteers,
    and partners. They provide the foundation for achieving the goals
    highlighted in our 2007 budget. This concludes my overview of the 2007
    budget proposal for the Department of the Interior and my written
    statement. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

        Senator Burns. Okay, well we'll get into the--Senator
    Dorgan has joined us, or anything you would like to add to
    this?
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman I'm sorry I was delayed. But
    Ms. Secretary, thank you and welcome.

                           PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

        Senator Burns. We'll get underway. As I alluded in my
    opening statement Madam Secretary, that I'm concerned about the
    PILT request, in other words we're down a little bit from--all
    the way from $233 million, down to $195 million, something like
    that. That's a $40 million cut back. I want to know what your
    rationale is to cut this program.
        Ms. Scarlett. Senator, thank you very much. We certainly
    appreciate your concerns about PILT; we understand how
    important it is to local counties to have these revenues.
        I would like to underscore that the decision in this
    direction was difficult as have been our other cuts. In part it
    was made with an understanding that we do have some $4 billion
    in other kinds of payments that go to counties through sharing
    of other revenues generated from resource management. In
    addition I would like to underscore that while this is a
    reduction it still leaves the level of funding at significantly
    above where they were in the 1990s and at this difficult time
    we determined that the revenue sharing coupled with this level
    of funding would be appropriate.
        Senator Burns. Well, we're going to have a little argument
    about that. But I take I guess, I go back to my days as a
    County Commissioner, it takes as many services, and whenever
    you compare what we're paying to the country, payment in lieu
    of taxes, is 14 cents. When the private land owner is paying up
    around 6 bits, 75 cents an acre we've not caught up with what
    the private land owner pays.

                    FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

        Not even near it. So we'll have a little argument about
    this. Now, the growing costs and delays associated with
    implementing your Financial and Business Management System, the
    Department is requesting $22 million for this system in 2007
    and recently you removed the contractor that was doing the work
    because of implementation problems.
        Can you tell us, bring us up to date, the status of the
    project, and I've got a follow up question after that, or maybe
    a lot of questions with regard to that.
        Ms. Scarlett. Yes, thank you Senator. Let me remind the
    subcommittee of the reasons why we are moving forward and think
    it's imperative to do so, on this project. We inherited over
    100 different property systems, 15 financial management
    systems, and some 20 other asset management systems. They are
    antiquated, they no longer receive vendor support, and they
    don't speak to each other so we have to do manual entries. We
    have Bureau of Reclamation people with 30 passwords to get into
    systems. They enter one bit of data close, enter the same bit
    of data in a different system. That is not workable and that
    lies behind our attempt to integrate this system.
        We have made significant progress, but we did have problems
    with the vendor. We have let a new contract with IBM to be the
    integrator. I am pleased to say that we were able to make this
    choice, and separate from the previous contractor, because we
    have a very good contract management system in place.
        Rather than waiting 5 years down the road and well into the
    project we were able to identify the problems very early on,
    see that they were having difficulties in achieving the
    milestones that were set, and that caused us to steer in a
    different direction. We do have another contractor onboard. It
    is a fixed cost contract from this point forward, and I want to
    note that we have, along the way, made significant progress. We
    do have the grants portion already up and running, the
    financial portions for our Office of Surface Mining and MMS
    will be up and running in the fall. Then we have sequenced
    after that the other systems. Yes, we had a little hitch in the
    get along, but we think we are managing the program well and we
    think it is essential.
        Senator Burns. Well I would hope so. The years I spent
    chairing communications up in Commerce, and by the way we're
    marking up this morning. Anyway and how we fight for technology
    neutrality, interoperability, and to set the policies and
    everybody it seems like in the private sector does not
    experience the problems we have in Government. I've always said
    that every little jurisdiction in our Department that's out on
    the ground has a tendency to set up their own little fiefdom
    and think they know more about IT than anybody else. We've got
    to get over that some way or other. This system has got to be
    one system, it's got to be integrated, and it's got to be able
    to talk to each other. I know we threw a lot of money away,
    especially over in the BIA on that system. We just don't want
    to go down that road anymore.
        I just think it's a crime that we don't have somebody
    within the Department that doesn't recognize that. Because if
    you look at all the bad money we're throwing after good, we
    could fully fund PILT up to the authorized level. Very easily
    get that done and until we get some kind of a system down
    there. I've got some other questions, and I know we have a mark
    going on in Commerce, and I want to hold him down here as--
    there's a couple of issues I don't want him voting against up
    there. But no, Senator Dorgan thanks for coming this morning.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Let me
    just ask a number of questions. I understand that you've
    inherited this, although you've been a significant part of the
    agency. But you've inherited this role and undoubtedly the
    agency itself has inherited from the White House and the Office
    of Management and Budget a set of priorities that you are bound
    and determined to come up here and support as hard as it might
    be in some areas.

                                INDIAN EDUCATION

        But let me just--first obviously the zeroing out once again
    of funding for the United Tribes Technical College. That's an
    Indian College that benefits Senator Burns, Senator Domenici
    and myself, our constituents. It's by all accounts an
    outstanding college, and yet every single year, the
    administration zeros it out and we right the funding back in
    and it really makes no sense to me, I won't ask you why because
    I've asked the Secretary when she was here, why. I heard the
    answer but didn't understand the answer. So, but I expect once
    again we will add that funding, and I regret that you all don't
    think that a college worthy of that funding. Replacement school
    construction, I'm going to focus just a little bit on the
    Indian accounts, because I think when you take a look at the
    BIA, funding cuts here I'm troubled by them, because we really
    are short of funding. I had the GAO do an evaluation of the
    condition of BIA schools and frankly the schools are not in
    good condition.
        I was in a school BIA school a week ago today in Fort
    Yates, North Dakota. I mean we all go to these schools and
    understand the backlog and the need for construction and
    rehabilitation funding. I understand that the response by the
    agency is, reduce funding for replacement of these schools,
    reduce funding by $37 million, a 43 percent cut. The reason is
    they're focusing on building schools that have already been
    funded. But I mean you know the fact is the agency can do more
    than one thing at a time. I think it's really serious mistake
    to not continue to upgrade and fund the schools when young
    Indian children go through those classroom doors they are our
    charge and we really need to give them the kind of
    opportunities that all other children in this country have. So,
    let me mention one other thing and then ask you to respond. The
    Johnson O'Malley education grants, these are the grants, that
    among other things, help pay for tutoring, for after school
    programs, and I have visited with all of the tribes in North
    Dakota and many tribes from around the country, and zeroing out
    this program is a very serious mistake. So I guess I would ask,
    have you taken a hard look at the Johnson O'Malley program and
    what gives rise to deciding not to fund that program.
        Ms. Scarlett. Thank you Senator. Would you like me to
    comment on all three of those issues?

                                JOHNSON O'MALLEY

        Senator Dorgan. No, the first two were just rhetorical. I
    mean I understand what your comments would be about the first
    two. But just tell me about Johnson O'Malley, because I
    understand what your comments would be about the first two. But
    just tell me about Johnson O'Malley, because in the budget it
    says the elimination of the Johnson O'Malley program will allow
    the Bureau to focus on its primary mission requirement of
    providing basic education to Indian children in Bureau funded
    elementary, and secondary schools. But I go up to those
    programs, I don't see any increase, so you've cut Johnson
    O'Malley, but don't increase them in areas where you say--in
    the justification you're going to increase them.
        Ms. Scarlett. Thank you Senator, Indian education, of
    course, is a central priority. It is imperative that these
    students get this education so that they have opportunities for
    their future. Our reasons for zeroing out the Johnson O'Malley
    program are several fold. One, the program, at its funding
    level provides, based on the head count that we have for
    students that receive it, about $90 per student. Or have
    received about $90 per student. When the Johnson O'Malley was
    passed in 1934, or some seven decades ago, there was no other
    competing program of that sort. In the meanwhile, we have
    created the Department of Education and it is now funding very
    similar kinds of programs to the tune of some $667 million. We
    believe that is the appropriate place to fund these special
    programs and efforts for Indian students. We have worked very,
    very closely this past year with the Department of Education to
    jointly develop a strategic plan for our Indian schools, to
    ensure that they achieve the performance that they can and also
    with these students that are in public education programs to
    get the special assistance that they need.
        It is our work with the Department of Education and the
    focus of these funds there that has caused us to take this
    proposed action.

                              DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

        Senator Dorgan. I would just observe however, we can't find
    where that money was moved somewhere else in a corresponding
    increase in some other area. I know that's what the
    administration says, but we can't find that. Let me ask about
    the steady erosion over a long period of time now of the
    ability to fund the maintenance and the operation of parks and
    refuges and other lands. There's a lot of deferred maintenance
    as you know, and you are asked, because you don't request
    funding for salary increases that you know will exist. So
    you're asked to absorb these each year, and we have less and
    less money to provide for the basic maintenance and the basic
    operations of the park services and refuges--how long can that
    continue? We can't continue to do that forever I assume?
        Ms. Scarlett. Senator Dorgan, the operations of our land
    management agencies and their budgets is a high priority and
    this year we're proposing to fund the fixed pay cost at 70
    percent of the proposed pay increase, and 100 percent for the
    other fixed costs in terms of benefits and so forth. Last year
    we funded those park operations at 100 percent, indeed all the
    fixed costs for the Department of Interior. The 70 percent was
    proposed because we believe we can continue to make some
    management improvements that will allow us to be more efficient
    and effective in the delivery of services.
        For maintenance itself, we will have completed some 6,000
    projects in park maintenance for the Park Service over these
    last 5 years. That has had a dramatic effect. We now track and
    give a grade to the condition of our park facilities, for
    visitor service facilities, and so forth. We have brought that
    grade down to a fair or at least adequate level, and some, of
    course are in good condition and we're heading further in that
    direction. The budget does include a $10 million increase for
    cyclic maintenance because that keeps us on the track of not
    getting behind, but rather keeping ahead of the game and
    maintains the high levels of funding for the Repair and
    Rehabilitation program. I will note that the cuts in the
    construction program that you see are largely cuts in what
    would be new construction. We have maintained almost the same
    level of rehabilitation funding in the Park Service in the 2007
    budget.
        We have a chart that actually shows that.
        [The information follows:]

        Senator Dorgan. If you'll just submit that to us, that
    would be fine.
        Ms. Scarlett. That's the overall trend line, but we have
    another chart that shows----
        Senator Dorgan. Do you have a chart that shows the backlog,
    this shows the backlog funding. Is there a chart that shows the
    backlog?
        Ms. Scarlett. There's not a chart that shows the backlog
    per se. As we have gotten into trying to understand this issue.
    When we came on board we had neither an inventory of
    facilities, nor an assessment of their condition. We had what
    might be characterized as anecdotal information, on a piece by
    piece basis of some backlog. What we have done is to put in
    place an industry best practices standard, whereby we assess
    the total cost to replace facilities and then all of the repair
    needs, both backlog as well as current repairs, ongoing current
    repairs. That gives us a ratio, and gives us a grade and that's
    the grade I'm referring to when I say we're now kind of at an
    adequate level except for roads, which remains a problem.
        Senator Dorgan. Would you submit that to us, so we can
    understand what we calculate the backlog to be from those
    documents?
        Ms. Scarlett. Yes, we can do that. And we have that
    calculated for eight different kinds of facilities and it shows
    you what ones are in significantly better condition than they
    were 5 years ago.
        [The information follows:]

                          SERVICEWIDE FACILITY CONDITION INDEX (FCI) INFORMATION BY ASSET TYPE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fiscal year
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
                 Regular asset type \1\                 2003      2004     2004     2005     2005     2006     2006
                                                      baseline   target   actual   target   actual   target   actual
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Buildings.......................................      0.16     0.15     0.10     0.15     0.17     0.07  .......
    Houses..........................................      0.22     0.21     0.13     0.20     0.16     0.10  .......
    Water Treatment Facilities......................      0.17     0.16     0.08     0.16     0.12     0.04  .......
    Wastewater Treatment Facilities.................      0.23     0.21     0.17     0.20     0.17     0.07  .......
    Trails..........................................      0.17     0.16     0.36     0.16     0.27     0.28  .......
    Campgrounds.....................................      0.17     0.17     0.15     0.17     0.16     0.09  .......
    Unpaved Roads...................................      0.26     0.26     0.12     0.26     0.17     0.11  .......
    Paved (FHWA) Roads..............................  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
    Road Bridges....................................  ........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal \2\ Road Assets \3\..............      0.37     0.35     0.39     0.38     0.45     0.36  .......
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................      0.25     0.24     0.24     0.22     0.29     0.20  .......
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Regular asset types include assets that have completed condition assessments based on industry standards.
      Additional information will be developed for other assets, such as memorials or archeological sites.
    \2\ Pavement only; does not include retaining walls, parking lots, drainage structures, etc.
    \3\ Target for fiscal year 2007 revised per fiscal year 2007 PB.

        Senator Dorgan. Just for example in the Indian health
    service, it was like pulling molars to get the data from the
    Indian health service to find out how much of the needs are
    unserved. They really can't--they don't want to tell you. I
    finally found out we serve about 60-65 percent of the need,
    means 35 to 40 percent is unserved. We--you know we're actually
    rationing healthcare on reservations in contract health. We're
    actually rationing healthcare. And there are people desperately
    sick, who are not getting the healthcare because the money
    doesn't exist. So I'm always interested in what is not being
    done that must be done. That's the list I'm interested in
    evaluating in the context of what kind of funding is being
    requested.

                        ALASKA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

        One final question, what do you propose we do with the $8
    million you're asking to be used for drilling in ANWR. As you
    know the Congress has at this point decided not to proceed to
    drill in ANWR, so you've requested $8 million for that, would
    you suggest we invest that in the United Tribes Technical
    College in Bismarck, or perhaps the Indian health service--
    where would you suggest we move that?
        Ms. Scarlett. Senator, the President's budget includes
    that, because we remain hopeful that the Congress will act on
    ANWR. Of course in recent years they have not done so, but we
    remain focused because it is the largest single supply of
    fossil fuels in the United States and we are hopeful.
    Therefore, that money is proposed for studies and related
    activities that would anticipate such action by the Congress.
        Senator Dorgan. Well that's the amount above $8 million,
    you actually asked for $12.4 million which includes some
    studies, but I recognize the budget was submitted before the
    most recent action by Congress on the ANWR issue, so I wouldn't
    have expected it to have been corrected in here. But I think
    ultimately that $8 million will not be used for ANWR, so if
    you'd send to us maybe a notion of where we might invest that,
    I think we have some ideas as well.
        As I said before, I think we'd like to submit a list of
    questions. You've inherited this job, and I know you've done a
    good job over a long period of time, and we appreciate your
    willingness to come and testify. The fact is you are the
    victim; your agency and other agencies are the victim of a
    fiscal policy that is not working in my judgment. You don't
    need to hear this in another hearing from me. The fact is that
    our fiscal policy is so off course that we are doing everything
    we can to maintain the 15 percent tax rate on capital gains,
    and we're willing to cut, cut, cut on these other areas in
    order to make up for the revenue we lose on that. So I mean I
    understand you come here and you have a requirement to support
    the President's budget, I think we're short in the Indian
    Health Service, I think we're short in Indian Education, I
    think we're short in the Maintenance Accounts, for doing what
    we should do on parks and those kinds of things. But you know,
    I say that with good will. Our committee appreciates your work,
    and the work of folks in the agency who are coming with the
    budget prepared largely at the White House and the OMB. So I
    thank you very much for being here today.
        Ms. Scarlett. Thank you.
        Senator Burns. Good heavens.
        Senator Dorgan. I'm going to run up to the Commerce
    committee markup then, and see if I can get my vote in before
    you get there.

                             INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

        Senator Burns. If I can hold you another 5 minutes, I have
    no worries. No, not really. I've got a couple of problems and
    those of you who are--look at all the pencils come out behind
    you back there. We got a problem with, and this goes right down
    the road with our healthcare in Indian Country. We've got trust
    land that the ranches are in Montana, but they can't get their
    healthcare unless they go back to Fort Berthold. Now there's an
    Indian Health Service facility at Trenton North Dakota, which
    is just across the border, up in the Williston, up in that area
    and they can't go there because they live in Montana.
        Now they can't go to Fort Peck, because they are enrolled
    under Fort Berthold. Have we done anything to address that
    situation, because these folks happen to be there, they're
    entitled to their healthcare and they're living in sort of no
    man's land? Have we done anything to deal with that particular
    problem up in North East Montana? You may need some help on
    this.
        Ms. Scarlett. The Indian Health Service of course is not
    under Interior's direct responsibility, we have the education.
    So I'm happy to talk with my colleagues at Health and Human
    Services about that. It is a challenge of course; not only for
    education services, but health service as well, the wide
    distribution of these locations and trying to get services to
    people in these remote locations. Certainly for our
    responsibilities we're trying to make the appropriate services
    available.
        Senator Burns. Well, I've visited with the Directors there
    in Trenton in North Dakota, and it's just a situation where it
    seems like we could--in other words if we could move some funds
    from the Fort Berthold for their healthcare into the Fort Peck
    for the increased traffic, or requirements and get that done.
    It seems like it could be done administratively.

                              FEDERAL RECOGNITION

        Now also the delays in recognition, the process for Indian
    tribes, the Little Shell Tribe in Montana received a proposed
    favorable finding for recognition in 2000 but no progress has
    been made in intervening years finalizing the finding. I'd like
    to know the cause of the delay. These folks are without
    recognition right now, and could I get some explanation from
    the Department of Interior?
        Ms. Scarlett. Yes, thank you Senator. This is actually a
    somewhat analogous situation with the Tribe. We have been
    working with the Tribe for a number of years, and in fact the
    Tribe itself has asked for 10 different extensions as they have
    worked to acquire and assemble the information needed. It's my
    understanding that most of that information is now assembled
    and they are in the ready waiting for action mode, but still
    getting some final documentation. I would be hopeful that after
    this long saga, we would be able to bring some conclusion in
    the relatively near future.

                          MUSEUM OF THE PLAINS INDIAN

        Senator Burns. Thank you very much. Now, does this budget
    request propose to close the Museum of the Plains Indian? Now I
    think this is up at Browning, is that correct? I think it is.
    Does this budget request propose to close the Museum of the
    Plains Indian?
        Ms. Scarlett. Senator, we had over the years acquired three
    museums under our operation. The primary mission of the Indian
    Arts and Crafts Board has been to both promote Indian Crafts,
    as well as to enforce against fraud. We have been trying to
    shift resources at Indian Arts and Crafts Board to those two
    primary missions and then work with partners. Our intention
    would be not to close the museums, rather to find partners who
    would in turn operate the museums and hold those artifacts.
        We have had a number of discussions in the three locations,
    including in Montana, and in fact are looking forward to
    talking with the Tribe in Montana in the relatively near future
    to pick up those conversations.
        Senator Burns. I think this is an issue where we've got to
    sit down and have a meeting on it, and also work with the
    Blackfeet up at Browning.
        Ms. Scarlett. We would be very happy to do that.

                       APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS TO DRILL

        Senator Burns. I think we can work out our differences
    there, but we can do that at a different venue. Last fall I
    examined the oil and gas resources on our federal land. As you
    well know we were backlogged with our APDs, can you bring us up
    to date for the information of this committee I know we
    increased the $25 million for the energy related programs, can
    you bring us up to date on what we have done. I know the
    request for drilling permits has increased.
        Ms. Scarlett. Yes Senator, we have made enormous progress
    and have been able to make that progress notwithstanding
    significant increases in applications for permits to drill. As
    I noted in my testimony, we estimate a projected 12,000
    applications for permits to drill in 2007.
        We expect by the end of 2007 to actually have caught up
    with the back log. So that means that we have significantly
    increased the pace at which we are able to do these, because we
    have both a growing request and more rapid disposition of these
    applications.
        We have a graph that shows that.
        [The information follows:]

                                HAZARDOUS FUELS

        Senator Burns. Hazardous fuels I think you should stay
    after that. Now we've got a little more moisture up in our part
    of the country this year. But I want to bring up a little
    situation that is up in a wildlife game refuge, and that's the
    C.M. Russell. We've experienced some problems up there and some
    proposals have been made, and there again I think your staff
    should make note of that, that we're going to have to sit down
    and work out some of the problems on the C.M. Russell.
    Especially those people having grazing permits within inside
    that refuge, and just the overall relationship between that and
    the communities in which it's held.

                                    RS 2477

        Let's talk about RS 2477. Seems like that comes up every
    now and again, that 2477 granted rights of way across Federal
    lands for construction of public roads, it was repealed in
    1976, but significant disagreements between Utah Counties, BLM
    and wilderness advocates have continued. The 10th Circuit as
    you know ruled on the issue in 2005 in your favor. On March 22,
    Secretary Norton issued guidance to land managers to implement
    the 10th Circuit decision.
        The Department recently announced the new guidelines. Can
    you explain why the new guidelines are necessary?
        Ms. Scarlett. Yes, thank you Senator. The 10th Circuit
    Court decision essentially ruled that the Department of the
    Interior, while it can make administrative decisions with
    respect to regulating the maintenance of roads, is not in a
    position to adjudicate the actual ownership of rights of way.
        That is left to the court system. We needed to align our
    practices with that decision and essentially that means that we
    will be working with states to come up with agreements on road
    maintenance notification, so that when they're doing road
    maintenance they will notify us first. We have certain
    provisions to ensure that occurs in an appropriate fashion. In
    addition, the decision makes very clear and we make very clear
    in our guidance to the bureau that this does not apply to
    decisions about identifying new roads. As there are no new
    roads, and new construction, the decision really applies to
    allowing counties to proceed with maintenance of existing roads
    in consultation and discussion with us.
        Senator Burns. That's always been a contention, I'm glad
    the courts ruled in the way they did, but I also want the
    Department to be sensitive to those too also, because there are
    some sensitive lands in that country.

                              ABANDONED MINE LANDS

        The AML fee extension that runs out June of this year, if
    not extended what happens? What will be the effect on the
    combined benefit fund?
        Ms. Scarlett. The fee extension of course on the one hand
    pays for the abandon mines reclamation and then also on the
    combined benefits fund. When that ultimately runs out--I'm
    actually going to turn to Pam, can you answer that? I'm not
    sure what happens with the combined benefit, I know what
    happens to the abandoned mine lands.
        Ms. Haze. The Department already has been working on the
    rule-making since the fee has been extended several times; the
    rule-making is actually ready. What would happen is we would
    issue the rule that would allow us to go ahead and make the
    payment and continue to use the interest for that payment.
        Senator Burns. Without the fee being extended?
        Ms. Haze. Correct. It would allow us to set a fee at a rate
    sufficient to pay the combined benefit fund. So it would only
    collect a fee comparable to pay the fund.

                                NPS MAINTENANCE

        Senator Burns. Thank you very much. We may have to have a
    visit on that too. Who knows? Park Service maintenance I
    would--I would like to put a comment in here, we have talked to
    the folks up a glacier. The folks at Yellowstone and some other
    folks around, and we get the backlog. Some projects have not
    moved forward and have been put on a delay basis in both of
    those parks. We are finding out that the cost not only
    materials, but labor and everything else has sort of ballooned
    a little bit and took them way past what we had budgeted to
    fix, or to build the facility.
        I think what happens is, if we delay long enough then we're
    outside our budget, the budgeted dollars. Somewhere or other
    we've got to do what we should in maintenance and on our
    national parks and take care of some of this backlog is to
    initiate those contracts, rapid and get the contractor on the
    ground the way they're bid and with some realism. I know some
    of those bids they go on, and on, they don't just let the bid,
    they let the bid, they delay the bid, and pretty soon your
    costs which have a tendency to accelerate under these
    conditions that we find ourselves in a booming economy where
    our costs go up everyday. So I would just ask that you--that
    these Park Supervisors and the people who are in charge of
    that, is once they get the authorization and the dollars to
    build a facility is to let the contract. Don't fiddle around
    with it. Get it done, I'm kind of like Larry the Cable guy, Get
    her done. We'll save dollars in the long run, and I think we
    can also taking into account some of the backlog that we might
    be experiencing at this time. So I would just ask that you do
    that. Then we'll talk about some wildlife refuges in private
    conversation.

                                2005 HURRICANES

        That's just about all the questions I have I think. My
    staff gives me all these, and then I always think of something
    the night before, but I guess most of our effort in our
    wildlife refuges have been focused towards the hurricane areas
    down there, is that correct?
        Ms. Scarlett. That's correct. In the wake of the
    hurricanes, we have some 66 wildlife refuges that are along the
    Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, and Florida coasts. The
    President's supplemental budget actually has proposed $132
    million in its most recent request specifically for refuge
    debris removal and repairs that resulted from those hurricanes,
    specifically for our wildlife refuges.
        Senator Burns. I knew that you had to relocate some people
    down there, and I know you've got some requests in your
    supplemental.
        Ms. Scarlett. Our total supplemental I believe is around
    $216 million. About $58 million of that is for parks, and the
    biggest bulk, I think it might be $132 million, is for wildlife
    refuges.
        Senator Burns. Before we go to consider that I'd sure like
    to get a breakdown of those areas where we really have some
    problems, because I know we've got some people displaced, and
    had to move into new facilities, and everything. But I
    understand that you're moving back though and it's coming along
    fairly well.
        Ms. Scarlett. We are doing very well, and we have a very
    thorough list, I'm pleased to say and we can provide you that.
    We've made a lot of progress, particularly in the debris
    removal but the devastation was very extensive.
        [The information follows:]

               MMS HURRICANE RECOVERY MANDATORY FUNDING ESTIMATES
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Estimated
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    New Orleans, LA Swing Office (February/March 2006):
        Building Lease.........................................        1,600
        Furniture Lease........................................        1,000
        Utility, Security and Other Costs......................          650
    Elmwood Rebuild (March/April 2006):
        Furniture..............................................        4,500
        Utility, Security and Other Costs......................        2,300
        Design Contract........................................          955
    MMS Program Critical Needs:
        Houston Per Diem Travel (March 2006)...................        1,900
        Contract Support (March 2006)..........................        2,931
        Overtime/Salaries (January 2006).......................          800
        Emergency Preparation (March 2006).....................        1,000
        TAR/Studies (April 2006)...............................        1,300
        G&G Data Restoration (April 2006)......................        2,500
        Equip., Supplies, and Other Costs (March 2006).........          950
    Additional Funding Needs:
        Emergency Preparation Efforts..........................          250
        Technology Assessment & Research/Environmental Studies.        1,805
        G&G Data Restoration and Preservation Project..........        1,000
        Coastal Protection/Barrier Island - OCS Sand Resource          2,280
         Assessment & Evaluation Project.......................
        Post Event Coordination Efforts........................          200
        Houston Program Travel Costs...........................           10
    Repayment of Fiscal Year 2005 Funds: Bureau of Indian              3,343
     Affairs (Section 102 Money)...............................
                                                                ------------
          Revised Total, Estimated Hurricane Funding Needs.....       31,274
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                   2005 HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS--DRAFT
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                Assert     Revised
                   Storm                 OrgCode          Station            State           Timeframe                                 Project title                             No.       estimate
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rita...............................    21521  Anahuac NWR...........  TX.........  September 2005.......  Replace Damaged Metal (Butler) Mechanic Shop Building.........   10006766     $394,000
    Rita...............................    21521  Anahuac NWR...........  TX.........  .....................  Replace Damaged Metal (Butler) Vehicle Storage Building.......   10006759      160,000
    Rita...............................    21521  Anahuac NWR...........  TX.........  .....................  Replace Damaged Modular Office Building.......................   10006767      128,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Replace Metal (Butler)Shop/Service Building...................   10006854      847,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Replace McFaddin Headquarters Office..........................   10006848      399,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Rehab Clam Lake Road (FHA Rte #010)...........................   10006851      472,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Subtotal: First supplemental.  .......  ......................  ...........  .....................  ..............................................................  .........    2,400,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Rita...............................    21521  Anahuac NWR...........  TX.........  .....................  Repair Levees and replace WCS (3) East Bay Bayou (Middleton)..   10006713      933,000
    Rita...............................    21521  Anahuac NWR...........  TX.........  .....................  Replace Waterfowl Check Station on East Unit Entrance.........   10044271       80,000
    Rita...............................    21521  Anahuac NWR...........  TX.........  .....................  Replace Mobile Home (12' by 65'').............................   10006745       93,000
    Rita...............................    21521  Anahuac NWR...........  TX.........  .....................  Repair Gravel Roads (Oyster Bayou (Undershore Marsh)..........   10006826       88,000
    Rita...............................    21521  Anahuac NWR...........  TX.........  .....................  Replace 4-Strand Barbed Wire Interior Fence on Old Anahuac....   10006816      127,000
    Rita...............................    21521  Anahuac NWR...........  TX.........  .....................  Repair Levee, Oyster bayou (Deep Marsh).......................   10006823      708,000
    Rita...............................    21521  Anahuac NWR...........  TX.........  .....................  Repair Culverts at Crossroad and Westline Road................   10045627       45,000
    Rita...............................    21521  Anahuac NWR...........  TX.........  .....................  Repair East Bay Boatramp crossover culverts...................   10045551       20,000
    Rita...............................    21521  Anahuac NWR...........  TX.........  .....................  Repair Ditches, Jackson Ditch Unit............................   10006725      262,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Replace Ten Mile Cut Bridge (FHA Rte #12).....................   10006905      668,200
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair Sand Dune Structures (Beach Road)......................   10006925      500,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair O Ditch and Levee in Wild Cow Bayou Watershed..........   10006870      247,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Replace Fence, North Unit cattle pasture......................   10006849      290,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair RIPRAP/Bank Protection, ICWW...........................   10006860      400,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair Shoreline Armoring Protection on Intracoastal Waterway.   10006863      100,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair Leblanc's/GIWW Waterway Levee Road.....................   10006930      700,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Replace Fence, White's Ranch cattle pasture. Central Unit.....   10006918      370,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repalce Fence, Clam Lake Pasture Grazing Unit barrier.........   10006852       62,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair Leblanc's Reservoir Levees.............................   10006921      175,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair Perkins Levee..........................................   10006889      424,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair Clam Lake Road Shoreline Armoring......................   10006887      725,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair North Clam Lake Road Shoreline Armoring................   10006910      376,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Replace Fence, Star Lake pasture cattle barrier with gates....   10006850      362,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair Pond 11 Levee in Wild Cow Bayou Watershed..............   10006872      109,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair Middleton Levee Hunter Access Trail....................   10006922        7,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair Pond 13 Levee..........................................   10006914      226,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair 6/7 Levee Road.........................................   10006871       13,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair Pond 6 Oil Field Levee.................................   10006882       75,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair Pond 7 Oil Field Levee (east of 6/7 levee).............   10006883       91,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair White's Levee/Fuel Brake...............................   10006890      328,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair Texaco Camp Levee on White's Ranch.....................   10006898       78,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair West End Spur Levee....................................   10006900       26,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair Weather Road Oil Field Levee...........................   10006886       81,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair West Oil Field Levee (west of weather station road)....   10006884       65,000
    Rita...............................    21525  McFaddin NWR..........  TX.........  .....................  Repair South Oil Field Levee (south of headquarters)..........   10006885       31,000
    Rita...............................    20130  Regional Chief NWRS...  TX.........  .....................  Initial response and recovery.................................        N/A      756,800
    Rita...............................    21526  Texas Point NWR.......  TX.........  .....................  Repair Texas Point Levee (Cattle Walk)........................   10006933      206,000
    Rita...............................    21526  Texas Point NWR.......  TX.........  .....................  Repair Rock Weir..............................................   10039768       35,000
    Rita...............................    21526  Texas Point NWR.......  TX.........  .....................  Replace Boundary Fence, 10 miles of 4-Strand Barbed Wire......   10006932      219,000
    Rita...............................    21526  Texas Point NWR.......  TX.........  .....................  Repair N-ditch Rock Plug......................................   10044344        6,000
    Rita...............................    21526  Texas Point NWR.......  TX.........  .....................  Repar S Roadside Ditch Rock Plug..............................   10044562        6,000
    Rita...............................    21526  Texas Point NWR.......  TX.........  .....................  Repair Twin Bayou Rock Plugs..................................   10053547        6,000
    Rita...............................    21593  Trinity River NWR.....  TX.........  .....................  Replace Boundary Fence, 4-strand barbed wire (17 tracts)......   10051248      297,000
    Rita...............................    21593  Trinity River NWR.....  TX.........  .....................  Repair Dirt Roads (7 tracts)..................................   10051332       34,000
    Rita...............................    21593  Trinity River NWR.....  TX.........  .....................  Repair Culverts (12 tracts)...................................   10051333       27,000
    Rita...............................    21593  Trinity River NWR.....  TX.........  .....................  Repair Wood Frame Bunkhouse, Die Tract........................   10008098       19,000
    Rita...............................    21593  Trinity River NWR.....  TX.........  .....................  Replace Signage (50 regulatory signs).........................   10051308        3,000
    Rita...............................    21593  Trinity River NWR.....  TX.........  .....................  Remove downed trees Public Use Trails/Boardwalks (18 tracts)..   10051309       77,000
    Rita...............................    21593  Trinity River NWR.....  TX.........  .....................  Repair Public Use Parking Areas (8 tracts)....................   10051334       23,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Subtotal: Second supplemental  .......  ......................  ...........  .....................  ..............................................................  .........   10,600,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                      2005 HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                           Revised
                  Storm                  Org         Station         State      Type        Timeframe                                Project title                            Asset No.    estimate
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wilma............................   41560  Arthur R. Marshall  FL.......  NWR.....  October 2005.....  Replace Headquarters--RES complete for standard design of medium    10014603   $3,000,000
                                                Loxahatchee NWR.                                            office/VC facility. [additional funding included in 2004
                                                                                                            supplemental for this facility].
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  TVA Agreement--Repair Maxent levee system (NORTH-only) (Bayou     ..........    4,250,000
                                                                                                            Sauvage); includes damaged structures and public-use facilities
                                                                                                            (boatramps, trails, parking areas, etc.).
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Ridge Trail Boardwalk....................................    10018693      417,000
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair damage to pump station @ Bayou Thomas (Bayou Sauvage)....    10049237      210,000
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair damaged pump station @ Illegal Road (Bayou Sauvage)......    10018698      209,600
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Bayou Sauvage NWR)........    10042166       41,300
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  TVA Agreement--Repair Swamp Tour parking lot....................    10051405       32,400
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Maxent levee parking lot.................................    10051407       25,700
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair damaged water control structure (Unit 6) (Bayou Sauvage).    10049198       25,000
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair damaged water control structure (Unit 5) (Bayou Sauvage).    10049197       25,000
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair refuge interpretive signs (Bayou Sauvage NWR)............    10049262       23,900
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair entrance gates...........................................    10049245       22,000
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair gravel parking areas at 3 pumping stations (Bayou            10018686       21,500
                                                                                                            Sauvage).
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair kiosks (Bayou Sauvage NWR)...............................    10049260       20,000
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Highway 11 boat launch parking area......................    10051404       20,000
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair refuge entrance signs (Bayou Sauvage NWR)................    10049235       12,900
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Replace facilities at seaplane facility.........................    10017810      866,800
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  TVA Agreement--Repair road at visitor center/administrative         10017819      390,000
                                                NWR.                                                        headquarters Rte #010.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair boardwalk at Boy Scout Road..............................    10017821      322,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  TVA Agreement--Repair Boy Scout Road............................    10017820      218,500
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair damage to administrative building........................    10017815      211,900
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair refuge entrance and guide signs (Big Branch Marsh NWR)...    10017827      142,400
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair damage to the historic chapel............................    10017814       56,700
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair sewage treatment plant for new Administrative                10049238       44,900
                                                NWR.                                                        Headquarters Building.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  TVA Agreement--Repair Bayou Lacombe Centre equipment access road    10051413       38,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair damaged fence around maintenance facility................    10017831       36,500
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Big Branch Marsh NWR).....    10041523       35,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair culverts.................................................    10017839       23,900
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair gate at the Holy Redeemer property--2006DM...............    10017822       21,500
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair environmental education center bathrooms.................    10053210       20,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43616  Bogue Chitto NWR..  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Bogue Chitto NWR).........    10042080       35,000
    Katrina..........................   43616  Bogue Chitto NWR..  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair septic system for RV pads & shop at Lock 1 facility (Old     10039293       10,700
                                                                                                            RPI Number 24).
    Katrina..........................   43630  Bon Secour NWR....  AL.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Remove/dispose of debris........................................  ..........      400,000
    Katrina..........................   43630  Bon Secour NWR....  AL.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair destroyed dune walkover boardwalk (additional damage)....    10019068      350,000
    Katrina..........................   43556  Breton NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Breton NWR)...............    10049947       31,500
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair/Expand--Headquarters--RES pending [re-roofing contract     ..........    1,200,000
                                                NWR.                                                        awarded to ACTS].
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to maintenance building (Old RPI Number 34).......    10018819      111,800
                                                NWR.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to pole shed......................................  ..........      100,000
                                                NWR.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace (2) destroyed boats.....................................  ..........       70,000
                                                NWR.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to Security/Fire Alarm System for Office/Visitor      10038110       20,000
                                                NWR.                                                        Center. (Old RPI Number 389).
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damaged fish lab building (Old RPI Number 35)............    10018820       20,000
                                                NWR.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace destroyed entrance signs at Office/Visitor Center and       10038126       10,400
                                                NWR.                                                        wildlife drive (Cameron Prairie NWR).
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damaged radio tower. This tower is used by the refuge        10018826       10,000
                                                NWR.                                                        communication system Repeater (Old RPI Number 41).
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Cameron Prairie NWR)......    10018845        8,100
                                                NWR.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair lo-lift pump (office)--2006DM............................    10018810        7,500
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43410  Daphne Field        AL.......  ES......  August 2005......  Vegetation planting, turtle light retrofit, and predator removal         N/A       23,000
                                                Office.                                                     (Perdido Beach Mouse).
    Katrina..........................   43410  Daphne Field        AL.......  ES......  August 2005......  Repair/Install fencing, vegetation planting, boardwalk                   N/A       44,000
                                                Office.                                                     construction, turtle light retrofit, predator removal, and sea
                                                                                                            turtle protection (Baldwin County Access).
    Katrina..........................   43410  Daphne Field        AL.......  ES......  August 2005......  Repair/Install fencing, vegetation planting, compatible public           N/A       45,000
                                                Office.                                                     access, predator removal, and sea turtle protection (Fort
                                                                                                            Morgan Historic Site).
    Katrina..........................   43410  Daphne Field        AL.......  ES......  August 2005......  Repair/Install fencing, vegetation planting, boardwalk                   N/A       53,000
                                                Office.                                                     protection, reconstruction, and predator removal.
    Katrina..........................   43410  Daphne Field        AL.......  ES......  August 2005......  Repair/Install fencing, vegetation planting, boardwalk                   N/A       85,000
                                                Office.                                                     construction, predator removal, and sea turtle protection (Bon
                                                                                                            Secour).
    Katrina..........................   99487  Metairie Wildlife   LA.......  OLE.....  August 2005......  Replace damaged wildlife inspector van..........................         N/A       30,000
                                                Inspector Office.
    Katrina..........................   43555  Delta NWR.........  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair sub headquarters office building.........................    10051467    1,500,000
    Katrina..........................   43555  Delta NWR.........  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Jump Pass boat slip--2006DM..............................    10017808      152,000
    Katrina..........................   43558  Delta NWR.........  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Replace boat shed...............................................  ..........      104,600
    Katrina..........................   43555  Delta NWR.........  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair bulkhead around old boat slip............................    10017804       96,000
    Katrina..........................   43555  Delta NWR.........  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Jump Pass sheet piling boat ramp.........................    10017809       45,700
    Katrina..........................   43555  Delta NWR.........  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Delta NWR)................    10049452       34,000
    Katrina..........................   43555  Delta NWR.........  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair steel fuel tank at Delta Refuge headquarters.............    10041843       31,500
    Katrina..........................   43555  Delta NWR.........  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Replace damaged North boundary fence............................    10042059       17,700
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair 1.5 mile Pollocks Ferry Road.............................    10044392      142,500
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Goat Farm Road...........................................    10044389       95,000
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair environmental education pavillion........................    10051078       77,300
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair 0.5 mile Bayou Heron dirt road...........................    10044394       47,500
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair office water well........................................    10018924       21,500
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair well on the Bellard tract................................    10037530       21,500
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair damaged visitor pavillion................................    10051078       15,000
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair damaged boat ramp at Grand Bay...........................    10043923       15,000
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair two Bellard tract septic systems.........................    10037529       12,800
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Security fence around office compound....................    10018927       12,000
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair office septic system.....................................    10018928       10,700
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Oak Grove Trail--2006DM..................................    10044600        2,000
    Katrina..........................   43580  Hillside NWR......  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair damage to maintenance pole shed..........................    10018205       30,000
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  TVA Agreement--Restore Lacassine Pool from extensive saltwater      10018744      700,000
                                                                                                            intrusion (ascassine); includes damaged structures and public-
                                                                                                            use facilities (boatramps, trails, parking areas, etc.).
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to residence, Quarters 1, 3BR/1 Bath (Old RPI         10018701       58,500
                                                                                                            Number 1).
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to headquarters equipment pole shed (Old RPI          10018723       50,400
                                                                                                            Number 36).
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace damage to metal equipment storage building (2 Sided)....    10052275       42,000
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to residence, Quarters 2, 3BR/2BATH (Old RPI          10018702       40,000
                                                                                                            Number 2).
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to amphibious excavator (Lacassine NWR)...........  ..........       30,000
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  TVA Agreement--Modify bridge decks to Southwest Pool Spillway &     10018718       20,000
                                                                                                            Bridge--bridge inventory #43610-00023 (Old RPI Number 23).
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  TVA Agreement--Modify bridge decks to Southeast Pool Spillway &     10018717       20,000
                                                                                                            Bridge--bridge inventory #43610-00022 (Old RPI Number 22).
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  TVA Agreement--Modidy bridge decks to Northeast Pool Spillway &     10018719       20,000
                                                                                                            Bridge--bridge inventory #43610-00024 (Old RPI Number 24).
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace damaged entrance signs & posts (Lacassine NWR)..........    10018727       18,000
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Lacassine NWR)............    10018728       15,000
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair/Replace damaged Informational signs (Lacassine NWR)......    10018788        3,900
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace directional signs (Lacassine NWR).......................    10018789        3,800
    Katrina..........................   43626  Mandalay NWR......  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Mandalay NWR).............    10041510        9,500
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Replace Headquarters--RES complete for standard design of medium    10018877    2,600,000
                                                Sandhill Crane                                              office/VC facility--2006DM.
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Purchase office exhibits for replaced headquarters..............  ..........      300,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair West Perigal Road is a gravel road on the Ocean Springs      10038092      171,000
                                                Sandhill Crane                                              Unit.
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair East Perigal Road is a dirt road on the Ocean Springs        10038095      114,000
                                                Sandhill Crane                                              Unit.
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair maintenance shop facility--2006DM........................    10018876      100,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Purchase office furniture and video equipment for replaced        ..........      100,000
                                                Sandhill Crane                                              headquarters.
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair destroyed shop perimeter fencing.........................    10018887       15,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair damage to pump/well house................................    10018878       15,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair doors and siding on metal shop building (carpentry bldg.)    10018889       10,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Rita.............................   43270  Natchitoches NFH..  LA.......  NFH.....  September 2005...  Repair wind damage to residence #1..............................    10017325       18,000
    Rita.............................   43270  Natchitoches NFH..  LA.......  NFH.....  September 2005...  Repair wind damage to residence #2..............................    10017326       18,000
    Wilma............................   41580  National Key Deer   FL.......  NWR.....  October 2005.....  Replace Headquarters--RES complete for standard design of small     10014776    3,000,000
                                                Refuge.                                                     office facility.
    Katrina..........................   43620  Noxubee NWR.......  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Section Line Road E.--Noxubee County, Various Tracts,        10019029      168,000
                                                                                                            Route 108.
    Katrina..........................   43620  Noxubee NWR.......  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair 5.71 mile Dummy Line Road--Winston County, tracts 394,       10018960      132,500
                                                                                                            1863, Route 110.
    Rita.............................   42653  Red River NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to refuge office & maintenance facility...........    10046523       76,200
    Katrina..........................   40130  Regional Chief      GA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Replace equipment & office furnishing (multiple stations).......         N/A      720,000
                                                NWRS.
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR--        LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Provide security fencing/lighting for closure...................  ..........      150,000
                                                Proposed Closure.
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR--        LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to pole shed......................................  ..........      100,000
                                                Proposed Closure.
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR--        LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to boat house.....................................  ..........      100,000
                                                Proposed Closure.
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR--        LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to Oil House......................................  ..........      100,000
                                                Proposed Closure.
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR--        LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Cleanup/closure of Sabine NWR...................................  ..........       50,000
                                                Proposed Closure.
    Rita.............................   42640  St. Catherine       MS.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to crew quarters..................................    10017042       22,500
                                                Creek NWR.
    Rita.............................   42640  St. Catherine       MS.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to residence......................................    10017038        5,000
                                                Creek NWR.
    Dennis...........................   41640  St. Marks NWR.....  FL.......  NWR.....  July 2005........  TVA Agreement--Repair primary dikes/levees......................  ..........    2,000,000
    Katrina..........................   43690  Tensas River NWR..  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Replace destroyed refuge residence/quarters--RES Pending........  ..........      550,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Subtotal: First              ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........   27,600,000
           supplemental.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Wilma............................   41560  Arthur R Marshall   FL.......  NWR.....  October 2005.....  Replace destroyed Refuge entrance fee booth and self-pay kiosk      10040729       30,000
                                                Loxahatchee NWR.                                            (Old RPI Number 81).
    Wilma............................   41560  Arthur R Marshall   FL.......  NWR.....  October 2005.....  Repair flooded/damaged roadways.................................    multiple       50,000
                                                Loxahatchee NWR.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Arthur R Marshall            ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........       80,000
           Loxahatchee NWR Total.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Bayou Sauvage NWR)            10042166       58,700
                                                                                                            (additional funds).
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  TVA Agreement--Repair Maxent levee system (remaining repairs)     ..........    7,750,000
                                                                                                            (Bayou Sauvage).
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Maxent levee parking lot (additional funds)..............    10051407       24,300
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair gravel parking areas at 3 pumping stations (Bayou            10018686       18,500
                                                                                                            Sauvage) (additional funds).
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Highway 11 boat launch parking area (additional funds)...    10051404       10,000
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair refuge entrance signs (Bayou Sauvage NWR) (additional        10049235       12,100
                                                                                                            funds).
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Ridge Trail Boardwalk....................................    10018693      425,000
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair U.S. Hwy 11 in New Orleans Eastboat ramp.................    10018700      350,000
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair ADA accessible fishing pier on U.S. HWY 90 in New Orleans    10018699       30,000
                                                                                                            East.
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair security shelter and fence for pump stations three and       10053625       50,000
                                                                                                            four.
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair kiosks...................................................    10049260       40,000
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair refuge interpretive signs................................    10049262       25,000
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair entrance gates...........................................    10049245       25,000
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Replace water gauges............................................    10049261       15,000
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair the Bayou Sauvage Bikepath...............................    10018692      800,000
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  HAZMAT/Debris removal...........................................  ..........    4,000,000
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Swamp Tour parking lot...................................    10051405       32,400
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Joe Madere Marsh parking area............................    10039357       10,000
    Katrina..........................   43595  Bayou Sauvage NWR.  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Post-hurricane invasives projects...............................         N/A    1,000,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Bayou Sauvage NWR Total....  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........   14,676,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Rita.............................   43628  Bayou Teche NWR...  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Bayou Teche NWR)..........    10041538       20,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Bayou Teche NWR Total......  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........       20,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  TVA Agreement--Repair road at visitor center/administrative         10017819      155,900
                                                NWR.                                                        headquarters Rte #010 (additional funds).
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  TVA Agreement--Repair Boy Scout Road (additional funds).........    10017820      100,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Big Branch Marsh NWR)         10041523       65,000
                                                NWR.                                                        (additional funds).
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Replace facilities at seaplane facility (additional funds)......    10017810       33,200
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair kiosks at refuge office (Big Branch Marsh NWR)...........    10049450       20,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair kiosks (Big Branch Marsh NWR)............................    10017835       20,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Barringer Road parking lot...............................    10051416       20,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair maintenance shop & storage facility......................    10017817      200,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair administrative building (additional funds)...............    10017815      600,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair historic chapel (additional funds).......................    10017814      250,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Cane Bayou canoe launch..................................    10017823       60,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair picnic shelter behind White house........................    10049217       45,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair sewage treatment plant for maintenance facility..........    10017844      100,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair/Rehab landscaping & landscape of administrative            ..........      300,000
                                                NWR.                                                        headquarters.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair weather station..........................................    10050226       20,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair observation deck platform................................    10052150       20,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Urban Interface Firelines................................    10036517       20,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair 6 Boy Scout Rd waysides (metal), 12 benches (wood), 20       10017836      600,000
                                                NWR.                                                        numbered posts (wood).
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  HAZMAT/Debris removal...........................................  ..........    2,000,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Remove old pool at Holy Redeemer site...........................    10049207       35,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair water control structure at Holy Redeemer grounds.........    10049206        5,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Sapsucker Road Route #100................................    10017840      100,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Sapsucker Road gravel parking lot........................    10017842       20,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Replace Road Grader- (N6260451770627)...........................      480935      120,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43616  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Clean/remove debris/trees from roads and parking areas..........         N/A      100,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43558  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair/Replace damaged fire equipment...........................  ..........       10,000
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43616  Big Branch Marsh    LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Post-hurricane invasives projects...............................         N/A      600,000
                                                NWR.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Big Branch Marsh NWR Total.  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........    5,619,100
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43616  Bogue Chitto NWR..  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Bogue Chitto NWR)             10042080       40,000
                                                                                                            (additional funds).
    Katrina..........................   43616  Bogue Chitto NWR..  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair refuge kiosks (Bogue Chitto NWR).........................    10042232       10,000
    Katrina..........................   43616  Bogue Chitto NWR..  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair refuge kiosks............................................    10042232       20,000
    Katrina..........................   43616  Bogue Chitto NWR..  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair ADA accessible fishing piers at the Pearl River Turnaroud    10018920       50,000
    Katrina..........................   43616  Bogue Chitto NWR..  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair 120 foot radio tower at Lock 1 (Old RPI Number 18).......    10018916       10,000
    Katrina..........................   43616  Bogue Chitto NWR..  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair 8 ft. wide Honey Island Swamp Rd hiking trail (Holmes        10039187       10,000
                                                                                                            Bayou Trail) with 4 in. compacted crushed gravel.
    Katrina..........................   43616  Bogue Chitto NWR..  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Post-hurricane invasives projects...............................         N/A      400,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Bogue Chitto NWR Total.....  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      540,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Dennis...........................   43630  Bon Secour NWR....  AL.......  NWR.....  July 2005........  Repair entrance road to Sand Bayou Unit.........................    10019064      100,000
    Katrina..........................   43630  Bon Secour NWR....  AL.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Nunley bunkhouse.........................................    10010953       40,000
    Katrina..........................   43630  Bon Secour NWR....  AL.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair to office celing/AC......................................    10019060       25,000
    Katrina..........................   43630  Bon Secour NWR....  AL.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Replace damaged/destroyed signs & kiosks........................    10019088       35,000
    Katrina..........................   43630  Bon Secour NWR....  AL.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair to Gator Lake boardwalk..................................    10019057       90,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Bon Secour NWR Total.......  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      290,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43556  Breton NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Critical beach renourishment/replace sand fencing...............    10049955    2,000,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Breton NWR Total...........  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........    2,000,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Cameron Prairie NWR)          10018845      100,000
                                                NWR.                                                        (additional funds).
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to Security/Fire Alarm System for Office/Visitor      10038110       17,000
                                                NWR.                                                        Center (Old RPI Number 389) (additional funds).
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace destroyed entrance signs at Office/Visitor Center and       10038126        9,600
                                                NWR.                                                        wildlife drive (Cameron Prairie NWR) (additional funds).
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to pumphouse for lo-lift pump (office) (Old RPI       10018813       20,000
                                                NWR.                                                        Number 23).
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair/Replace damaged Boardwalk w/ observation deck at Visitor     10038120      291,000
                                                NWR.                                                        Center (Old RPI Number 392).
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  TVA/DU Agreement--Repair multiple levee systems (Cameron          ..........    5,040,000
                                                NWR.                                                        Prairie); includes damaged structures and public-use facilities
                                                                                                            (boatramps, trails, parking areas, etc.).
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to Pintail Wildlife Drive FHA Rte #010 (Old RPI       10018804      600,000
                                                NWR.                                                        Number 13).
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace destroyed radio tower (Old RPI Number 41)...............    10018826       55,000
                                                NWR.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace destroyed oil/paint storage bldg. (Old RPI Number 36)...    10018821        5,000
                                                NWR.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair Unit 6 24-inch lo-lift pump ( Old RPI Number 14).........    10018805       20,000
                                                NWR.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair Unit 1 30-inch lo-lift pump #1 ( Old RPI Number 15)......    10018806       20,000
                                                NWR.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair 20-inch lo-lift double discharge Pump (Unit 5) ( Old RPI     10018809       20,000
                                                NWR.                                                        Number 18).
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair pumphouse for 24-inch Lo-lift (office) ( Old RPI Number      10018813       20,000
                                                NWR.                                                        23).
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair multiple water control structure, Waterman screwgate and     10036540      164,000
                                                NWR.                                                        galvanized steel pipe.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair Canal Parish Drainage east ( Old RPI Number 173).........    10037827       35,000
                                                NWR.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair Canal clear marsh drain south. This canal is used to         10037812      100,000
                                                NWR.                                                        manage water levels on refuge moist soil units and is essential
                                                                                                            for acheivement of refuge water management objectives and moist
                                                                                                            soil unit gravity drainage. ( Old RPI Number 160).
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair Canal Graingerville drainage west (Old RPI Number 180)...    10037834      100,000
                                                NWR.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair Canal Outfall ( Old RPI Number 205)......................    10037859      100,000
                                                NWR.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair Canal Unit 8 North (Old RPI Number 206)..................    10037860      200,000
                                                NWR.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair Canal Unit 8 West ( Old RPI Number 208)..................    10037862      200,000
                                                NWR.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair Canal Main Parish Drainage (Old RPI Number 222)..........    10037876    1,100,000
                                                NWR.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair Water Control Structure, Visitor Center Pond ( Old RPI       10043905       20,000
                                                NWR.                                                        Number 403).
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace Cummings diesel power unit (s/n 46170208 Unit 6) ( Old      10043906       20,000
                                                NWR.                                                        RPI Number 404).
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace Duetz power unit (Office, Model C110HP3-PD9, S/N 3-3 -      10043920       20,000
                                                NWR.                                                        88) ( Old RPI Number 405).
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair Pumping station, Unit 1&2. Property includes 3 concrete      10054735        5,000
                                                NWR.                                                        pads and 2 pumphouses.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair parking area. ( Old RPI Number 11).......................    10018802      200,000
                                                NWR.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair West Cameron Prairie Road FHA Rte #100 ( Old RPI Number      10018814      750,000
                                                NWR.                                                        24).
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair Bankfishing Road FHA Rte #101 ( Old RPI Number 25).......    10018815      350,000
                                                NWR.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair road by old office access ( Old RPI Number 382)..........    10038073       60,000
                                                NWR.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair road by Claude's house ( Old RPI Number 383).............    10038074      200,000
                                                NWR.
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair Office/Visitor Center Parking lot Rte #900 ( Old RPI         10038104      100,000
                                                NWR.                                                        Number 386).
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair parking area, Bankfishing Road, FHA Rte. #902. ( Old RPI     10049751      150,000
                                                NWR.                                                        Number 423).
    Rita.............................   43612  Cameron Prairie     LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace for damaged/destroyed vehicles..........................  ..........       75,000
                                                NWR.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Cameron Prairie NWR Total..  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........   10,166,600
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Dennis...........................   41210  Chattahoochee       GA.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Downed tree and debris removal (1st push & pull)................         n/a        5,000
                                                Forest NFH.
    Dennis...........................   41210  Chattahoochee       GA.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Repair damage to entrance roadway...............................    10014132       35,000
                                                Forest NFH.
    Dennis...........................   41210  Chattahoochee       GA.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Repair erosion/undermining of Bridge #1 (parking lot)...........    10014107       60,000
                                                Forest NFH.
    Dennis...........................   41210  Chattahoochee       GA.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Repair erosion/undermining of Bridge #2 (quarters)..............    10014089       60,000
                                                Forest NFH.
    Dennis...........................   41210  Chattahoochee       GA.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Repair erosion/undermining of Bridge #3 (hatchery intake).......    10014129       80,000
                                                Forest NFH.
    Dennis...........................   41210  Chattahoochee       GA.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Repair damage to wing-wall & rip-rap Rock/Mill Creeks...........    10044349       50,000
                                                Forest NFH.
    Dennis...........................   41210  Chattahoochee       GA.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Repair retaining wall at Rock/Mill Creeks.......................    10014133      100,000
                                                Forest NFH.
    Dennis...........................   41210  Chattahoochee       GA.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Replace destroyed domestic well & distribution lines............    10014096      135,000
                                                Forest NFH.
    Dennis...........................   41210  Chattahoochee       GA.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Repair water damage to Education Center.........................    10014099       25,000
                                                Forest NFH.
    Dennis...........................   41210  Chattahoochee       GA.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Repair water damage to Residence (#13)..........................    10014098       20,000
                                                Forest NFH.
    Dennis...........................   41210  Chattahoochee       GA.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Repair water damage to Residence (#20)..........................    10014104       20,000
                                                Forest NFH.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Chattahoochee Forest NFH     ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      590,000
           Total.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43535  Choctaw NWR.......  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Clean/remove debris/trees from roads and parking areas..........         N/A      120,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Choctaw NWR Total..........  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      120,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43676  Coldwater NWR.....  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair County Line Road.........................................    10044790       50,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Coldwater NWR Total........  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........       50,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Wilma............................   41581  Crocodile Lake NWR  FL.......  NWR.....  October 2005.....  Repair flooded/damaged roadways.................................    multiple       30,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Crocodile Lake NWR Total...  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........       30,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43635  Dahomey NWR.......  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Headquarters Road........................................    10045052      125,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Dahomey NWR Total..........  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      125,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43555  Delta NWR.........  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair sub headquarters office building (additional funds)......    10051467      750,000
    Katrina..........................   43555  Delta NWR.........  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Delta NWR) (additional        10049452       66,000
                                                                                                            funds).
    Katrina..........................   43555  Delta NWR.........  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Replace damaged North boundary fence (additional funds).........    10042059       19,300
    Katrina..........................   43555  Delta NWR.........  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair damaged kiosk............................................    10051177       20,000
    Katrina..........................   43555  Delta NWR.........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  HAZMAT/Debris removal...........................................  ..........    2,000,000
    Katrina..........................   43555  Delta NWR.........  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Protect crevaces with dredging, sedimant transport, engineered           N/A    2,000,000
                                                                                                            structures, and vegetative planting.
    Katrina..........................   43555  Delta NWR.........  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Provide critical data management and GIS functions to support            N/A      225,000
                                                                                                            planning, habitat/species inventories, monitoring, and habitat
                                                                                                            management.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Delta NWR Total............  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........    5,080,300
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Wilma............................   41545  Florida Panther     FL.......  NWR.....  October 2005.....  Repair damaged roof on garage, storage building & maintenance       10014533       50,000
                                                NWR.                                                        shop; Plywood and metal roof (Old RPI Number 5).
    Wilma............................   41545  Florida Panther     FL.......  NWR.....  October 2005.....  Repair flooded/damaged roadways.................................    multiple      500,000
                                                NWR.
    Wilma............................   41545  Florida Panther     FL.......  NWR.....  October 2005.....  Downed tree and debris removal (1st push & pull)................         n/a       70,000
                                                NWR.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Florida Panther NWR Total..  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      620,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  AL.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair environmental education pavillion........................    10051078      100,000
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  AL.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Replace destroyed Ledlow bunkhouse..............................    10018921      750,000
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  AL.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair concrete boat launching ramps............................    10049797       75,000
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  AL.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair damaged visitor pavillion................................    10051078       30,000
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  AL.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair ADA-accessible fishing/observation pier..................    10049802       75,000
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  AL.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair damaged boat ramp at Grand Bay...........................    10043923       30,000
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  AL.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Clyde Brown boat ramp....................................    10043923       60,000
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  AL.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair well on the Bellard tract................................    10037530       45,000
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  AL.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair office water well........................................    10018924       45,000
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  AL.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair wooden pier/dock.........................................    10049801       20,000
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  AL.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair two Bellard tract septic systems.........................    10037529       20,000
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  AL.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Security fence around office compound....................    10018927       20,000
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  AL.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair office septic system.....................................    10018928       20,000
    Katrina..........................   43617  Grand Bay NWR.....  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair 2000ft of paved section of trail loops...................    10049944        5,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Grand Bay NWR Total........  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........    1,295,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Wilma............................   41582  Great White Heron   FL.......  NWR.....  October 2005.....  Repair/Replace destroyed boundary markers/buoys.................         n/a      100,000
                                                NWR.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Great White Heron NWR Total  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      100,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43580  Hillside NWR......  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Open Pole Shed...........................................    10018205       10,000
    Katrina..........................   43580  Hillside NWR......  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair AP Slough Shed...........................................    10018191      100,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Hillside NWR Total.........  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      110,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Wilma............................   41561  Hobe Sound NWR....  FL.......  NWR.....  October 2005.....  Repair beach access boardwalk...................................    10014649       75,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Hobe Sound NWR Total.......  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........       75,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Wilma............................   41583  Key West NWR......  FL.......  NWR.....  October 2005.....  Repair/Replace destroyed boundary markers/buoys.................         n/a       75,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Key West NWR Total.........  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........       75,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to residence, Quarters 1, 3BR/1 Bath (Old RPI         10018701       16,500
                                                                                                            Number 1) (additional funds).
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair/Install hurricane protection shutters on multiple          ..........      125,000
                                                                                                            structures.
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace damage to metal equipment storage building (2 Sided)        10052275       33,000
                                                                                                            (additional funds).
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to residence, Quarters 2, 3BR/2BATH (Old RPI          10018702       10,000
                                                                                                            Number 2) (additional funds).
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  TVA Agreement--Restore Lacassine Pool from extensive saltwater      10018744      800,000
                                                                                                            intrusion (Lacassine); includes damaged structures and public-
                                                                                                            use facilities (boatramps, trails, parking areas, etc.)
                                                                                                            (additional funds).
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  TVA Agreement--Modify bridge decks to Southwest Pool Spillway &     10018718      165,000
                                                                                                            Bridge (additional funds).
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Lacassine NWR) (additional    10018728       85,000
                                                                                                            funds).
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair/Replace damaged interpretative panels for Wildlife Drive.    10044644       20,000
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair Unit A Pumping Plant. Permanently installed water pumping    10018731      100,000
                                                                                                            station (Old RPI Number 45).
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair Unit C Pumping Plant, permanently installed water pumping    10018737       35,000
                                                                                                            station (Old RPI Number 63).
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair Northeast Pool perimeter levee. Raised ridge of soil used    10018780    1,100,000
                                                                                                            to retain & control the flow of water. Section 16 to boundry
                                                                                                            (Old RPI Number 116).
    Rita.............................   43610  Lacassine NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Unit A shell road. (Old RPI Number 21)..........................    10018716       40,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Lacassine NWR Total........  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........    2,529,500
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Rita.............................   43440  Lafayette ES        LA.......  ES......  September 2005...  Emergency surveys on T&Es species, contaminants, and habitat             N/A      500,000
                                                Office.                                                     stabilization.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Lafayette ES Office Total..  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      500,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43440  Lafayette Field     LA.......  ES......  August 2005......  Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered red-cockaded            N/A        5,000
                                                Office.                                                     woodpecker (repair cavity trees).
    Katrina..........................   43440  Lafayette Field     LA.......  ES......  August 2005......  Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered lichen                  N/A       20,000
                                                Office.                                                     populations (C. perforata).
    Katrina..........................   43440  Lafayette Field     LA.......  ES......  August 2005......  Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered gulf sturgeon           N/A       20,000
                                                Office.                                                     (repair culverts; erosion control).
    Katrina..........................   43440  Lafayette Field     LA.......  ES......  August 2005......  Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered piping plover..         N/A       70,000
                                                Office.
    Katrina..........................   43440  Lafayette Field     LA.......  ES......  August 2005......  Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered beach mouse             N/A      345,000
                                                Office.                                                     (repair dune walkovers; beach stabilization).
    Katrina..........................   43440  Lafayette Field     LA.......  ES......  August 2005......  Support, surveys, emergency relief to threatened & endangered            N/A      440,000
                                                Office.                                                     sea turtle species (beach stabilization).
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Lafayette Field Office       ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      900,000
           Total.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Rita.............................   43695  Lake Ophelia NWR..  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair damage to sattelite office/substation....................  ..........       30,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Lake Ophelia NWR Total.....  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........       30,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Rita.............................   99221  LE Office Beaumont  TX.......  LE......  September 2005...  Replace water damaged personal property.........................         N/A       50,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          LE Office Beaumont Total...  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........       50,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Dennis...........................   41515  Lower Suwannee NWR  FL.......  NWR.....  July 2005........  Replace destroyed dock at Atesna Otie Key (Cedar Keys)..........    10039135      325,000
    Dennis...........................   41515  Lower Suwannee NWR  FL.......  NWR.....  July 2005........  Repair damage to Fishbone Creek Observation Tower...............    10038048      250,000
    Dennis...........................   41515  Lower Suwannee NWR  FL.......  NWR.....  July 2005........  Replace destroyed Shell Mound fishing pier (damaged during          10014408      250,000
                                                                                                            Hurricane Ivan in 2004).
    Dennis...........................   41515  Lower Suwannee NWR  FL.......  NWR.....  July 2005........  Repair damage to Salt Creek Trail/Boardwalk.....................    10014407      175,000
    Dennis...........................   41515  Lower Suwannee NWR  FL.......  NWR.....  July 2005........  Repair facilities at Seahorse Key (Cedar Keys)..................    10014380      100,000
    Dennis...........................   41515  Lower Suwannee NWR  FL.......  NWR.....  July 2005........  Repair damaged refuge roads.....................................    multiple    1,500,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Lower Suwannee NWR Total...  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........    2,600,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43626  Mandalay NWR......  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Mandalay NWR) (additional     10041510       40,500
                                                                                                            funds).
    Katrina..........................   43626  Mandalay NWR......  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Replace damaged entrance signs (Mandalay NWR)...................    10041513       10,000
    Katrina..........................   43626  Mandalay NWR......  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair office/visitor building (Mandalay NWR)--2006DM...........    10019047       75,000
    Katrina..........................   43626  Mandalay NWR......  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Post-hurricane invasives projects...............................         N/A      100,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Mandalay NWR Total.........  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      225,500
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43681  Matthews Brake NWR  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Pin Oak Road.............................................    10019772       50,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Matthews Brake NWR Total...  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........       50,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43910  Mississippi Field   MS.......  ES......  August 2005......  Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered red-cockaded            N/A        5,000
                                                Office.                                                     woodpecker (repair cavity trees).
    Katrina..........................   43910  Mississippi Field   MS.......  ES......  August 2005......  Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered lichen                  N/A       20,000
                                                Office.                                                     populations (C. perforata).
    Katrina..........................   43910  Mississippi Field   MS.......  ES......  August 2005......  Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered gulf sturgeon           N/A       20,000
                                                Office.                                                     (repair culverts; erosion control).
    Katrina..........................   43910  Mississippi Field   MS.......  ES......  August 2005......  Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered piping plover..         N/A       70,000
                                                Office.
    Katrina..........................   43910  Mississippi Field   MS.......  ES......  August 2005......  Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered beach mouse             N/A      345,000
                                                Office.                                                     (repair dune walkovers; beach stabilization).
    Katrina..........................   43910  Mississippi Field   MS.......  ES......  August 2005......  Support, surveys, emergency relief to threatened & endangered            N/A      440,000
                                                Office.                                                     sea turtle species (beach stabilization).
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Mississippi Field Office     ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      900,000
           Total.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Valentine road a gravel road on the Gautier Unit.........    10037727    1,250,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Browns Trail a gravel road on the Gautier Unit...........    10037726      200,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Sweet Bay a dirt road on the Ocean Springs Unit..........    10037731      150,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Duck pond Road is a dirt road on the Ocean Springs Unit..    10037730      250,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Green Pond is a dirt road on the Ocean Springs Unit......    10038084      350,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Big Flat dirt road on the Ocean Springs Unit.............    10038082      250,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Glenndale Road is a gravel road on the Ocean Springs Unit    10038089      350,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Firetower road on the Gautier Unit.......................    10037540      750,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Cotton Mouth is a dirt road on the Ocean Springs Unit....    10038087      300,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair maintenance shop facility................................    10018876      450,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Fire break( Ocean Springs Unit)..........................    10018904      250,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Fire break (Gautier Unit)................................    10018903      200,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Fire break (Fountainbleau Unit)..........................    10018905       75,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair 3/4 Mile nature trial at the visitor center..............    10018899       20,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair 0.6 mile Fountainebleau Unit nature trail................    10038435       20,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair doors and siding on metal shop building (carpentry bldg.)    10018889       20,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair damage to pump/well house................................    10018878       30,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair destroyed shop perimeter fencing.........................    10018887       30,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Sidewalk into visitor center.............................    10018901       10,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Shop Concrete wash rack..................................    10018896        5,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair wet cells Ocean Springs Unit 1,350' Low hazard dam.......    10018907      150,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Wet Cells Ocean Springs Unit 1,000' Low hazard dam.......    10018906      150,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Double Tree is a dirt road on the Ocean Springs Unit.....    10038083      200,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair North Beasley dirt road on the Gautier Unit..............    10037729      150,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Vistor Center Paved parking lot, Route 900...............    10018883       75,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair visitor center/office paved road, Route 010..............    10018879       75,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
    Katrina..........................   43615  Mississippi         MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair/Replace damaged fire equipment...........................  ..........       60,000
                                                Sandhill Crane
                                                NWR.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Mississippi Sandhill Crane   ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........    5,820,000
           NWR Total.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43582  Morgan Brake NWR..  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Alexandrer Slough Access.................................    10038758       75,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Morgan Brake NWR Total.....  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........       75,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Rita.............................   43270  Natchitoches NFH..  LA.......  NFH.....  September 2005...  Downed tree and debris removal (1st push & pull)................         n/a       20,000
    Rita.............................   43270  Natchitoches NFH..  LA.......  NFH.....  September 2005...  Repair flooded/damaged roads & culverts.........................    10017318       10,000
    Rita.............................   43270  Natchitoches NFH..  LA.......  NFH.....  September 2005...  Replace dislodged main hatchery drain discharge pipe............    10017309      210,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Natchitoches NFH Total.....  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      240,000
    Dennis...........................   41580  National Key Deer   FL.......  NWR.....  July 2005........  Replace/Repair ten damaged backcountry buoys....................    10014803       20,000
                                                Refuge.
    Wilma............................   41580  National Key Deer   FL.......  NWR.....  October 2005.....  Replace damaged Quarters (Cudjoe Key)--damaged during Katrina...    10051007      750,000
                                                Refuge.
    Wilma............................   41580  National Key Deer   FL.......  NWR.....  October 2005.....  Repair/Replace destroyed boundary markers/buoys.................         n/a       50,000
                                                Refuge.
    Wilma............................   41580  National Key Deer   FL.......  NWR.....  October 2005.....  Replace three (3) damaged/destroyed vehicles....................         n/a       90,000
                                                Refuge.
    Wilma............................   41580  National Key Deer   FL.......  NWR.....  October 2005.....  Repair flooded/damaged roadways.................................    multiple       30,000
                                                Refuge.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          National Key Deer Refuge     ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      940,000
           Total.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43620  Noxubee NWR.......  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair 8.6 mile Brooksville-Louisville Road. Winston County,        10019043      600,000
                                                                                                            Route 011.
    Katrina..........................   43620  Noxubee NWR.......  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair GTR #4 Levee Road, Tracts 210, 394, Oktibbeha County.....    10019034      400,000
    Katrina..........................   43620  Noxubee NWR.......  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair 5.2 mile Brooksville-Louisville Road, Noxubee County,        10019044      450,000
                                                                                                            Route 011.
    Katrina..........................   43620  Noxubee NWR.......  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Section Line Road-W-Winston County, Route 108............    10019028      600,000
    Katrina..........................   43620  Noxubee NWR.......  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Permanent Fire Breaks....................................    10019027      450,000
    Katrina..........................   43620  Noxubee NWR.......  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Trails--Woodpecker, Prairie Grass, Scattertown,              10019022      100,000
                                                                                                            Wilderness, Beaver Dam, Trail of Big Trees--in various tracts.
    Katrina..........................   43620  Noxubee NWR.......  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair 5.71 mile Dummy Line Road--Winston County, tracts 394,       10018960      750,000
                                                                                                            1863, Route 110.
    Katrina..........................   43620  Noxubee NWR.......  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair 0.75 mile Goose Pen Road in Winston County, Route number     10018945      100,000
                                                                                                            113.
    Katrina..........................   43620  Noxubee NWR.......  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair 2.5 mile Goose Pen Road in Noxubee County (road tracts       10018944      250,000
                                                                                                            381a- 1816), Route number 113..
    Katrina..........................   43620  Noxubee NWR.......  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair 1.8 mile Douglas Bluff Road, Noxubee County (road tracts     10018943      200,000
                                                                                                            385, 1869).
    Katrina..........................   43620  Noxubee NWR.......  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair 1.2 mile Bluff Lake Road in Oktibbeha County, Route #010.    10018942      250,000
    Katrina..........................   43620  Noxubee NWR.......  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair 1.76 mile River Road (road tracts 91 i-374), Route number    10018941      200,000
                                                                                                            101.
    Katrina..........................   43620  Noxubee NWR.......  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Clean/remove debris/trees from roads and parking areas..........         N/A      150,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Noxubee NWR Total..........  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........    4,500,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Wilma............................   41540  Office of Law       FL.......  OLE.....  October 2005.....  Repair/Replace manatee protection signs.........................         n/a      750,000
                                                Enforcement.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Office of Law Enforcement    ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      750,000
           Total.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   41410  Panama City Field   FL.......  ES......  August 2005......  Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered red-cockaded            N/A       $5,000
                                                Office.                                                     woodpecker (repair cavity trees).
    Katrina..........................   41410  Panama City Field   FL.......  ES......  August 2005......  Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered lichen                  N/A      $20,000
                                                Office.                                                     populations (C. perforata).
    Katrina..........................   41410  Panama City Field   FL.......  ES......  August 2005......  Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered gulf sturgeon           N/A      $20,000
                                                Office.                                                     (repair culverts; erosion control).
    Katrina..........................   41410  Panama City Field   FL.......  ES......  August 2005......  Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered piping plover..         N/A      $70,000
                                                Office.
    Katrina..........................   41410  Panama City Field   FL.......  ES......  August 2005......  Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered beach mouse             N/A     $345,000
                                                Office.                                                     (repair dune walkovers; beach stabilization).
    Katrina..........................   41410  Panama City Field   FL.......  ES......  August 2005......  Support, surveys, emergency relief to threatened & endangered            N/A     $440,000
                                                Office.                                                     sea turtle species (beach stabilization).
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Panama City Field Office     ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      900,000
           Total.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43581  Panther Swamp NWR.  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Deep Bayou Road..........................................    10018392      100,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Panther Swamp NWR Total....  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      100,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43290  Private John Allen  MS.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Downed tree and debris removal (1st push & pull)................         n/a      150,000
                                                NFH.
    Katrina..........................   43290  Private John Allen  MS.......  NFH.....  August 2005......  Repair damage to Perimeter Road.................................    10017397       83,000
                                                NFH.
    Katrina..........................   43290  Private John Allen  MS.......  NFH.....  August 2005......  Repair flood damage to office parking area......................    10044206       15,000
                                                NFH.
    Dennis...........................   43290  Private John Allen  MS.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Repair erosion damage to Pond 8A levee..........................    10017384      235,000
                                                NFH.
    Dennis...........................   43290  Private John Allen  MS.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Replace damaged fishery drain line..............................    10017389      397,000
                                                NFH.
    Dennis...........................   43290  Private John Allen  MS.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Repair damage to backup power generator system..................    10014993       50,000
                                                NFH.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Private John Allen NFH       ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      930,000
           Total.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Rita.............................   42653  Red River NWR.....  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to refuge office & maintenance facility               10046523      133,800
                                                                                                            (additional funds).
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Red River NWR Total........  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      133,800
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   42577  Reelfoot NWR......  TN.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Grassy Island Autotour Route.............................    10016811       75,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Reelfoot NWR Total.........  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........       75,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   40130  Regional Chief      GA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Initial response and recovery...................................         N/A    5,000,000
                                                NWRS.
    Rita.............................   40130  Regional Chief      GA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Initial response and recovery...................................         N/A    2,130,000
                                                NWRS.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Regional Chief NWRS Total..  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........    7,130,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  HAZMAT/Debris removal...........................................  ..........   12,000,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to Vastar Road (Old RPI Number 164)...............    10019210    1,000,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to 1A/1B Parking Area Rte #904 (Old RPI Number        10019184       50,000
                                                                                                            138).
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace/repair refuge posting ( Old RPI Number 38)..............    10019130      600,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to concrete nature trail and boardwalk (Old RPI       10019140      500,000
                                                                                                            Number 78) (partnership w/tourism board).
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to 3 Mile Canal bridge--bridge inventory #43640-      10019214      250,000
                                                                                                            00168 (Old RPI Number 168).
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to Northline parking lot Rte #901 & pier (Old RPI     10019178    1,500,000
                                                                                                            Number 132).
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to Plains Road 3.1 miles long (Old RPI Number 166)    10019212    2,000,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damaged boathouse........................................    10019133      150,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to Vastar Rd. bridge--bridge inventory #43640-        10019216      120,000
                                                                                                            00170 (Old RPI Number 170).
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to Hwy. 27 bridge--bridge inventory #43640-00171      10019217      218,000
                                                                                                            (Old RPI Number 171).
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to Hog Island South parking lot Rte #903 (Old RPI     10019163      250,000
                                                                                                            Number 115).
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to South West Cove parking area Rte #906 (Old RPI     10019164      100,000
                                                                                                            Number 116).
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to Nature Trail Parking Lot Rte #907 (Old RPI         10019180      100,000
                                                                                                            Number 134).
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  TVA Agreement--Repair 1A/1B and Pool 3 impoundment levees         ..........   11,600,000
                                                                                                            (Sabine); includes damaged structures and public-use facilities
                                                                                                            (boatramps, trails, parking areas, etc.).
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to Northline bridge--bridge inventory #43640-00169    10019215      250,000
                                                                                                            (Old RPI Number 169).
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace destroyed maintenance shop..............................    10019172    1,500,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace destroyed headquarters--RES complete for standard design    10019161    4,000,000
                                                                                                            of small office/VC facility.
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damaged oil house........................................    10019168      120,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damage to West Cove parking lot (north side) Rte #905        10019179      100,000
                                                                                                            (Old RPI Number 133).
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair damaged fueling facilities; above ground fuel storage        10019155      160,000
                                                                                                            tanks (Old RPI Number 105).
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace destroyed fire headquarters/shop building...............    10019168    1,500,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Maintenace Area Water lines (Old RPI Number 152)................    10019198      100,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Maintenance Area Electric Lines (Old RPI Number 153)............    10019199      250,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Security Fence at Headquarters Compound (Old RPI Number 162)....    10019208       75,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair destroyed restrooms at nature trail (Old RPI Number 114).    10019162      125,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace destroyed radio tower & radio communication equipment...    10018826      250,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair viewing tower, 24' X 12' with metal roof and an attached     10019209       35,000
                                                                                                            90' X 5' accessible walking ramp. Located near Hwy 27 and
                                                                                                            Headquarters. (Old RPI Number163).
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace Headquarters' sewerage treatment unit. (Old RPI Number      10019192       20,000
                                                                                                            146).
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace Headquarters Telephone System and lines (Old RPI Number     10019200      250,000
                                                                                                            154).
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair sewage treatment unit (Nature trail) (Old RPI Number 108)    10019157       50,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair/Reopen 18 miles of canals................................  ..........    3,600,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Headquarters/Visitor Center's Parking and Driveway Rte #900 (Old    10019193      100,000
                                                                                                            RPI Number147).
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Maintenance Parking Areas (Old RPI Number148)...................    10019194      200,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Blue Goose Trail Driveway and Parking Area (Old RPI Number150)..    10019196       90,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Bridge, inventory #43640-00170, Backridge, on Vastar Rd crossing    10019216      150,000
                                                                                                            Central Canal; public use (Old RPI Number 170).
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Bridge, inventory #43640-00171, Hwy. 27 & Central Canal             10019217      100,000
                                                                                                            (identified in EFMIS & formerly known as Texaco bridge,
                                                                                                            inventory #43640-00136??) (Old RPI Number171).
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair rear access road to pole shed (Old RPI Number198)........    10049951       22,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace damaged ATVs............................................  ..........       15,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace damaged office equipment/furniture/supplies.............         N/A      100,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace damaged vehicle (truck).................................  ..........       35,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace damaged vehicle (SUV)...................................  ..........       25,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace/Repairs multiple damaged boats/trailers.................  ..........       35,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Replace destroyed helipad/used for fire suppression operations..  ..........      100,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Repair/Replace damaged fire equipment...........................  ..........      300,000
    Rita.............................   43640  Sabine NWR........  LA.......  NWR.....  September 2005...  Downed tree and debris removal (1st push & pull)--Hwy 27                 N/A      450,000
                                                                                                            hazardous material debris.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Sabine NWR Total...........  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........   44,545,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Wilma............................   41420  South Florida ES    FL.......  ES......  October 2005.....  Repair Turtle Hospital (Monroe Co.) in the Florida Keys.........         n/a      183,200
                                                Office.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          South Florida ES Office      ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      183,200
           Total.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   42640  St. Catherine       MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Pintail Lane, Route 010..................................    10017046      250,000
                                                Creek NWR.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          St. Catherine Creek NWR      ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      250,000
           Total.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Dennis...........................   41640  St. Marks NWR.....  FL.......  NWR.....  July 2005........  TVA Agreement--Repair primary dikes/levees (additional funds)...  ..........    2,000,000
    Dennis...........................   41640  St. Marks NWR.....  FL.......  NWR.....  July 2005........  Replace damaged and missing pilings/markings for Executive          10015299      300,000
                                                                                                            Closure Order.
    Dennis...........................   41640  St. Marks NWR.....  FL.......  NWR.....  July 2005........  Repair overwash/undermined lighthouse pakring lot...............    10038986       20,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          St. Marks NWR Total........  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........    2,320,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Dennis...........................   41650  St. Vincent NWR...  FL.......  NWR.....  July 2005........  Replace damaged/missing boundary signs..........................    10040181       20,000
    Dennis...........................   41650  St. Vincent NWR...  FL.......  NWR.....  July 2005........  Repair damaged barge storage building (barge is used to access      10015319      350,000
                                                                                                            St. Vincent NWR).
    Dennis...........................   41650  St. Vincent NWR...  FL.......  NWR.....  July 2005........  Repair flooded Indian Pass check station........................    10015330       10,000
    Dennis...........................   41650  St. Vincent NWR...  FL.......  NWR.....  July 2005........  Replace misc. small equipment in flooded storage facility.......         n/a       25,000
    Dennis...........................   41650  St. Vincent NWR...  FL.......  NWR.....  July 2005........  Repair damage at Indian Pass parking area/pump house............    10052228        4,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          St. Vincent NWR Total......  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      409,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43645  Tallahatchie NWR..  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Flat Lake Access Road....................................    10044518       75,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Tallahatchie NWR Total.....  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........       75,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Wilma............................   41555  Ten Thousand        FL.......  NWR.....  October 2005.....  Repair/Replace destroyed boundary markers/buoys.................         n/a      100,000
                                                Islands NWR.
    Wilma............................   41555  Ten Thousand        FL.......  NWR.....  October 2005.....  Repair flooded/damaged roadways.................................    multiple      250,000
                                                Islands NWR.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Ten Thousand Islands NWR     ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      350,000
           Total.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   43690  Tensas River NWR..  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Replace destroyed refuge residence/quarters (additional funds)..  ..........      550,000
    Katrina..........................   43690  Tensas River NWR..  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Bridge, Cross Bayou(Fina). Inventory #- 43690-00019......    10042739      200,000
    Katrina..........................   43690  Tensas River NWR..  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair bridge, Tensas River @ Mill Road-bridge inventory #43690-    10019992      700,000
                                                                                                            00005 (Cross roads).
    Katrina..........................   43690  Tensas River NWR..  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Rainey lake road, Rte #010. (Cross roads to refuge           10020002      450,000
                                                                                                            headquarters).
    Katrina..........................   43690  Tensas River NWR..  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair misc. damage to roads/trails/ATV.........................  ..........      250,000
    Katrina..........................   43690  Tensas River NWR..  LA.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Clean/remove debris/trees from roads and parking areas..........         N/A       40,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Tensas River NWR Total.....  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........    2,190,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Dennis...........................   41280  Warm Springs RFC..  GA.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Downed tree and debris removal (1st push & pull)................         n/a        2,000
    Dennis...........................   41280  Warm Springs RFC..  GA.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Repair damage to roadways & parking areas.......................    multiple       75,000
    Dennis...........................   41280  Warm Springs RFC..  GA.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Repair water/electrical damage to Laboratory Building...........    10014262       93,000
    Dennis...........................   41280  Warm Springs RFC..  GA.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Repair water damage to Aquarium Building........................    10014245       65,000
    Dennis...........................   41280  Warm Springs RFC..  GA.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Repair flood damage/erosion to multiple facilities..............    multiple       37,000
    Dennis...........................   41280  Warm Springs RFC..  GA.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Repair water damage to Residence (#3)...........................    10014224       20,000
    Dennis...........................   41280  Warm Springs RFC..  GA.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Replace wetlab gutters..........................................    10014263       12,000
    Dennis...........................   41280  Warm Springs RFC..  GA.......  NFH.....  July 2005........  Repair damaged fencing around compound..........................    10014290        8,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Warm Springs RFC Total.....  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      312,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
    Katrina..........................   42682  Yazoo NWR.........  MS.......  NWR.....  August 2005......  Repair Wildlife Drive...........................................    10019865      125,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ------------
          Yazoo NWR Total............  ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........      125,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        ============
          Subtotal: Second             ......  ..................  .........  ........  .................  ................................................................  ..........  121,800,000
           supplemental.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                              STORM DAMAGE DETAIL REPORT--SOUTHEAST REGION--HURRICANES KATRINA, OPHELIA, RITA, WILMA AS OF JANUARY 19, 2006
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Park                    Storm                                Asset/Need                                                    Recommended repair                           Estimate
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Rita.........  BCW--Loop Road, unpaved RTE. 0102............................  regrade road surface/repair culverts...............................    $484,608
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  40M--40 Mile Bend Check Station Bldg A123....................  replace shutter....................................................         552
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  40M--Grounds.................................................  remove debris......................................................         122
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  BCW--Big Cypress Wetland, Grounds............................  RCW, Eagle surveys, inventories....................................     909,687
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  BCW--Birdon Road, unpaved....................................  replace signs......................................................         921
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  BCW--Jim Dill Road, unpaved RTE. 0703........................  remove debris......................................................      12,251
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  BCW--Loop Road, paved Rt. 102................................  repair signs, culverts, asphalt roadway............................      55,596
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  BCW--Loop Road, unpaved RTE .0102............................  repair road-culverts, washouts, shoulders..........................   4,770,216
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  BCW--Lower Wagon Wheel Road, unpaved.........................  remove trees, replace signs........................................         587
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  BCW--Pine Oaks Road, unpaved RTE. 0106.......................  remove trees/debris................................................         188
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  BCW--SCA Bldg A68............................................  replace radio tower, facia, soffit, repair screen..................      66,571
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  BCW--West Fire Prairie Trail.................................  clear brush........................................................       4,473
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  BL--Burns Lake Campground Road...............................  remove trees.......................................................         514
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  BL--Burns Lake Campground, Grounds...........................  repair kiosk roof, reset portapotties..............................         597
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  BL--TPBL 02 VIP Site/Housing.................................  install service pedastall..........................................       1,019
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  BR--Bass Lake Road, Unpaved..................................  remove downed trees................................................         318
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  DD--Dona Drive Grounds.......................................  Remove debris......................................................         492
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  DL--Deep L Fire Station Bl...................................  replace downspout, repair metal doors..............................      11,822
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  DL--Deep Lake, Water Dist. System............................  remove debirs,clean system.........................................       2,494
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  EE--EE Center Bld A61........................................  replace window.....................................................       1,174
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  FO--Fire Operations Center, Bldg. A100.......................  replace posts/facia, repair framing................................       6,744
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  GH--Gator Head, Roads........................................  remove debris......................................................       2,851
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  GHS--Gator Hook Trail........................................  remove debris......................................................      11,676
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  GHS--Gator Hook, Chickee Bldg. A145..........................  reset cross T's....................................................         160
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  GHS--Gator Hook, Chickee Bldg. A146..........................  reset cross T's....................................................         160
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  HP--Hp Williams Grounds......................................  remove debris......................................................         318
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  I--South I-75 Gounds.........................................  remove trees.......................................................         856
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  I--South I-75 Parking Lot....................................  replace barrier sections...........................................         122
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  KS--Kirby Storter Boardwalk..................................  replace lumber sections............................................         636
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  KS--Kirby Storter Chickee Bldg. A141.........................  replace chickee....................................................      10,830
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  KS--Kirby Storter Chickee Bldg. A142.........................  replace chickee....................................................      10,830
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  KS--Kirby Storter Chickee Bldg. A143.........................  replace chickee....................................................      10,830
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  KS--Kirby Storter Chickee Bldg. A144.........................  replace chickee....................................................      10,830
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  KS--Kirby Storter, Grounds...................................  remove debris/replace picnic table.................................       3,091
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  LP--Loop Road RS, Barn Bldg A97..............................  replace windows, repair siding.....................................       2,915
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  LP--Loop Road RS, Bldg. A96 B Upstair Q-96...................  repair roof, replace carpet, porch.................................      35,941
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  LP--Loop Road RS, Fuel Island (Unleaded Gas).................  replace tank cover.................................................         130
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  LP--Loop Road RS, Grounds....................................  repair fence, remove debris........................................       1,452
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  MC--Mitchell, Grounds........................................  remove debris/repair kiosk roof....................................       7,193
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  MC--Mitchell, Road...........................................  repair gravel road.................................................      20,324
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ML--Monument Comfort Station.................................  replace screen, soffit, skylight, roof vent........................       2,595
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ML--Monument Lake Grounds....................................  repair signs, replace grills.......................................       4,716
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  MS--Monroe Station, Bldg. A76................................  repair bldg damage, remove debris..................................      49,719
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  MW--Midway Grounds...........................................  replace signs, chickees, trees, remove debris......................     151,240
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  MW--Midway, Comfort Station Bldg. A 127......................  replace siding.....................................................         130
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OA--Aviation Hangar A91......................................  replace door, downspout, weather station...........................      10,534
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OA--Herbicide Storage A86....................................  repair roof........................................................       1,522
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OA--Oasis Comfort Station Bldg. A126.........................  replace soffit.....................................................       1,884
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OA--Pole Barn #2 A90.........................................  repair roof........................................................         606
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OA--Quarters #1..............................................  replace porch screen...............................................       1,065
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OA--Ranger Storage A85.......................................  repair roof........................................................       1,522
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OA--Repeater Building A88....................................  repair fence, replace roof turbine.................................         742
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OA--Visitor Cent. Bld A79....................................  replace screen and door, repair fence..............................      13,753
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OA--Wood House A98...........................................  replace soffit.....................................................         590
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OA--Woodhouse Grounds........................................  remove debris......................................................         848
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OH--Headquarter BldA50.......................................  repair roof, antenna, screen, replace gutters......................      20,031
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OH--HQ Parking Area, East--Rte 900...........................  repair lights......................................................       1,057
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OH--HQ Parking Area, West Rte 900............................  repair lights......................................................       2,665
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OH--HQ Swimming Pool.........................................  replace porch enclosure............................................      56,581
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OH--Maint. Bldg. A54.........................................  repair roof, vent cap, facia.......................................       5,010
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OH--Ochopee Vehicle Wash Station Bldg. A113..................  replace soffit, fence..............................................       3,916
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OH--Ochopee Water Dist. System...............................  replace generator..................................................      21,428
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OH--Quarters #19.............................................  replace screen , downspout.........................................         477
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OH--Quarters #15.............................................  replace facia, soffit, porch screen, drip edge.....................      15,839
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OH--Quarters #16.............................................  replace porch, repair tower and siding.............................      15,124
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OH--Quarters #17.............................................  replace shutters, porch, shingles..................................      13,634
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OH--Quarters #20.............................................  replace screen, facia, soffit, repair porch........................       4,089
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OH--Quarters #21.............................................  replace fence, roof tile, gutters, porch...........................      39,479
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OH--Quarters #22.............................................  repair roof and ceilings...........................................       6,407
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OH--Quarters #23.............................................  repair roof and screen.............................................      37,384
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OH--Quarters #25.............................................  repair roof and porch..............................................       9,206
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OH--Ranger Station A67.......................................  replace wiring, screen.............................................       2,018
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  OH--Wastewater System/Treatment Plant........................  repair fence.......................................................       6,871
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Bear Island Trail.......................................  remove debris......................................................      90,091
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Buckskin Trail..........................................  remove debris......................................................      48,916
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Burns Lake Trail........................................  remove debris......................................................      28,862
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Concho Billy Trail......................................  remove debris......................................................     105,092
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Jetport Trail...........................................  remove debris......................................................      22,783
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Little Deer Trail.......................................  remove debris......................................................      25,176
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Lost Dog Trail..........................................  remove debris......................................................      25,176
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Monroe South Trail......................................  remove debris......................................................      20,434
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Monument Bypass Trail...................................  remove debris......................................................      25,176
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Monument Trail..........................................  remove debris......................................................      50,960
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Mud Lake Trail..........................................  remove debris......................................................      28,218
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--North Little Deer Trail.................................  remove debris......................................................      25,176
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--North Raccoon Point Trail...............................  remove debris......................................................      16,305
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Oasis Trail.............................................  remove debris......................................................      56,524
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Paces Dike..............................................  remove debris......................................................      11,305
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Pipeline Trail..........................................  remove debris......................................................       7,827
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Raccoon Loop Trail......................................  remove debris......................................................       9,566
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Raccoon Point Trail.....................................  remove debris......................................................      50,873
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Rock Toad Trail.........................................  remove debris......................................................      31,262
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Sig Walker Airboat Waterway Trail.......................  remove debris......................................................      19,721
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Skillet North Trail.....................................  remove debris......................................................      30,437
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--South Little Deer Trail.................................  remove debris......................................................      27,392
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--West Raccoon Point Trail................................  remove debris......................................................      16,305
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Windmill Trail..........................................  remove debris......................................................      10,871
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  ORV--Zone 4 Airboat Waterway Trail...........................  remove downed trees................................................      65,733
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  PC--Pine Crest, Grounds......................................  remove haz trees...................................................       6,841
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  PJ--Pink Jeep, Campsites.....................................  remove downed trees................................................       2,866
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  SC--Scissor Camp, Bldg. A107.................................  repair soffit, remove trees........................................         321
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  SC--Scissor Camp, Grounds....................................  remove debris......................................................         463
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  TR--Quarter #4, Grounds......................................  remove debris......................................................       1,262
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  TR--Quarter #2 Gournds.......................................  repalce fence gate, remove debris..................................       1,680
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  TR--Quarters # 4.............................................  replace meter,gutters, screen......................................       1,657
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  TR--Quarters #2..............................................  repair screen/replace gutter.......................................         584
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  WP--Weeks Prop House.........................................  replace door, repair roof..........................................       8,419
    Big Cypress National Preserve....  Wilma........  WP--Weeks Storage Bldg. A108.................................  replace siding, corregated tin.....................................       3,475
    Biscayne National Park...........  Katrina......  AK Landscape-................................................  Replace Sea Grape Tree.............................................       1,610
    Biscayne National Park...........  Katrina......  AK Residence East 103-.......................................  repair roof........................................................         800
    Biscayne National Park...........  Katrina......  BC Lighthouse-...............................................  replace broken dome windows........................................         442
    Biscayne National Park...........  Katrina......  BC Trail-....................................................  Remove and replace 2 trees.........................................       4,816
    Biscayne National Park...........  Katrina......  CP Duplex (Housing)-.........................................  replace screens....................................................       1,886
    Biscayne National Park...........  Katrina......  CP Entrance Road-............................................  repair fence/remove trees..........................................       1,811
    Biscayne National Park...........  Katrina......  CP HQ Bldg-..................................................  replace screens....................................................       1,947
    Biscayne National Park...........  Katrina......  CP Landscape-................................................  replace trees......................................................       5,527
    Biscayne National Park...........  Katrina......  CP Trail-....................................................  Replace sign at end of Jetty.......................................         170
    Biscayne National Park...........  Katrina......  EK VC--......................................................  repair roof-replace shingles.......................................       2,428
    Biscayne National Park...........  Rita.........  BB Stiltsville 2146..........................................  Replace Dock.......................................................      22,437
    Biscayne National Park...........  Rita.........  BB Stiltsville 2303..........................................  Replace Dock.......................................................      12,330
    Biscayne National Park...........  Rita.........  CP Marina-Waterfront system..................................  Repair CP Floating Docks...........................................      16,835
    Biscayne National Park...........  Rita.........  EK Boardwalk.................................................  Replace Destroyed sections of boardwalk............................     265,378
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  AK Electrical Generating System..............................  repair electrical connections......................................         773
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  AK Landscape.................................................  remove debris......................................................       1,353
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  AK residence East 103........................................  replace gutters, screen, repair hvac, remove debris................       6,469
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  AK residence West 102........................................  repair roof, hvac, replace screen..................................      16,106
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  AK Trail.....................................................  clear brush........................................................       2,832
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  AK Waste Water System........................................  repair electrical connections......................................         583
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  AK Water System..............................................  repair electrical connections......................................         773
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  BC Barn......................................................  repair roof, vents.................................................         812
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  BC Chapel....................................................  repair roof........................................................         664
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  BC Comfort Station...........................................  repair roof, porta john............................................       8,413
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  BC Generator Bldg............................................  repair steps, replace vents........................................       1,218
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  BC Landscape.................................................  replace signs,repair washouts......................................       4,428
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  BC Lighthouse................................................  replace glass panes, repair steps, window trim.....................         818
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  BC Pavillion.................................................  repaint pavillion..................................................       1,590
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  Biscayne National Park Computer Network......................  replace battery backups............................................       1,176
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  Biscayne National Park Fleet.................................  repair fleet.......................................................      11,000
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  Biscayne National Parkayne Bay-replace navigation aids.......  replace lost/destroyed nav aids....................................      27,043
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  Blackpoint Jetty Trail.......................................  remove debris, replace concrete bridge washouts....................      49,807
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  CP Bone Yard.................................................  remove debris......................................................         241
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  CP Duplex-residence..........................................  replace screen.....................................................       6,606
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  CP HQ Bldg...................................................  replace screen, repair hvac, lattice...............................      13,918
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  CP Landscape.................................................  replace lights/remove debris.......................................     114,929
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  CP Maintenance Bldg..........................................  repair hvac, siding, fiberglass....................................       2,427
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  CP Marina-Waterfront system..................................  replace finger piers...............................................     205,220
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  CP Picnic Area...............................................  remove debris......................................................       2,165
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  CP Trail.....................................................  remove debris/replace toe rail, repair boardwalk...................       1,825
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  CP VC Parking Lot............................................  replace signs/trash cans...........................................       5,348
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  CP Visitor Center............................................  repair handrails...................................................       1,104
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  CP Waste Water System........................................  remove debris, inspect lift station................................       1,012
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  EK Boardwalk.................................................  replace decking....................................................     286,001
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  EK Comfort Station...........................................  repair roof,frame,fascia...........................................      19,932
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  EK Generator Bldg............................................  replace bldg.......................................................       5,313
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  EK Horseshoe Trail...........................................  remove debris......................................................      10,707
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  EK Landscape.................................................  remove debris......................................................       6,459
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  EK Maintenance Bldg..........................................  replace roof.......................................................      14,418
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  EK Residence East 213........................................  repair roof, hvac, pilings, appliances.............................      18,407
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  EK Residence West 212........................................  repair roof, hvac, pilings,screens, wiring.........................      15,838
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  EK Spite Highway trail.......................................  remove debris......................................................      55,184
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  EK Swim Area.................................................  remove debris......................................................       2,992
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  EK VC........................................................  repair roof,overhead doors, electrical system......................      28,034
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  EK WTP Bldg & Covered Storage................................  replace roof.......................................................      14,418
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  Florida Straits-replace navigation aids......................  replace nav aids...................................................      12,725
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  Stiltsville 2146.............................................  replace deck, repair roof..........................................      25,387
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  Stiltsville 2157.............................................  repair roof, replace shed, dock....................................     108,208
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  Stiltsville 2159.............................................  replace dock,repair roof,fence.....................................      21,399
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  Stiltsville 2167.............................................  repair roof, siding, replace deck/dock.............................      65,669
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  Stiltsville 2173.............................................  repair deck, wiring, roof,.........................................      48,566
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  Stiltsville 2213.............................................  replace deck, repair roof..........................................     206,187
    Biscayne National Park...........  Wilma........  Stiltsville 2303.............................................  repair roof, replace screen........................................       8,275
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  BIBD Coquina Comfort Station.................................  repair roof........................................................         567
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  BIQT Q117....................................................  repair roof........................................................         487
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  BIQT Q120....................................................  repair roof........................................................         567
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  BIRMP Oregon Inlet Ramp 4....................................  replace carsonite signs posts......................................      12,143
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIBD Avon Pier House.........................................  repair roof........................................................       3,704
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIBD Cape Point CG Loop B Shower Bldg........................  repair roof........................................................       5,277
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIBD Cape Point CG Loop H Shower Bldg........................  repair roof........................................................       2,463
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIBD Cape Point CG Storage Kiosk.............................  repair roof........................................................       1,245
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIBD Frisco CG Loop E Shower Bldg............................  repair roof........................................................       3,028
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIBD Frisco Comfort Station..................................  repair roof caps...................................................         754
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIBD LH Fee Kiosk............................................  repair roof........................................................       3,983
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIHS Double Keepers Quarters (VC)............................  repair roof........................................................      61,102
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIHS Hatteras Weather Bureau.................................  replace handicap elevator door.....................................       2,046
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIHS Little Kinnakeet Boathouse..............................  repair roof........................................................         260
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIHS Principal Keepers Quarters (Bookstore)..................  repair roof........................................................      42,863
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIHS Ranger Station..........................................  repair roof........................................................      36,323
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIML Hattersas Island Maintained Landscape...................  replace signs......................................................      21,047
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIMW Avon Fishing Pier.......................................  Repair piers.......................................................      35,223
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIQT Q391....................................................  repair roof........................................................       3,441
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIQT T4......................................................  repair roof........................................................         891
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIRD Billy Mitchell Road-rte 014.............................  remove tree........................................................         285
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIRD Frisco Water Plant Road-rte 414.........................  repair road base...................................................      39,778
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIRD Ramp 55 Parking.........................................  remove sand from parking lot.......................................         987
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIRD Soundside Access MP53...................................  repair road surface................................................      19,495
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIRD Turnout Ramp 38-rte 913.................................  remove sand from parking lot.......................................       1,443
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HIRMP Ramp 30................................................  fill and grade ramp................................................       2,474
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  HITR Buxton Woods Nature Trail...............................  remove trees.......................................................       3,283
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIBD Emergency Generator/Lumber Shed.........................  repair roof........................................................       3,741
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIBD Metal Storage Bldg......................................  replace metal storage bldg.........................................       7,366
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIBD Ocracoke Campground Shed................................  repair roof........................................................         319
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIBD Ocracoke CG Loop B Shower...............................  repair roof........................................................         567
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIBD Ocracoke Island Portalets...............................  repair roof........................................................       1,183
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIBD Q137....................................................  repair ceilings....................................................         721
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OICS Ocracoke Campground Portalets...........................  replace door.......................................................         652
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIMI Pony Pen Corral.........................................  repair fence.......................................................       9,945
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIML Ocracoke Island Maintained Landscape....................  remove debris......................................................      32,039
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIN: Ocracoke Island Natural Landscape.......................  remove haz trees...................................................       3,821
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIQT Q137....................................................  repair roof........................................................         650
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIQT Q138....................................................  repair roof........................................................         650
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIQT Q138....................................................  repair ceilings....................................................       1,105
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIQT Q139....................................................  repair roof........................................................         650
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIQT Q139....................................................  repair ceilings....................................................         690
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIQT Q140....................................................  repair roof........................................................         650
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIQT Q140....................................................  repair ceilings....................................................         151
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIQT T141....................................................  repair roof........................................................       2,224
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIQT T142....................................................  repair roof........................................................       1,356
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIQT T143....................................................  repair roof........................................................       1,356
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIRD Quock Hammock Road......................................  repair road surface-fill washouts..................................       1,352
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIRD South Point Road (Ramp 72)..............................  repair road surface................................................      32,875
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIRMP Ramp 59................................................  repair road surface-fill washouts..................................       4,305
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OIRMP Ramp 70................................................  repair potholes....................................................       2,339
    Cape Hatteras National Seashore..  Ophelia......  OITR Hammock Hill Nature Trail...............................  remove debris......................................................         523
    Cape Lookout National Seashore...  Ophelia......  Colonial Waterbird Nesting assessment........................  2 year assessment of birding habitat...............................      91,500
    Cape Lookout National Seashore...  Ophelia......  Harkers Island VC/Admin......................................  Replace HVAC units.................................................      15,783
    Cape Lookout National Seashore...  Ophelia......  Harkers Island VC/Admin......................................  repair front vis svcs desk.........................................      15,578
    Cape Lookout National Seashore...  Ophelia......  Harkers Island VC/Admin......................................  repair security system.............................................       1,000
    Cape Lookout National Seashore...  Ophelia......  Ice Machine-Maintenance BLdg.................................  repair ice machine.................................................       4,819
    Cape Lookout National Seashore...  Ophelia......  Life Saving Station Stable...................................  repair roof, windows, siding and walls.............................      53,704
    Cape Lookout National Seashore...  Ophelia......  Lola Radio Repeater..........................................  repair repeater....................................................       7,500
    Cape Lookout National Seashore...  Ophelia......  North Core Banks Road........................................  regrade road.......................................................      13,903
    Cape Lookout National Seashore...  Ophelia......  signs........................................................  replace lost/destroyed signs parkwide..............................      30,000
    Cape Lookout National Seashore...  Ophelia......  South Core Banks Road........................................  regrade road.......................................................      11,918
    Canaveral National Seashore......  Wilma........  ND Maintenance Shop..........................................  replace vent cap...................................................         161
    Canaveral National Seashore......  Wilma........  ND Pole Shed.................................................  repair roof........................................................       4,197
    Canaveral National Seashore......  Wilma........  SD Boardwalk 8...............................................  repair boardwalk...................................................       1,021
    Canaveral National Seashore......  Wilma........  SD Boardwalk Eddy Creek/Pavillion............................  repair boardwalk...................................................       1,484
    Canaveral National Seashore......  Wilma........  SD Comfort Station 10........................................  repair vault.......................................................       1,606
    Canaveral National Seashore......  Wilma........  SD Comfort Station 3.........................................  repair vault.......................................................       1,606
    Canaveral National Seashore......  Wilma........  SD Eddy Creek Waterfront System..............................  replace eddy creek dock............................................      27,138
    Canaveral National Seashore......  Wilma........  SD Ranger Station Pump House.................................  replace roof turbine...............................................          41
    Canaveral National Seashore......  Wilma........  SD-Playalinda Beach Swimming Area............................  clean beach area...................................................      38,450
    Cane River Creole NHP............  Rita.........  Cotton Gin...................................................  Reapir roof flashing/gable shutter/wood siding.....................       3,412
    Cane River Creole NHP............  Rita.........  Cotton Picker Shed-Magnolia..................................  Repair roof........................................................      20,324
    Cane River Creole NHP............  Rita.........  Magnolia Cultural Landscape..................................  Remove limbs and hazard trees......................................      27,420
    Cane River Creole NHP............  Rita.........  Main House-Oakland...........................................  Repair/replace missing or loose shingles...........................       2,094
    Cane River Creole NHP............  Rita.........  Mule Barn....................................................  Repair roof/Repair fistoric hinge on barn door.....................       2,908
    Cane River Creole NHP............  Rita.........  Oakland Cultural Landscape...................................  Remove limbs and hazard trees......................................      33,131
    Cane River Creole NHP............  Rita.........  Overseers House-Slave Hospital-Magnolia......................  Reapir roof, gutters and flashing..................................       1,939
    Cane River Creole NHP............  Rita.........  Slave Quarters 1.............................................  Replace lost cedar shingles........................................       8,369
    Cane River Creole NHP............  Rita.........  Slave Quarters 6.............................................  Repair exterior wall shift.........................................         839
    Cane River Creole NHP............  Rita.........  Square Crib..................................................  Repair Roof........................................................         879
    Cane River Creole NHP............  Rita.........  Tractor Shed.................................................  Repair Roof........................................................       1,730
    De Soto National Monument........  Wilma........  De Soto National Monument Trail..............................  repair washouts, regrade trail.....................................      15,000
    De Soto National Monument........  Wilma........  Grounds......................................................  remove debris/haz trees............................................      22,500
    De Soto National Monument........  Wilma........  Shoreline....................................................  stablize shoreline-prevent addtl erosion...........................      22,500
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKBCGR Garden Key Grounds....................................  Replace Entrance sign/NR mitigation................................      65,567
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKBCMU Gasoline Storage......................................  relocate Gasoline Storage..........................................     122,319
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKBCWF Garden Key Water Front-...............................  dock repair/buoy replacement.......................................      22,704
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKFJAD Fort Jefferson Office.................................  Replace Windows....................................................       1,374
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKFJEE Electrical System.....................................  Replace Generators.................................................     137,123
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKFJFT Counterscarp and Moat.................................  Repair coping on counterscarp/dredge moat..........................     125,856
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKFJFT Fort Jefferson........................................  Curtain Wall Repair................................................     153,101
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKFJHM17-3 A-B Personnel Housing.............................  Ceiling repair.....................................................      10,770
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKFJHM17-4 Personnel Housing.................................  Replace Windows....................................................       2,765
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKFJHS17-10 Personnel Housing................................  Repair Windows.....................................................       1,963
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKFJHS17-11 Personnel Housing................................  Replace Windows....................................................       2,120
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKFJHS17-12 Personnel Housing................................  Replace Windows....................................................       2,120
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKFJHS17-2 Personnel Housing.................................  Repair windows/siding..............................................      15,811
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKFJHS17-4.5 Personnel Housing...............................  Ceiling and window repair..........................................       5,020
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKFJHS17-5 Personnel Housing.................................  Replace Windows....................................................       3,609
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKFJHS17-8 Personnel Housing.................................  Replace Windows....................................................       1,848
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKFJHS17-9 Personnel Housing.................................  Ceiling and window repair..........................................       3,410
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKFJMP Recreation Room.......................................  Replace Windows....................................................       8,724
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKFJMU Generator Room........................................  Install exhaust fans...............................................       1,360
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKFJVS Garden Key VC-........................................  Replace windows/walls..............................................       2,397
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  GKUTRA Dry Tortugas Radio System.............................  Install Tower......................................................      10,605
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  Grounds Cleanup..............................................  Debris removal.....................................................       9,000
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  IMT Response/misc repairs....................................  ...................................................................      56,911
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  Law Enforcement Support......................................  ...................................................................      10,000
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  LHLHGR Loggerhead Key Grounds................................  Repair Flag Pole...................................................         807
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  LHLHHS001 Kitchen Building...................................  Repair siding/repaint..............................................      10,307
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  LHLHHS002 Keepers Residence..................................  Gutter and carpet replacement......................................      14,734
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  LHLHLH Loggerhead Key Lighthouse.............................  Replace windows/other misc repairs.................................      12,564
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  LHLHMF Oil House.............................................  Replace Windows....................................................      11,395
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  LHLHMU Generator Room........................................  Replace Doors......................................................       5,819
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  LHLHWF Loggerhead Water Front-...............................  decking repair.....................................................      14,684
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  LHUTWP Loggerhead Water System...............................  Salt Water intakle system repair...................................       3,395
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Katrina......  MEWCBO Boat Outboard.........................................  Replace 25' boat...................................................     148,565
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  GKBCBG Dock House............................................  replace decking....................................................       9,592
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  GKBCCG Garden Key Campsite...................................  remove trees, replace tables.......................................      13,800
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  GKBCWF Garden Key Water Front................................  repair piers, electric svc, replace seaplane ramp..................     322,979
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  GKFJAD Fort Jefferson Office.................................  repair hvac........................................................       5,165
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  GKFJEE Electrical System.....................................  repair wiring, antenna.............................................       1,459
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  GKFJFT Counterscarp and Moat.................................  repair seawall, dredge moat........................................     147,371
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  GKFJFT Fort Jefferson........................................  replace shutter system, remove debris, misc repairs................     579,529
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  GKFJHM17-3 A-B Personnel Housing.............................  repair walls, replace furnishings..................................      39,308
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  GKFJHS16-1 Engineer Officers Quarters........................  repair porch railing...............................................       4,496
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  GKFJHS17-2 Personnel Housing.................................  repair ceilings....................................................       5,377
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  GKFJHS17-4.5 Personnel Housing...............................  repair hvac........................................................       5,165
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  GKFJHS17-8 Personnel Housing.................................  repair hvac........................................................       5,165
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  GKFJMF Carpenter Shop........................................  replace saws.......................................................       6,841
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  GKUTRA Dry Tortugas Radio System.............................  repair telephone communications....................................       7,044
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  LHLHEE Loggerhead Electrical System..........................  repair wiring, solar controller....................................      29,470
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  LHLHHS001 Kitchen Building...................................  repair hvac, antenna, siding.......................................       9,282
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  LHLHHS002 Keepers Residence..................................  repair roof, railings..............................................       6,830
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  LHLHLH Loggerhead Key Lighthouse.............................  repair exterior walls..............................................      28,224
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  LHLHMF Boat House............................................  remove sand, repair walls..........................................       4,581
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  LHLHMS Storage Shed/Shop.....................................  repair door, roof..................................................       1,028
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  LHLHMU Generator Room........................................  replace generator..................................................      35,893
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  LHLHWF Loggerhead Water Front................................  replace tank, pipe.................................................      38,456
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Wilma........  LHUTWP Loggerhead Water System...............................  remove debris, repair dock.........................................      34,189
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Rita.........  GKBCCG Garden Key Campsite...................................  Remove debris......................................................         629
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Rita.........  GKBCGR Garden Key Grounds....................................  Remove debris......................................................       3,148
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Rita.........  GKBCWF Garden Key Waterfront.................................  Replace Finger Piers...............................................       9,800
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Rita.........  GKFJEE Electrical System.....................................  Repair electrical distribution system..............................       4,680
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Rita.........  GKFJFT Counterscarp and Moat.................................  Replace bridge.....................................................       8,391
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Rita.........  GKFJFT Fort Jefferson Parade and Brick Walk..................  Remove debris......................................................       6,888
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Rita.........  GKFJHM17-3 A-B Personnel Housing.............................  Replace cabinets...................................................       7,101
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Rita.........  GKFJHS16-1 Engineer Officers Quarters........................  Repair porch and shutters..........................................       8,691
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Rita.........  GKFJHS16-6 Personnel Housing.................................  Replace shutters...................................................       1,380
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Rita.........  GKFJHS17-2 Personnel Housing.................................  Replace gutter system..............................................      18,871
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Rita.........  GKFJWP Garden Key Potable Water System.......................  Repair water line..................................................         882
    Dry Tortugas National Park.......  Rita.........  GKUTFD Diesel Fuel System....................................  Replace controller.................................................       2,053
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  ADEXFL Flamingo Waysides.....................................  Replace wayside....................................................      36,781
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  ADEXFLCB Signs Wayside.......................................  Replace wayside....................................................      18,841
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  ADEXFLEC Signs Wayside.......................................  Replace wayside....................................................      37,681
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  ADEXFLMR Signs Wayside.......................................  Replace wayside....................................................       9,420
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  ADEXFLVC Signs Waysides......................................  Replace wayside....................................................       9,420
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  ADEXFLWL Signs Wayside.......................................  Replace wayside....................................................       9,420
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  EECHRP14 SW 237th Ave........................................  Repair signs & posts...............................................         369
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  EEPHHM703 Lg Hernandez House.................................  Replace appliances.................................................       7,251
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  FLBWMA Florida Bay Marina....................................  Replace electrical service to docks................................       8,300
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  FLBWMA Whitewater Bay Marina.................................  Replace docks......................................................     533,597
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  FLCGAT430 Amphitheater.......................................  Demo & replace amiphitheater.......................................     348,574
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  FLCGVS409 Campground Kiosk...................................  Demo & Replace Entrance station....................................      27,600
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  FLCSPP921P Marina Access Parking.............................  Repair electrical lighting.........................................      10,014
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  FLCSPP922P Boat Ramp Parking.................................  Repair electrical lighting.........................................      37,195
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  FLCSWF Concessions Waterfront................................  Repair concrete seawall............................................     330,335
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  FLECBW Eco Pond Board Walk / Viewing Platform................  ...................................................................       1,135
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  FLMRGR Mrazek Pond Grounds...................................  Replace sign posts.................................................         771
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  FLMRRB Buttonwood Bridge.....................................  Repair expansion joint.............................................     148,457
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  FLMYEE Electrical System.....................................  Repair electrical lighting.........................................       6,886
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  FLMYRU Mosquito Alley........................................  ...................................................................      17,312
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  FLMYWP Water System..........................................  Repair water lines.................................................       1,717
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  FLPHHT60 Personnel Housing...................................  Demo housing unit..................................................      17,688
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  FLPHHT61 Personnel Housing...................................  Demo housing unit..................................................      17,688
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  FLPHMP417 Personnel Chickee..................................  Replace screens and paint..........................................       4,130
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  FLVCVS415 Visitor Center.....................................  Replace elevator/museum locks/repair fire system and pillars/Repair      24,039
                                                                                                                      electrical system.
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  FLVCVS419 Fish Cleaning Station..............................  Repair roof & screen/Replace controls..............................      43,792
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  FLWLBW West Lake Board Walk..................................  Repair damaged decking.............................................       1,342
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  GCBCCG16579 Rabbit Key Campsite..............................  Replace confort station............................................       6,020
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  GCBCCK Rodgers River Chickee.................................  replace comfort station............................................       6,020
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  GCBCWW Wilderness Waterway...................................  Replace waterway signage...........................................       9,354
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  KLFBCG Nest Key Campsite.....................................  Repair dock/replace portable toilets...............................      76,526
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  KLFBGR Back Country Grounds..................................  ...................................................................      13,420
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  KLRSMF505 Maintenance Shed...................................  Replace roof.......................................................       2,257
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  KLRSRA Key Largo Radio System................................  Repair boat radio..................................................         515
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  MEGT GROUND TRANSPORT........................................  Repair/Replace 16 vehicles.........................................     590,485
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  MEHE Heavy Equipment.........................................  Repair/Replace 2 tractors..........................................     133,990
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  METL Tools...................................................  Repair/replace 4 yard mixer........................................       4,303
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  METLRE Research Equip........................................  Replace Research equipment.........................................     173,301
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  MEWCBO Boat Outboard.........................................  Repair boats.......................................................     100,300
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  NDEEHS347 Personnel Housing..................................  Replace screen/Repair roof.........................................       1,792
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  NDTAADS33 Maintenance / Ranger Station.......................  Repair roof........................................................       6,601
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  NDTAFG Gasoline Storage Facility.............................  Repair roof........................................................       4,230
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  NDTAHS345 Personnel Housing..................................  Replace roof & screen/repair transmission tower....................       3,365
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  NDTAHS346 Personnel Housing..................................  Replace screen.....................................................       1,987
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  NDTAPP931N Tamiami Ranger Station............................  Replace fence and gate.............................................         362
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  NDTCHM350 Personnel Housing..................................  Repair roof/walls..................................................      18,005
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  NDTCHM352 Personnel Housing..................................  Repair roof/replace screen and shutters............................      22,424
    Everglades National Park.........  Katrina......  NDTCHM354 Personnel Housing..................................  Replace shutters...................................................       2,870
    Everglades National Park.........  Rita.........  PIDBAD190 Research Center....................................  Replace Screen Enclosure...........................................      37,353
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  ADEXFLEC Signs Wayside.......................................  replace wayside....................................................         403
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  ADEXFLWL Signs Wayside.......................................  replace wayside....................................................       1,028
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  ADEXPIRP Signs Wayside.......................................  replace wayside....................................................          55
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  ADEXSVST Signs Wayside.......................................  replace wayside....................................................         763
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  ADEXSVVC Signs Wayside.......................................  replace wayside....................................................         925
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  EEPHHM703 Lg Hernandez House.................................  repair hvac, walls, roof, lighting.................................      46,275
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  EEPHHS702 Sm Hernandez House.................................  repair roof, antenna...............................................       2,660
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLBCCG Graveyard Creek Campsite..............................  remove trees, replace tables, portojohn............................      17,305
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLBCCK445 Pearl Bay Chickee..................................  repair portojohn, steps............................................       5,293
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLBCCK446 Hells Bay Chickee..................................  repair portojohn...................................................       4,240
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLBCCK447 Lane Bay Chickee...................................  repair portojohn, structure........................................       6,041
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLBCCK448 Roberts Bay Chickee................................  repair portojohn...................................................       4,240
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLBCCK45 South Joe River Chickee.............................  repair portojohn, repair roof......................................       8,397
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLBCCK453 Oyster Bay Chickee.................................  repair portojohn, structure........................................      27,123
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLBCCK454 Joe River Chickee..................................  repair portojohn...................................................       4,240
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLBLRU211 Bear Lake Road.....................................  repair road surface................................................       9,088
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLBWMA Florida Bay Marina....................................  repair dock........................................................      14,041
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLBWMA Whitewater Bay Marina.................................  repair dock........................................................       5,601
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLBWWW Buttonwood Canaveral National Seashorel...............  remove boat lift, replace markers..................................      32,846
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCBGR Coot Bay Grounds......................................  replace signs......................................................         806
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCGCG A-loop Campsites......................................  replace exterior furnishings.......................................      16,679
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCGCG C-loop Campsites......................................  replace exterior furnishings.......................................     131,179
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCGCG T-loop Campsites......................................  replace exterior furnishings.......................................      14,647
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCGCG Walk In Campsites.....................................  replace electrical panel...........................................       1,795
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCGPP927P B-C Loop Parking..................................  replace signs......................................................       3,294
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCGPP928P T Loop Parking....................................  replace signs......................................................       3,170
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCGRP219 Picnic Area RD.....................................  replace exterior furnishings.......................................       1,502
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCGRP220 Camp Ground Loop A Road............................  replace signs......................................................       2,171
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCGVS402 A-loop Comfort Station.............................  repair roof........................................................         142
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCGVS403 A-loop Comfort Station.............................  replace screens, roof vent,soffit..................................       1,828
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCGVS404 B-loop Comfort Station.............................  repair roof, screen................................................         623
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCGVS405 B-loop Comfort Station.............................  repair roof, electrical system.....................................       2,030
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCGVS406 C-loop Comfort Station.............................  repair soffit, window screen.......................................         371
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCGVS407 T-loop Comfort Station.............................  replace sink, repair soffit........................................       1,808
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCGVS408 T-loop Comfort Station.............................  repair soffit......................................................         169
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCGVS411 Walk In Comfort Station............................  repair roof, door, ceiling, plumbing...............................       1,828
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCGWW Flamingo Waste Water System...........................  repair electrical system...........................................       7,092
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCMGR Concession Maint Grounds..............................  remove debris......................................................      20,510
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCMST473 Concession Storage/Utility.........................  demolish bldg......................................................      16,848
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCSCR460 Restaurant/Lounge..................................  repair electrical system...........................................       3,172
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCSSW Swimming Pool.........................................  remove screen enclosure............................................       2,952
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLCSWF Concessions Waterfront................................  dredge marina area for access to Fl Bay............................     649,916
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLECBW Eco Pond Board Walk / Viewing Platform................  repair platform and railing........................................      54,390
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLHPPP919N Residence Parking.................................  regrade parking area...............................................       6,238
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLMRRB Buttonwood Bridge.....................................  repair bridge joint................................................       2,641
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLMRRP010 Route 10...........................................  replace road signs.................................................      22,237
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLMRRU425 Sewer Plant Access Road............................  repair road surface, replace sign..................................       1,588
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLMRTU Christian Point Trail.................................  repair boardwalk...................................................         537
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLMRWW Hells Bay Canoe Launch................................  remove debris......................................................       1,366
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLMYEE Electrical System.....................................  repair electrical system...........................................       9,854
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLMYFG Gasoline Fuel System-Vehicles.........................  repair fuel system.................................................       5,703
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLMYGR Maint Yard Grounds....................................  replace fence......................................................      30,551
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLMYMA Maintenance Marina....................................  repair dock, wiring, dumpster......................................      79,287
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLMYMF406 Oil Shed...........................................  replace door.......................................................         474
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLMYMF422 Boat Shop..........................................  repair doors, electrical system....................................      33,466
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLMYMF423 Boat Shelter.......................................  repair pillars.....................................................       3,060
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLMYMS420 Paint Storage Bldg.................................  replace structure..................................................      24,425
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLMYMS426 Herbicide/Pesticide................................  repair doors, steps, glass.........................................      15,937
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLMYMS431 Haz Material Storage...............................  haz mat disposal...................................................      11,058
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLMYMS467 Maintenance Warehouse..............................  repair windows, roof, electrical...................................      88,089
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLMYMU424 Water Treatment Plant Bldg.........................  repair fence, hvac, water lines....................................      55,822
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLMYRU Mosquito Alley........................................  repair road surface................................................       1,363
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLMYWP Water System..........................................  replace filters and computer.......................................       9,400
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLMYWW Waste Water...........................................  repair lift stations, replace signs................................       6,179
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLPHHM416 Personnel Housing..................................  repair elcetrical, porch, interior walls...........................      25,506
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLPHHM439 Personnel Housing..................................  repair porch, electrical...........................................      15,517
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLPHHM440 Personnel Housing..................................  repair windows, wiring, doors, porch...............................      21,853
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLPHHM441 Personnel Housing..................................  repair doors, porch, hvac, appliances, walls.......................      27,085
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLPHHS442 Personnel Housing..................................  repair doors, porch, hvac, appliances, walls.......................      20,671
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLPHHS443 Personnel Housing..................................  repair hvac, roof, porch, wiring...................................      28,318
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLPHHS444 Personnel Housing..................................  repair porch, wiring, roof, hvac...................................      22,422
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLPHHT20 Trailer Pad.........................................  repair electrical..................................................       2,061
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLPHHT21 Trailer Pad.........................................  repair electrical..................................................       2,061
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLPHHT22 Trailer Pad.........................................  repair electrical..................................................       2,061
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLPHHT23 Trailer Pad.........................................  repair electrical..................................................       2,061
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLPHMP417 Personnel Chickee..................................  repair roof, fans, flooring, wiring................................      24,578
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLPLMA Plug Dock Complex.....................................  repair electrical pedestal.........................................      16,270
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLVCPP920P VC Parking Area...................................  repair lighting....................................................       9,438
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLVCRP216 Marina Parking Access..............................  repair electrical, replace signs...................................         820
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLVCVS Visitor Center........................................  repair hvac, phone system, windows, soffit, railings...............      41,459
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLVCVS419 Fish Cleaning Station..............................  repair screen, pipes...............................................       9,652
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLWEMU407 Pump House.........................................  repair wiring......................................................       2,460
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLWLBW West Lake Board Walk..................................  replace rail.......................................................         251
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLWLGR West lake Grounds.....................................  remove haz tree/stump..............................................         857
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLWLVS425 Comfort Station and Pavillion......................  replace door lock/signs............................................         513
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  FLWLWF West Lake Water Front.................................  repair rails.......................................................         131
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCBCBW sand Fly Island Boardwalk.............................  repair portojohns..................................................       4,240
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCBCCG Darwins Place Campsite................................  replace sign.......................................................         935
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCBCCG Pavillion Key Campsite................................  replace sign, portojohn............................................       4,936
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCBCCG Watsons Place Campsite................................  replace picnic tables..............................................       5,581
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCBCCG16579 Rabbit Key Campsite..............................  replace sign, portojohn............................................       4,936
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCBCCG50052 Lopez River Campsite.............................  repair portojohns..................................................       4,240
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCBCCG50053 Broad River Campsite.............................  replace sign.......................................................         403
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCBCCK Picnic Key Campsite...................................  replace sign, portojohn............................................       4,936
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCBCCK Rodgers River Chickee.................................  repair portojohns..................................................       4,240
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCBCCK Sundays Bay Chickee...................................  repair roof, portojohn, boardwalk..................................      16,755
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCBCCK Sweetwater Chickee....................................  replace sign, repair roof, portojohn...............................      15,873
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCBCCK14050 Kinston bay Chickee..............................  replace sign,repair portojohn, chickee.............................      27,819
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCBCCK16580 Plate Creek Chickee..............................  replace sign.......................................................         935
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCBCWW Wilderness Waterway...................................  replace markers....................................................       2,339
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCECFG Gasoline Fuel System..................................  repair fuel system.................................................       1,517
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCECGR Everglades National Parkglades City Grounds...........  repair fencing, replace signs, repair walkways.....................      72,993
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCECHS606 Personnel Housing..................................  repair hvac, roof, siding, porch...................................      13,721
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCECMA Marina................................................  repair piers, boat covers..........................................      13,244
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCECMF605 Maintenance Shop/Garage............................  repair roof, wiring, doors, hvac...................................      10,295
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCECVS Gulf Coast Picnic Area Chickee........................  replace roof.......................................................      11,468
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCECVS604 Visitor Center/Concession..........................  repair doors, lattice, gutters, wiring, partitions.................      23,376
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCECWF boat/Canoe Launch.....................................  repair canoe launch................................................      18,260
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCECWF Everglades National Parkglades City Water Front.......  replace waterfront rip-rap.........................................      11,563
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCPHHS601 Personnel Housing..................................  repair wiring, screens, tiles, roof, door..........................       6,352
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCPHHS602 Personnel Housing..................................  repair roof, appliances, tiles, screens, door......................      12,616
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCPHHS603 Personnel Housing..................................  repair porch, tiles, roof, screens, HVAC...........................       5,175
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  GCTICG New Turkey Key Campsite...............................  replace sign, portojohn............................................       4,936
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  KLFBCG Little Rabbit Key campsite............................  repair dock........................................................       2,386
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  KLRSAD503 Research Bldg North................................  replace turbine....................................................         864
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  KLRSDK Concrete Dock.........................................  inspect concrete dock..............................................       2,343
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  KLRSDK Wooden Dock...........................................  repair dock........................................................     345,578
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  KLRSFG Gaoline Fuel System...................................  replace dispenser and hose.........................................       6,416
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  KLRSHT53 Personnel housing...................................  repair hvac, porch, roof, ceilings, doors..........................      10,411
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  KLRSRA Key Largo Radio System................................  repalce repeater...................................................       1,074
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  KLRSST Research Storage......................................  repair flood damage................................................         300
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  KLRSVS500 Ranger Station.....................................  repair steps, hvac.................................................       7,623
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  KLRSWF Key Largo Water Front.................................  repair wiring......................................................         373
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  MEITNB Notebook Computers....................................  replace computers..................................................       9,600
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  MEITPC Main Entrance computers...............................  replace computers..................................................       6,800
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  MEPREQ Protection Equipment..................................  replace flooded lockers............................................       2,000
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  MEREEQ Research Equipment....................................  replace lost/destroyed research equip..............................     285,000
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  NDEEGR Env Educ Grounds......................................  repalce bulletin board, signs......................................       1,202
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  NDEEHS347 Personnel Housing..................................  repair roof, porch, door, HVAC.....................................      16,453
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  NDEEUB343A Pump House........................................  repair roof........................................................       2,135
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  NDEEVS343 Loop Rd Office Bldg................................  repair roof........................................................         498
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  NDEEVS343B Comfort Station...................................  repair roof, portojohns............................................      10,930
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  NDEEWWEast Everglades National Parkglades Waste Water........  replace fence, repair lift station.................................       5,606
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  NDTAADS33 Maintenance / Ranger Station.......................  repair roof, shutter...............................................       2,852
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  NDTAHS346 Personnel Housing..................................  repair ceilings....................................................         669
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  NDTAMS348 Maintenance Pole Barn..............................  replace ice machine................................................       4,672
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  NDTAMS348A Ranger Station Storage Shed.......................  repair storage shed................................................         403
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  NDTAMS348C Maintenance Storage...............................  repair roof........................................................       2,817
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  NDTCBG356 Laundry Bldg.......................................  repair roof, windows...............................................       1,063
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  NDTCGR Trail Center Grounds..................................  repair fence and gate..............................................      13,130
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  NDTCHS350 Personnel housing..................................  repair porch, downspout............................................         691
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  NDTCHS352 Personnel housing..................................  repair porch, windows, hvac, door, roof............................       5,891
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  NDTCHT007 Storage Shed/Trailer Pad...........................  replace structure..................................................      15,101
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  NDTCUB357 Pump House.........................................  repair roof........................................................         956
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  NDTRHS345 Personnel housing..................................  repair roof, porch, ceiling........................................       3,912
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  OPBCRP9336-main park road....................................  replace signs,.....................................................       5,832
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIBRAD181 Bill Robertson Bldg................................  repair screen, roof, carpet........................................         513
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIBRMS184 Flammable Storage Bldg.............................  repair roof edge...................................................          60
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIBRST182 Bill Robertson garage..............................  repair fascia......................................................       1,048
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIBRST182B Fire Equipment Outbldg............................  repair fence, roof.................................................       2,170
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIDBAD190 Research Center....................................  repair walls, carpet, hvac, roof, wiring...........................      11,875
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIDBGR Research Center Grounds...............................  repair greenshouse sun shades......................................     115,336
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIDBST190B Interconnecting Bldg..............................  repair roof, wiring, ceiling.......................................      10,790
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIDBST190E General Purpose Warehouse.........................  repair roof........................................................       6,698
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIDBUB190C Pump House........................................  repair roof........................................................         201
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PILPAT153 Amphitheater.......................................  repair prjection screen............................................         372
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PILPCG Camp Site.............................................  replace signs......................................................       1,882
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PILPHS152 Camp Tender House..................................  repair fascia......................................................         221
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PILPPP908P Long Pine Key Campground Loop.....................  replace bulletin board, furnishings................................       1,810
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PILPUB152 Pump House.........................................  repair roof, holding tank..........................................         903
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PILPVS148 Comfort Station....................................  repair skylight....................................................         135
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PILPVS149 Comfort Station....................................  repair roof, door..................................................         198
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PILPVS150 Comfort Station....................................  repair roof, bulliten board........................................         719
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PILPVS154 Entrance Station...................................  repair roof........................................................         203
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PILPVS168 Comfort Station....................................  repair fascia......................................................         315
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PILPVS169 Comfort Station....................................  repair roof........................................................          63
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIMRRP010 Route 10...........................................  replace signs......................................................       3,395
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIMYAD164 Ranger Station/Telecommunications..................  repair roof........................................................         328
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIMYGR PI Maintenance Yard Grounds...........................  repair fence.......................................................       1,784
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIMYMS140 PI Storage Bldg....................................  haz mat disposal...................................................       8,249
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIMYST114B Supply Office Shed................................  repair roof........................................................         203
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIMYWP PI Water System.......................................  repair fence, turbine..............................................       2,471
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIMYWW Waste Water...........................................  repair lift station................................................       2,549
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIPARP204 Pahayokee Road.....................................  replace road signs.................................................         135
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIPHAD186 FPMA Bldg..........................................  remove haz trees...................................................         355
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIPHHM155 Personnel Housing..................................  repair turbine, door, screen.......................................       1,262
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIPHHM157 Personnel Housing..................................  repair door, screen................................................       2,044
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIPHHM185 Personnel Housing..................................  repair turbines....................................................         492
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIPHHS105 Personnel Housing..................................  repair roof, shutters, antenna.....................................       1,796
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIPHHS108 Personnel Housing..................................  repair screens, antenna............................................         777
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIPHHS110 Personnel Housing..................................  repair roof, antenna...............................................       2,225
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIPHHS112 Personnel Housing..................................  repair window, antenna.............................................         937
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIPHHS119 Personnel Housing..................................  repair shutter, turbine............................................       2,583
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIPHHS120 Personnel Housing..................................  repair roof, septic................................................         703
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIPHHS122 Personnel Housing..................................  repair roof........................................................         187
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIPHHS124 Personnel Housing..................................  repair gutter......................................................         169
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIPHHT001 Trailer Pad........................................  replace telephone box cover........................................         135
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIPHHT62 Personnel Housing...................................  reset trailer......................................................         537
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIPHMF142 Recycle Bldg.......................................  replace window screens.............................................         714
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIRPTP Gumbo Limbo Trail.....................................  replace sign.......................................................         428
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIRPVC109 Visitor Center.....................................  repair fascia......................................................         146
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIRPVS176 Trail Shelter......................................  repair bench, replace shed.........................................       5,272
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIVCPP900P Visitors Parking..................................  remove haz trees...................................................       6,765
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIVCVS160 Visitor Center.....................................  repair wiring, hvac motor..........................................       3,332
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIVCVS160A Comfort Station...................................  repair shutters, fascia, lightning system..........................         628
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIVCVS160B Chickee...........................................  repair security system, remove trees...............................       1,690
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIVCVS161 HQ Bldg............................................  repair antenna, fascia, lightning suppression......................       1,251
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  PIVCVS162 Entrance Station...................................  repair roof........................................................         172
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  SVADWW Shark Valley Admin Waste Water........................  repair lift station................................................         311
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  SVDTUB326 Old Generator Bldg.................................  repair window......................................................          78
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  SVSAAT332 Bike Storage Shed..................................  repair roof........................................................       1,539
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  SVSAHS334 Personnel housing..................................  repair gutters, HVAC...............................................       2,121
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  SVSAMS331 Storage / Ice Shed.................................  replace floor tile.................................................         667
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  SVSARA Shark valley Radio System.............................  repair antenna.....................................................         537
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  SVSATC Shark valley Telecommunications.......................  replace hardware...................................................       9,865
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  SVSTRP224 Shark valley Tram Road.............................  remove debris,repost signs.........................................         311
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  SVSTUB325 Pump House.........................................  replace vent, eyewash station......................................       1,458
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  SVSTVS326 Tower Comfort Station and Shelter..................  repair roof, replace window........................................       3,487
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  SVSTVS327 Shark valley Tower.................................  repair hand rail...................................................         103
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  SVSTWP Shark Valley Tower Water System.......................  repair fence.......................................................       6,504
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  SVVCGR Shark Valley VC Grounds...............................  repair fence, flagpole.............................................       3,340
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  SVVCPP940P Shark Valley Tram Parking.........................  replace signs......................................................         339
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  SVVCRP223 Sharl valley Access RD.............................  repair gate........................................................       2,822
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  SVVCVS310 Comfort Station....................................  repair roof........................................................         302
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  SVVCVS311 Comfort Station....................................  repair roof........................................................       1,512
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  SVVCVS329 Entrance Station...................................  repair fence, screen, solar panels.................................         443
    Everglades National Park.........  Wilma........  SVVCVS349 Visitor Center.....................................  repair hvac,antenna, fence.........................................       1,085
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Campground Fee Stn...........................................  repair roof........................................................         886
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Campground Restroom..........................................  repair roof........................................................       3,616
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Carpenter/Marine Shop........................................  repaint walls......................................................         417
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Cat Island Storage Bldg......................................  replace storage bldg...............................................       5,332
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  CCC Cabin No. 8..............................................  rehab interior/repair roof.........................................      14,584
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  CCC Cabin Housing No. 9......................................  rehab interior/repair roof.........................................       4,080
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Davis Bayou Fuel System......................................  Reconstruct fuel system............................................      55,682
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Boat Dock Access and Park.................................  Remove debris/replace signs/repair surface.........................      10,924
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Campground Road...........................................  repair surface/remove debris and stumps............................      28,625
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Eagle Point Road..........................................  Remove debris/replace sign.........................................       9,504
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Electrical/Plumbing Shop..................................  repaint walls......................................................         625
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Govn't Marina.............................................  replace decking and caps...........................................      70,629
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Gov't Boat Dock Access Park...............................  Replace signs/fencing..............................................      57,246
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Gov't Boat Launch Road....................................  remove debris/regarde shoulder/replace signs.......................       6,959
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Grounds, Landscape, Boardwalks............................  Remove debris/hazard trees.........................................   1,958,869
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Grounds/Maint Shop........................................  repaint walls......................................................         418
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Hanley Road...............................................  remove debirs/replace guardrails...................................      11,718
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Johnboat House............................................  Reconstruct John boat house........................................     257,850
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Lumber Storage............................................  repaint walls......................................................         207
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Maint. Complex Parking....................................  Remove debris/replace fencing......................................      34,070
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Nature's Way Trail........................................  remove debris/hazard trees/repair trail surface....................      72,078
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Park Road.................................................  Repair & resurface road and guardrails.............................      24,236
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Picnic Area Restroom......................................  repair roof........................................................         354
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Primitive Camp............................................  Replace signs/fire rings/tables/remove trees.......................      26,842
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Public Fishing Marina.....................................  replace dock.......................................................     127,885
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Public Marina.............................................  repair decking and seawall.........................................       1,445
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Ranger Station/VC Parking.................................  Remove debris & stumps/replace wheel stops.........................      30,511
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Savanna Extention Trail...................................  repair surface/replace boardwalk...................................      35,052
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB South Walk Trail..........................................  Remove debirs/replace lighting.....................................       8,342
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB VC Well Shed..............................................  Reconstruct VC Well shed...........................................      28,651
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Vehicle Storage...........................................  repaint walls......................................................         418
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB VFW Road..................................................  remove debris......................................................       2,789
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DB Warehouse.................................................  repair roof/repaint walls..........................................       3,453
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  DSC & A/E Planning/Project Mgmt..............................  ...................................................................   2,685,000
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  East Ship Island Grounds.....................................  Remove debris......................................................       5,867
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Fishing Pier Gazebo..........................................  recinstruct pier gazebo............................................      72,118
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  FL Debris Removal............................................  ...................................................................   3,200,000
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Ft. Mass Shore Protection....................................  ...................................................................     800,000
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Ft. Massachusetts............................................  Repair masonry/earthern roof/parade grounds/replace eletrical           541,534
                                                                                                                      system in Fort.
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Ft.Pickens/Santa Rosa Roads..................................  Remove sand/repair road............................................  12,000,000
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Fuel Pump Shelter............................................  reconstruct fuel pump shelter......................................      34,141
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Gov Boat Dock Office.........................................  reconstruct boat dock office.......................................     114,598
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Gov Boat Dock Shelter........................................  reconstruct boat dock shelter......................................     730,573
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  H. Generator Bldg #3.........................................  Reconstruct generator bldg.........................................      80,219
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Haz. Mat. Storage............................................  reconstruct haz mat storage bldg...................................      12,755
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Horn Electrical System.......................................  Reconstruct electrical system......................................      42,659
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Horn Fuel System.............................................  repair fuel station................................................       5,588
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Horn Haz Mat #37.............................................  Reconstruct haz material bldg......................................       8,503
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Horn Island Grounds..........................................  Debris removal.....................................................      32,038
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Horn Island Triplex #31......................................  Reconstruct triplex housing........................................     759,800
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Horn Maint. #32..............................................  repair roof........................................................       7,287
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Horn Pier & Boat Hoist.......................................  repair boatlift and pier ramp......................................      10,203
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Horn Solar Utility System....................................  Reconstruct soler utility system...................................     142,195
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Horn W. Crossover Trail......................................  Remove trees and brush.............................................       1,993
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Horn Water System............................................  Repair water system................................................      44,486
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Housing No. 33...............................................  Gut and rehab bldg.................................................     131,346
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Housing furnishings..........................................  ...................................................................     300,000
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Housing Yates No. 17.........................................  Reconstruct yates housing..........................................     649,677
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Marina Restroom..............................................  Reconstruct restroom...............................................     210,402
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  MS Debris Removal............................................  ...................................................................   3,250,000
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  MS VC/HQ.....................................................  Gut and rehab bldg.................................................     563,024
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Oil Storage Facility.........................................  reconstruct oil storage shed.......................................      53,717
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Perdido Key Johnson Beach Road...............................  Sand removal.......................................................      13,333
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Petit Bois Islands Grounds Debris............................  remove debris......................................................      10,764
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Picnic Area A Gazebo.........................................  reconstruct picnic gazebo..........................................      54,648
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Picnic Area Cluster..........................................  replace tables/grills/cans/remove haz trees........................      51,354
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Picnic Shelter #2 MS 3.......................................  reconstruct shelter................................................      96,158
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Picnic Shelter #4 MS 7.......................................  repair roof........................................................         177
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Picnic Shelter 1 MS1.........................................  repair roof........................................................         177
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Picnic Shelter/Restroom #3 MS6...............................  replace door.......................................................         284
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Public Boat Launch She.......................................  repair roof........................................................         637
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Savanna, Arboreteum tra......................................  replace decking/piers..............................................      75,410
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Ship Island Pier.............................................  remove damaged beams...............................................     103,197
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  Ship Island Ranger Station...................................  Reconstruct ranger station.........................................     240,649
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  SI Boardwalks................................................  Replace boardwalks.................................................   1,396,002
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  SI Concesseion Bldg #46......................................  Reconstruct Concession bldg........................................     487,383
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  SI Crossover Boardwalks......................................  Repair decking and kick rail.......................................     185,929
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  SI Electrical System.........................................  Reconstruct electrical system......................................      88,872
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  SI Fuel System...............................................  Reconstruct fuel system............................................      76,475
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  SI Generator Bldg. #45.......................................  Reconstruct generator bldg.........................................     286,498
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  SI Generator Bldg. #46.......................................  Reconstruct generator bldg.........................................      61,118
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  SI Haz Mat Storage #52.......................................  reconstruct haz mat storage bldg...................................      10,629
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  SI Housing #41A&B............................................  Reconstruct duplex housing.........................................     264,664
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  SI Housing Bunk #44..........................................  Reconstruct bunkhouse..............................................     262,947
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  SI Lifeguard Station.........................................  Reconstruct Lifeguard station......................................      32,705
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  SI Lighthouse................................................  Replace Lighthouse.................................................     844,729
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  SI Pavilions #49 & 50........................................  Resonctruct Pavillion Cluster......................................     266,931
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  SI Public Restroom...........................................  Reconstruct public restroom........................................     619,509
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  SI Restrooms No. 48..........................................  Reconstruct public restroom........................................      93,707
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  SI Septic System.............................................  Replace septic system..............................................     231,290
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  SI Solar Boat Lift...........................................  Reconstruct sloar boat lift........................................       7,999
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  SI Util/Propane No. 42.......................................  Reconstruct Utility bldg-propane...................................      23,874
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Katrina......  SI Water System..............................................  Reconstruct water system...........................................      10,848
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Rita.........  Fort Pickens Marina..........................................  Replace Joist beans and rail.......................................       5,696
    Gulf Islands National Seashore...  Rita.........  WSI Marina...................................................  Replace Decking....................................................     300,000
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Bayou Coquilles Canoe Trail........................  remove haz trees...................................................      15,652
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Bayou Coquilles Trail..............................  replace boardwalk sections.........................................      47,485
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Bayou des Familles Canoe Trail.....................  remove haz trees...................................................      20,249
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Ed Center Parking Route 912........................  repair exterior lights.............................................      10,695
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Ed Center Trail....................................  repair boardwalk...................................................      15,497
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Education Center...................................  repair screens/roof/hand rails.....................................       6,105
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Kenta Canaveral National Seashorel Canoe Trail.....  remove trees from Canaveral National Seashorel.....................       8,870
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Kenta Canaveral National Seashorel Recreational      remove debris and hazard trees.....................................       2,242
                                                       Area.
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Office Complex & Restrooms.........................  replace doors/handrails/repair roof................................      16,953
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Old Barataria Trail................................  remove haz trees...................................................       6,957
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Palmetto Trail.....................................  Replace boardwalk/waterline and valves.............................   1,072,635
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Parallel Canaveral National Seashorel..............  remove haz trees...................................................      10,124
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Plantation Trail Loops A & B.......................  remove haz trees/repair boardwalk..................................     234,494
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Preserve Pecan Grove Comfort Station...............  repair metal roof..................................................         823
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Ring Levee Trail...................................  remove haz trees/repair boardwalk..................................      42,110
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Sewage Treatment Plant I VC/Admin & Main...........  remove haz tree....................................................         661
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Tarpaper Canoe Trail...............................  remove haz trees...................................................      39,416
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Twin Canaveral National Seashorels Canoe Trail.....  remove haz treees..................................................      43,895
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Twin Canaveral National Seashorels Foot Trail......  remove haz trees/repair boardwalk..................................      69,439
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Twin Canaveral National Seashorels Parking Route     repair erdoded parking lot.........................................         850
                                                       916.
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Twin Canaveral National Seashorels Recreational      remove haz trees...................................................       3,183
                                                       Area.
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Visitor Center.....................................  repair roof and walls..............................................      54,008
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Visitor Center Trail...............................  Replace hand rail..................................................         140
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Barataria Wood Duck Trail....................................  remove haz trees...................................................      28,380
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Chalmette Battlefield--Maintained Landscape..................  multiple landscape impacts.........................................     178,611
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Chalmette Battlefield Comfort Station........................  replace HVAC, plumbing and doors/repair electrical.................      16,337
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Chalmette Battlefield M-B House(Roof)........................  repair slate roof/repair interior ceiling..........................     144,273
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Chalmette Battlefield Monument...............................  repair historic masonry/repair contractor scaffolding..............     136,540
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Chalmette Battlefield Visitor Center (Raze)..................  replace VC.........................................................     555,001
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Chalmette National Cemetery..................................  multiple landscape impacts.........................................     385,279
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  CNC Carriage House...........................................  Gut and rehab bldg.................................................     113,603
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  CNC Equipment Storage Bldg...................................  repair exterior walls..............................................       2,140
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  CNC Equipment Storage Building 250 Gal Tank..................  Repair fuel storage tank...........................................       3,287
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  CNC Maintained Landscape.....................................  repair brick wall/security gates...................................      77,098
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  CNC Military Cemetery Road-Route 11..........................  clean and repair roadway and historical curb.......................      28,926
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  CNC Sewage Collection........................................  repair Carriage House lift station.................................       5,765
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  CNC Superintendents Lodge....................................  Gut and rehab bldg.................................................     169,937
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Debris removal...............................................  Debirs removal.....................................................     350,000
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  FQ Bldg Visitor Center & Administration......................  misc interior/exterior repairs.....................................     238,750
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  FQ Maintained Landscape......................................  Remove and replace trees...........................................       8,097
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Government Property Loss not tracked by FMSS.................  replace lost/destroyed equipment...................................     350,000
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Grounds ,Chalmette Battlefield M-B House.....................  replace shrubs at Beaugard House...................................       1,128
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Lake Salvador Geo Crib Structure.............................  replace Geo Cirb structure.........................................   1,410,000
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Project Mgmt and Planning....................................  DSC Project Mgmt...................................................     525,000
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Replace/Rehabilitate park signs, waysides & exhibits.........  replace signs/waysides parkwide....................................     750,076
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  Stabilize/Protect/Rehabilitate Curatorial Resources..........  Preserve and store curatorial artifacts............................     450,000
    Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve......  Katrina......  WACC Percy Lobdell Warehouse Building........................  repair roof/elevator...............................................       5,450
    Natchez National Historic Park...  Katrina......  Replace & relocate electical panels..........................  ...................................................................      16,000
    Natchez National Historic Park...  Katrina......  Replace & Relocate Telecom equipment.........................  ...................................................................       7,200
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  Cherokee District--Maintained Landscapes.....................  remove trees.......................................................      10,075
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  Coles Creek Comfort Station Building No. 329.................  repair roof/siding.................................................       8,456
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  Dancy District-Maintained Landscapes.........................  remove trees/repair fence..........................................     258,492
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  Emerald Mound................................................  remove trees.......................................................       1,537
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  Emergency Response...........................................  ...................................................................      46,450
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  Jeff Busby Campground........................................  remove trees.......................................................       8,183
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  Jeff Busby Comfort Sta. Building No. 195.....................  repair roof........................................................       8,890
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  Jeff Busby Picnic Area.......................................  remove trees.......................................................       2,856
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  Jeff Busby Trail.............................................  repair bridge......................................................       3,492
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  KO Hurricane Creek Trail.....................................  ...................................................................       4,628
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  Kosciusko District-Maintained Landscapes.....................  remove trees.......................................................     846,139
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  Meriwether Lewis District-Maintained Landscapes..............  remove trees.......................................................       9,705
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  Mount Locust Historic House No. 100..........................  Repair roof........................................................      20,937
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  Natchez National Historic Parkhez District-Maintained          remove trees/repair fencing/replace signs..........................     191,010
                                                       Landscapes.
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  Port Gibson District-Maintained Landscapes...................  remove trees.......................................................     154,974
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  RI Cypress Swamp Trail.......................................  remove trees/repair trail..........................................       7,836
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  Ridgeland Covered Storage Building No. 308...................  ...................................................................       5,797
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  Ridgeland District-Maintained Landscapes.....................  remove trees.......................................................     326,792
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  Ridgeland Storage Building No. 109...........................  repair roof........................................................       6,935
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  Rocky Springs Picnic Area....................................  remove trees.......................................................       9,778
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  Rocky Springs Campground.....................................  remove trees.......................................................       5,562
    Natchez Trace Parkway............  Katrina......  Tupelo District-Maintained Landscapes........................  remove trees.......................................................      29,716
    Vicksburg National Military Park.  Katrina......  Cemetary maintenance Shop....................................  repair roof........................................................       8,900
    Vicksburg National Military Park.  Katrina......  Ranger Storage Bldg..........................................  repair storage bldg................................................         950
    Vicksburg National Military Park.  Katrina......  Tour Road Landscape..........................................  remove trees/debris from tour road.................................      82,980
                                                                                                                                                                                         -----------
          Total......................  .............  .............................................................  ...................................................................  64,353,455
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 STORM DAMAGE DETAIL REPORT--INTERMOUNTAIN REGION HURRICANE RITA AS OF JANUARY 19, 2006
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Park                    Storm              Asset/need            Recommended repair       Estimate
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Set up temp HQ offices/   Travel for O. Olsen to         $1,460
                                                      Building destroyed in     assist w/computer setup.
                                                      storm.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Beaumont HQ office        Set up temporary office         8,005
                                                      destroyed in storm.       trailers at Maint.
                                                                                Complex.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Temporary Office          Construct boardwalk             7,800
                                                      Trailers.                 between trailers to
                                                                                doors.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  HQ office furniture       Replace office furniture        7,488
                                                      destroyed in storm.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Sidewalks to temp.        Purchase and pour                 740
                                                      trailers.                 concrete.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Equipment (printers,      Repair or replace.......       19,263
                                                      copiers).
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  GSA Vehicle costs.......  Used for Recovery effort       12,640
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Archeologist............  Travel to assess                  168
                                                                                archeological damage.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Evacuation needs........  Food, water, propane,           1,863
                                                                                etc.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Damaged computer          Repair or replace.......          739
                                                      equipment.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Fuel Storage and          Replace damaged parts           1,139
                                                      Transfer.                 and repair.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Phone lines (SBC).......  Transfer from destroyed         1,774
                                                                                building.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Phone System (Beaumont    Replace digital trunk          19,499
                                                      annex) (NextiraOne).      media module.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Maintenance Security      Replace batteries and             112
                                                      System.                   transformer.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Vehicle Fuel for          purchase gasoline.......          203
                                                      Recovery Patrols.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Maintenance buildiing     Repair damaged door.....          420
                                                      overhead door.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Damaged Uniforms........  Replace damaged uniforms          570
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Assess Damage...........  Copy aerial photos taken          280
                                                                                by SETT Team.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Radio Batteries.........  Replace damaged                   359
                                                                                batteries.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Gyrotrac for damaged      Ship from Florida.......        2,432
                                                      tree removal.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Hazardous Tree & Limb     Purchase necessary              1,179
                                                      removal.                  equipment for removal.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Picnic Tables...........  Replace destroyed picnic        6,524
                                                                                tables.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Trash Containers........  Replaced destroyed trash        9,970
                                                                                containers.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Maintenance Complex.....  Electrical repairs              1,100
                                                                                needed.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Turkey Creek Radio Tower  Repair damaged tower....        4,910
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Beaumont Radio Antenna..  Repair damaged antenna..          750
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Town Bluff Radio Tower..  Repair damaged tower....        2,500
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Turkey Creek Radio        Replace damaged repeater        1,570
                                                      Repeater.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Maintenance Complex.....  Replace damaged HVAC           22,000
                                                                                system.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Maintenance Complex.....  Rebuild damaged fire            1,477
                                                                                pump.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Patrol Boat trailer.....  Replace destroyed boat          1,075
                                                                                trailer.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Patrol Boat parts.......  Replace damaged boat              476
                                                                                parts.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  LE Flashlight...........  Replace lost flashlight.          115
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  All Preserve Trails.....  Purchase equipment for          5,126
                                                                                clearing trails.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Landfill Dump fees......  Removal of Hurricane              212
                                                                                trash.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Turkey Creek Trail......  Replace damaged                13,600
                                                                                boardwalks & clear
                                                                                trail.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Kirby Nature Trail......  Replace damaged                13,150
                                                                                boardwalks & clear
                                                                                trail.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Pitcher Plant Trail.....  Replace damaged                 2,000
                                                                                boardwalks & clear
                                                                                trail.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Big Sandy Trail (Horse    Clear limbs & trees from        4,500
                                                      Trail).                   trail.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Woodlands Trail.........  Replace damaged                 9,470
                                                                                boardwalks & clear
                                                                                trail.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Beaver Slide Trail......  Replace damaged                 5,480
                                                                                boardwalks & clear
                                                                                trail.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Beech Woods Trail.......  Clear limbs & trees from        5,980
                                                                                trail.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Birdwatchers Trail......  Clear limbs & trees from        4,480
                                                                                trail.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Sundew Trail............  Replace damaged                 5,985
                                                                                boardwalks & clear
                                                                                trail.
    Big Thicket National Preserve  Rita............  Trail Heads, Parking      Clear limbs and trees...       14,170
                                                      Lots, Grounds, Roads.
                                                                                                        ------------
          Total..................  ................  ........................  ........................      224,753
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                          USGS SUMMARY OF ACTUAL AND PROJECTED
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Response and recovery cost
                                                  -------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Travel &                Total
                                                     Labor    Equipment   Supplies   per diem    Other
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Biology:
        NWRC operations:
            Intern/External Communications.......    $84,654  .........  .........  .........  .........     $84,654
            Search and rescue....................     97,324  .........    $15,000     $6,000    $34,760     153,084
            Flights to assess DOI asets..........  .........  .........  .........  .........     35,000      35,000
            FEMA and State OEP support...........     80,000  .........  .........  .........  .........      80,000
            Equipment Repair.....................  .........   $100,000  .........  .........  .........     100,000
    Geology:
        Coastal Marine (LIDAR)...................  .........  .........  .........  .........    795,000     795,000
        Potential Health and Environmental         .........  .........  .........  .........    250,000     250,000
         Impacts Related To Sediment.............
    Water:
        Coastal gages (35 gages).................    157,500  2,111,900  .........  .........  .........   2,269,400
        Water Quality instruments on coastal       .........  1,638,100  .........  .........  .........   1,638,100
         gages...................................
        Temporary gages in N.O. (6)..............      9,000    182,040  .........  .........  .........     191,040
        SR Streamflow gages (18 gages)...........    180,000    360,000  .........  .........  .........     540,000
        Unplanned response to Katrina OT (SR &       600,000  .........  .........  .........  .........     600,000
         CR).....................................
        CR Streamflow gages (9 gages)............     56,000    229,000  .........  .........  .........     285,000
            Boat & Trailer Replacement...........  .........     55,000     80,000  .........  .........     135,000
        Mobile Laboratory (Mercury) repair.......  .........    200,000  .........  .........  .........     200,000
        High-water marks.........................    339,000  .........  .........  .........  .........     339,000
        Travel & Perdiem.........................  .........  .........  .........     85,200  .........      85,200
        Water Quality:
            Ponchartrain.........................    200,000  .........  .........  .........    408,000     608,000
            Ground (tap) Water analysis..........    200,000  .........  .........  .........    403,000     603,000
            Microbiology.........................    100,000  .........     20,000  .........  .........     120,000
            QW Field Sites (12-LA, 15-MS)........    124,000    200,000  .........  .........  .........     324,000
            Other field station laboratory         .........  .........  .........  .........    500,000     500,000
             analysis............................
        Hydrologic Instrumentation Facility          180,000  .........  .........    217,500  .........     397,500
         Recovery................................
        Flood Response Support...................  .........  .........  .........  .........    159,400     159,400
    Geography: Imagery and GIS support...........  .........  .........  .........  .........    522,000     522,000
    Enterprise Information: Custom geospatial      .........  .........  .........  .........    500,000     500,000
     products....................................
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total Initial Response Funding Needed..  2,407,478  5,076,040    115,000    308,700  3,607,160  11,514,378
    Repayment of funds borrowed from BIA.........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........   4,000,000
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total USGS Needs for Hurricane Response/ .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  15,514,378
           Recovery..............................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Request for $3 Million in Historic Preservation Fund Grants for Gulf
                   Coast State Historic Preservation Officers

        The Gulf Coast Region is rich in heritage assets and the extensive
    devastation inflicted by the recent hurricanes is unrivaled in the
    Nation's history. These assets not only form the cultural character of
    the region; they also play a critical role in the economy as the base
    of the tourism industry. New Orleans has 20 recognized historic
    districts, most of which suffered serious damage from wind and
    flooding. In Mississippi, Katrina destroyed over 300 designated
    historic properties.
        Reconstruction of heritage assets is essential to the economic
    recovery of the region, so investment and development plans must
    recognize the repair and rehabilitation of these assets as a priority.
    The revitalization of the region's heritage tourism industry will be a
    vital component of the overall economic recovery. Tourism is a major
    industry in this part of the country and visitors to cultural and
    heritage assets make-up a significant portion of the overall $18.3
    billion travel industry along the Gulf Coast.
        Federal law, through Section 106 of the National Historic
    Preservation Act, requires Federal agencies to evaluate the impact of
    their actions on historic properties. The ``Section 106 process'' is
    overseen by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) but
    relies heavily upon the involvement of State Historic Preservation
    Officers (SHPO) for its day-to-day operation. Without timely and
    effective SHPO participation, the Section 106 process cannot function.
        The Section 106 process ensures that Federal assistance is used in
    a manner that avoids unnecessary harm to historic properties and, where
    possible, to promote the constructive reuse of those properties. The
    billions of dollars of Federal reconstruction funding will affect
    thousands of surviving historic properties, a scale unprecedented in
    the history of the Section 106 process.
        The extensive number of historic properties in the region will
    likewise affect the delivery of Federal reconstruction assistance. The
    sheer magnitude of Federal projects will overwhelm the Section 106
    process at the state level without the requested grants. This will
    delay Federal decisions and threaten numerous additional heritage
    assets with destruction by poorly planned redevelopment projects.
        Federal financial assistance is needed immediately to ensure the
    efficient functioning of the Section 106 review process. An infusion of
    funds during the reconstruction period will avoid system overload and
    promote development decisions that best integrate the region's heritage
    assets into a revitalized Gulf Coast economy. It will also offset the
    negative impact state budget reductions have had on SHPO resources in
    the region. The funds will be distributed among the Louisiana,
    Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama SHPOs. The estimated allocation by
    state is Louisiana ($1.25 million), Mississippi ($1.5 million), Texas
    ($150,000), and Alabama ($100,000) based on a needs assessment.

                                   EASEMENTS

        Senator Burns. It was. Last year we appropriated $985
    thousand to begin purchasing easements along the Front Range of
    west of Great Falls Montana, of the Rocky Mountains. For those
    who don't know, this is a part of the world where grizzly
    bears, wolves, wolverine, lynx live amongst the areas many
    ranches. In fact I will tell you that our efforts in order to
    identify how many bears we got, grizzle bears up there we got,
    has moved along and I think we've got a few more than we first
    thought.
        If you don't know the map of the area, they spotted a
    grizzly bear last year, as far out at the Interstate 15 coming
    out of Canada. That's way out on the prairie, and that's a long
    ways from the front. So we did some quarter works up there and
    some easement programs, you might bring us up to date and
    what's happening with that program, including your plans for
    funds in 2007?
        Ms. Scarlett. Yes. Thank you Senator, my understanding is
    that the Fish and Wildlife Service is moving ahead with the
    acquisitions with the 2006 funds. I believe that will total
    about 4,700 acres in 2006. In 2007 we would expect another
    6,500 acres and I believe the budget does have some funding,
    about $1.9 million for that purpose.
        Senator Burns. Sometimes we ought to look on how we put
    valuations on that. You know you're not buying a farm in Iowa,
    or irrigated land. Sometimes I think we should look at that
    somewhat. I'd like to sit down and visit with how much we're
    paying for a parcel, and I think some savings could be made
    through that direction. That's about all I have. There are
    other questions and there will be other questions before this
    is over, we'd like to work with you on the PILT and several
    areas where we're short, after all a budget does boil down to
    what your priorities are and sometimes our priorities are not
    yours, but nonetheless we'll find someway to work our way
    through it. I thank you for your testimony this morning. Other
    Senators may have questions if you could respond to those
    individual senators and to the committee I'd certainly
    appreciate that, and I thank you for your testimony this
    morning.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We have received the statement of Senator Thad Cochran that
    will be made part of the hearing record.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran

        Mr. Chairman I am pleased to join you in welcoming Secretary Lynn
    Scarlett to the committee this morning. I would also like to recognize
    Secretary Gale Norton for her years of service to this nation. I
    enjoyed working with Secretary Norton over the past 5 years on issues
    such as the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and the Migratory Bird
    Commission. Secretary Norton has been a good advocate for properly
    managing our nation's nature resources. I wish Secretary Norton well in
    her future endeavors.
        Secretary Scarlett, I want to commend you and your staff for the
    effort you have made throughout the Gulf Coast region following
    Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to clear debris and establish emergency
    staging areas for delivering assistance in the form of shelter, food,
    and water to thousands of Gulf Coast residents who lost their homes.
        These hurricanes also caused widespread damage to many of the
    National Wildlife Refugees and National Parks on the gulf coast. The
    Gulf Islands National Seashore, which provides a natural barrier from
    hurricanes, was severely damaged during Hurricane Katrina. It is
    critical that the Department of the Interior and other federal agencies
    move forward with plans to restore these important natural barriers.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing. I look
    forward to the testimony.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Burns. We will leave the record open for questions
    from other committee members.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns

                                PILT REDUCTIONS

        Question. The Committee has a real concern with your PILT request.
    Since I've been chairman we've managed to increase the annual amount
    for PILT from around $135 million in fiscal year 2000 to a high last
    year of $233 million. This program is absolutely critical to local
    county governments yet the Administration proposes to cut it virtually
    every year.
        What is the rationale for proposing to cut this vital program again
    this year?
        Answer. As part of the President's effort to reduce the budget
    deficit by half over five years, the 2007 budget for the Department
    makes difficult choices among programs. Overall the Department's 2007
    budget reflects a reduction of $322 million in current discretionary
    funding. The 2007 budget continues essentially the same level as was
    funded in 2001, and is still at a level that is significantly above the
    levels paid in the 1990s, which were on the order of $100-120 million.
        Question. Aren't you sending a mixed message to local communities
    when you emphasize cooperation and collaboration in implementing the
    Healthy Forests Initiative and various conservation programs, but when
    it comes to a vital program that funds rural schools and infrastructure
    you keep proposing to cut the funding?
        Answer. The PILT program compensates counties across the U.S. for
    losses to their real property tax base when Federal lands are located
    within their boundaries. Payments received under the program may be
    used for any governmental purpose, such as police and fire protection,
    school buses, or road maintenance. In addition to PILT, the Department
    provides $4 billion in revenues to States and counties on an annual
    basis. These payments help to defray the costs of infrastructure and
    services at the State and county level. Although these funds are not
    intended to substitute for payments to counties, the Department does
    project continuing increases in revenues that are shared with States
    and counties, to help defray the costs of infrastructure and services
    at the State and county level. In 2000 these payments totaled $1.9
    million. The 2007 estimated payments are expected to be double this
    amount.

                        FINANCIAL SYSTEMS--COST OVERRUNS

        Question. The Committee is concerned with the growing costs and
    delays associated with implementing your Financial and Business
    Management System (FBMS). The Department is requesting $22 million for
    this system in fiscal year 2007 but recently you removed the contractor
    that was doing the work because of implementation problems.
        Can you tell us what the status is of this project?
        Answer. A new competitive solicitation for implementation services
    for the Financial and Business Management System was issued in November
    2005. On February 28, 2006, Interior awarded a contract to IBM Business
    Consulting. The DOI FBMS team is working with IBM toward deployment of
    the core financial and reporting modules of FBMS in the Minerals
    Management Service and Office of Surface Mining in the fall of 2006.
    The grants module that was deployed in April 2005 remains in
    production; software that was purchased is being used; the hosting
    services and infrastructure continue to be provided by DOI's National
    Business Center.
        Question. How much more is implementation of this system costing
    than you originally projected?
        Answer. Originally, we projected that the system implementation
    would cost about $125 million. Based on the new contract award, the
    implementation costs have increased by approximately $55 million over a
    six-year period. In addition, the Department has increased resources
    devoted to planning by $15 million over the implementation period,
    principally for increased subject matter experts drawn from DOI's
    bureaus, and more oversight into the technical work products of the
    project implementation.
        Question. Can you assure the Committee that this isn't going to
    turn into a system that doesn't work as advertised and costs tens of
    millions more to implement than what you originally projected?
        Answer. The primary software used for FBMS, from SAP, is used
    around the world by businesses and government. We have built rigorous
    functional oversight and project management best practices into our
    contract with IBM. Each deployment phase includes a formal Integrated
    Baseline Review to ensure that the scope, schedule, cost and risks have
    been fully defined and appropriate management and mitigation strategies
    identified. The project has engaged an independent contractor to
    oversee the implementation and report its findings to management. We
    are reporting our status and progress to the Interior Chief Information
    Officer monthly, using a formal project earned value management system.
    One of the most important reasons to invest in more bureau
    participation in the project planning and management is to ensure that
    the deployed system meets the Department's and bureaus' business needs
    and enables us to achieve our vision of having a single, integrated
    business system with standardized data and processes across the
    Department.

                         ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY (R.S. 2477)

        Question. R.S. 2477 granted rights of way across federal land for
    the construction of public roads. It was repealed in 1976, but
    significant disagreements between Utah counties, BLM, and wilderness
    advocates have continued. The 10th Circuit ruled on this issue in 2005
    in BLM's favor. On March 22, Secretary Norton issued guidance to land
    managers to implement the 10th Circuit's decision.
        The Department recently announced new guidelines on R.S. 2477. Can
    you explain why new guidelines are necessary?
        What affect will this have on road construction on federal lands?
    Will it change the way roads are currently managed or change access to
    federal lands?
        Answer. On March 26, 2006, Secretary Norton announced new
    guidelines to assist Interior land managers in implementing a recent
    court decision regarding roads across federally owned lands. The new
    guidelines implement the principles outlined in the 2005 Southern Utah
    Wilderness Alliance v. Bureau of Land Management (SUWA v. BLM) decision
    by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. This
    decision and the new guidelines protect federal lands by clarifying
    that these roads cannot be expanded or significantly improved without
    consultation with federal land managers.
        SUWA v. BLM clarified many legal issues related to Revised Statute
    2477 (R.S. 2477), which granted rights of way for the construction of
    public roads across federal land. Because of this clarification by the
    10th Circuit, Secretary Norton on March 22 formally revoked the interim
    Departmental policy on R.S. 2477, issued in 1997. In addition, the new
    guidelines direct the termination of the Memorandum of Understanding
    entered into between the Department and the State of Utah in April,
    2003.
        R.S. 2477 granted rights of way for public use across federal land
    prior to 1976, when Congress repealed the law. Congress specified that
    any valid R.S. 2477 rights of way existing at the time of the repeal
    would continue in effect. This has resulted in considerable doubt as to
    whether counties or the federal government own certain roads on federal
    lands.
        In SUWA v. BLM, the 10th Circuit clarified that only courts could
    finally determine the ownership issue, but that federal agencies are
    permitted to develop a process to analyze claims for administrative
    purposes. The decision allows the roads to be maintained at status quo
    and does not authorize automatic expansion. The new guidelines clarify
    how Interior will carry out its obligations following SUWA v. BLM, and
    respect the obligation that Interior has to protect federal lands and
    environmentally sensitive areas, particularly parks, refuges and
    congressionally designated wilderness areas. For example, under the
    guidelines a dirt road will remain a dirt road and a two-track road
    will remain a two-track road unless there is a permitting process and
    environmental analysis.
        The new guidelines recognize the special status of national parks,
    wildlife refuges and congressionally designated wilderness areas and
    direct Interior land managers to issue, as necessary, revised
    instructions or guidance consistent with the SUWA v. BLM decision and
    their obligation to protect federal lands and resources. The new
    guidelines recognize a number of options for Interior land managers to
    address claimed rights of way:
      --where a claimant wishes to do no more than maintain the existing
            status quo of a road and the current use and maintenance are
            consistent with the land manager's duty to protect the
            surrounding and underlying federal lands, the parties may
            utilize a road maintenance agreement;
      --where title to the road is already vested in an entity other than
            the federal government, the parties may utilize a recordable
            disclaimer, which formalizes that the federal government itself
            does not dispute the entity's road claim;
      --where a road has an unclear R.S. 2477 status but the land manager
            and a claimant agree on the need for the road, the BLM,
            pursuant to Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management
            Act, may grant rights of way irrespective of R.S. 2477;
      --where a claimant wishes to perform construction or expand use
            beyond the status quo, the land manager may make an informal,
            nonbinding determination (NBD) of whether the R.S. 2477 claim
            is valid and whether the proposed improvements are reasonable
            and necessary in light of the traditional uses that established
            the claimed right of way. A land manager would allow
            improvement only if the land manager determines that the
            improvement is consistent with the traditional uses and is
            consistent with Interior's duty to protect surrounding and
            underlying lands;
      --where a claimant seeks a binding determination of a claimed right
            of way, the claimant may file a quiet title action. A court
            would then make a determination.
        Before a land manager implements any of the above options, members
    of the public will be given notice and an opportunity to comment.

                              PLAINS INDIAN MUSEUM

        Question. The Indian Arts and Crafts Board (IACB) funds three
    Indian museums, one in Browning, MT. The Museum of the Plains Indian in
    Browning contains many culturally and historically important items. It
    is an important resource for the community and for the entire state of
    Montana. In last year's Budget Request, the administration proposed to
    end funding for the museum in fiscal year 2007. You should know that
    the subcommittee was strongly opposed to that idea, and we included
    language in the fiscal year 2006 Interior Report advising Interior
    against it.
        Does the fiscal year 2007 Budget Request propose to close the
    Museum of the Plains Indian?
        Can you assure me that the Department of Interior will work with
    the local community on a way to enhance this unique asset, rather than
    continuing to threaten to close it?
        Answer. The priority activities of the IACB are to promote Indian
    crafts and enforce the civil and criminal provisions of the Indian Arts
    and Crafts Act of 1990. The need to focus on enforcement is increasing
    due to evidence that counterfeiting of Indian Arts and Crafts is
    increasing and becoming more sophisticated, as well as exhibiting ties
    to more serious crimes. Violation of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act
    directly impacts the economy of tribes and individual Indians.
        The ability to expand law enforcement will depend in large part on
    the success of efforts to shift Federal funding from operations of the
    three IACB museums. The intention would not be to close the museums,
    but rather to find partners such as Tribes, local community groups or
    others who would operate the museums and manage those artifacts. Other
    options under consideration include creation of foundations to support
    the museums and establishment of relationships with universities.
    Management and engagement in the operation of these museums at the
    community level would enrich the use of the assets.
        In response to the Interior report language, the Department is
    reconsidering its options on how to best address funding issues of the
    Indian Arts and Craft Board. Particular issues include Indian Arts and
    Crafts Act enforcement and how best to improve museum operations to
    better reflect the mission, activities, and goals of the Indian Arts
    and Crafts Board.

                               ENERGY PRODUCTION

        Question. Last fall the subcommittee held a hearing to examine the
    impediments to developing oil and gas resources on federal land. One of
    the main complaints from industry has been a major backlog in
    processing APD's (applications for permits to drill). BLM's fiscal year
    2007 Budget contains $25.4 million in increases for energy-related
    programs.
        Can you tell me whether the backlog situation has improved?
        Answer. BLM has made significant improvements in the rate at which
    APDs are being processed. Using past appropriation increases, process
    improvements from streamlining and the new revenue provided for pilot
    project offices under Section 365 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the
    BLM is reducing the number of pending APDs even though the demand for
    APDs continues to increase. The table and graph below show the number
    of APDs received, processed, and pending since 2004 in both pilot and
    non-pilot offices:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      2004         2005         2006         2007
                                                                     actual       actual      estimate     estimate
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pending APDs less than 60 days old at start of year.........          888        1,082        1,450        1,976
    Pending APDs greater than 60 days old at start of year......        2,780        2,214        2,461        1,161
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Total Pending APDs at start of year...................        3,668        3,296        3,911        3,137
                                                                 ===================================================
    New APDs Received...........................................        6,979        8,351        9,386       10,525
    APDs Approved...............................................        6,452        7,018      ( \1\ )      ( \1\ )
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Total APDs Processed..................................        7,351        7,736       10,160       11,984
          Pending APDs less than 60 days old at end of year.....        1,082        1,450        1,976        1,678
          Pending APDs greater than 60 days old at end of year..        2,214        2,461        1,161  ...........
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Total Pending APDs at end of year.....................        3,296        3,911        3,137        1,678
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The number of APDs processed in 2006 includes 410 APDs processed with funds reprogrammed late in fiscal year
      2005. The additional funds requested in 2007 will enable BLM to process 1,100 more APDs in non-pilot offices
      than it could at the 2006 base funding level.

        Question. How will this budget proposal continue to support our
    domestic energy production needs?
        Answer. BLM's budget proposal would implement a number of important
    sections of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 including those related to
    energy permit processing and improvements in its inspection program and
    monitoring associated with oil and gas development. The budget also
    makes investments in renewable energy, supports the exploration and
    development of energy on Alaska's North Slope, and funds the testing of
    gas hydrates, a potentially significant source of natural gas. The
    budget also funds a major environmental analysis needed to support oil
    shale commercial leasing decisions.

                           INDIAN LAND CONSOLIDATION

        Question. Fractionation of individually-held tracts of Indian Trust
    land continues to contribute to the cost and complexity of managing
    Trust Lands. There are over 3.2 million individual interests held in
    Trust by the federal government, many of which are incredibly small and
    difficult to manage.
        One of the single biggest increases in the Department of the
    Interior's Budget is $25.4 million for Indian Land Consolidation, which
    is a 75 percent increase over last year's level.
        How will these funds be allocated in fiscal year 2007?
        How is the decision made on where to direct the funds?
        Are we making progress on this problem or are we continuing to fall
    behind?
        Answer. The 2007 budget proposes funding of $59.4 million for
    Indian land consolidation, an increase of $25.4 million, or 75 percent
    above the 2006 enacted level. The $59.4 million will fund an
    acquisition program of about 80,000 additional fractionated interests,
    an increase of approximately 34,000 above the estimated 2006 level of
    acquisition. (The estimates of the number of interests to be acquired
    are based on historical average cost to date. As acquisition activities
    continue and additional targeted interests are acquired, the average
    cost per acquisition, cost per interest, and amount of interests
    acquired will likely change from the experience to date.)
        The Department has demonstrated success over the past several years
    acquiring the highly fractionated interests through the Indian Land
    Consolidation program. Through December 31, 2005, the Department has
    acquired 202,775 fractional interests in individual Indian allotted
    lands.
        Based on the activities to date, the Department has determined that
    a more focused tiered acquisition approach is needed to:
      --Provide a long term strategy for acquisition of highly fractionated
            interests;
      --Establish a tiered priority process to select which interests to
            acquire;
      --Achieve the most efficient use of limited resources; and
      --Develop additional tools and an enhanced financing option to
            address this program.
        As part of this proposal, the Department will implement a tiered
    acquisition strategy, targeting selected highly fractioned tracts.
    Based on data available from the TAAMS database as of March 2005, there
    are 2,173 highly fractioned tracts (defined as 200 or more interests
    per tract) owned by 98,905 individuals. A focus on these tracts will
    begin in 2006 and target approximately 1,557 highly fractionated tracts
    that include 520,685 individual interests located in ten geographic
    locations.

                         WILDLAND FIRE/FUELS REDUCTION

        Question. The Department's overall Wildland Fire Budget is $769
    million, which is a $14 million increase over last year but includes
    major cuts to core programs--particularly an $8.3 million reduction in
    Hazardous Fuels Reduction and elimination of the $10 million Rural Fire
    Assistance program, which funds small rural fire departments.
        The Committee does not understand how cutting the hazardous fuels
    program squares up with the Administration's stated goal to increase
    Forest Health and reduce wildfire risk on our public lands.
        How does the BLM plan to increase the acres of forests treated
    while reducing the dollars used for Hazardous Fuels Reduction?
        Answer. We believe that the hazardous fuels reduction funding
    request will continue to sustain significant progress toward
    performance goals. By using new authorities (such as stewardship
    contracting) to leverage additional resources while also more
    efficiently using existing funds, and by better use of partnerships and
    collaboration, the bureaus have been able to exceed performance targets
    the past two years. Overall fuels treatment funding for the Federal
    fire community (including the Forest Service) is level with 2006.
        Question. Why eliminate the Rural Fire Assistance program?
        Answer. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of
    Agriculture's Forest Service both operate grants programs that provide
    similar services to rural fire departments across the country. The
    Department of Interior has invested heavily each year since the
    emergence of the National Fire Plan to help small community and rural
    fire departments with equipment, training, and public education. For
    the future, we are moving more toward assisting these departments with
    specific wildland fire training to further enhance their response
    capabilities. Beginning in fiscal year 2006, Preparedness funds have
    been set aside to implement the Ready Reserve program as a pilot
    project. In 2006, this program is closely aligned with the Rural Fire
    Assistance program, and is designed to expand wildland fire response
    capability by providing wildland fire training and technical assistance
    to local and rural fire department personnel. The 2007 DOI request for
    Preparedness continues the $1.9 million set aside for advancing the
    Ready Reserve concept. The 2007 Interior budget does propose to
    terminate the Rural Fire Assistance program; however, the Department
    will continue ongoing efforts to work with the Department of Homeland
    Security to meet the needs of rural fire departments for basic training
    and equipment through the much larger DHS Assistance to Firefighters
    Grant program. The Department recently updated an existing agreement
    with DHS that will ensure a greater role for the wildland fire agencies
    in reviewing grants to rural fire departments through programs DHS
    administers. As part of this enhanced collaboration, the two
    Departments now link websites to better direct rural fire departments
    seeking grants to available funding.
        Question. Aren't state and local fire departments critical in
    helping fight fire on federal lands?
        Answer. The Department does rely on State and local fire
    departments, particularly in remote areas where DOI firefighting
    resources may be several hours away from the land they protect. As
    explained above, DOI recognizes the importance of these departments and
    continues to focus available resources on providing training and safety
    gear. In fiscal year 2005, the DOI and USDA Forest Service assistance
    programs provided technical assistance, training, supplies, and
    equipment to nearly 11,000 small rural communities, and the Departments
    entered into cooperative agreements with many rural and volunteer fire
    departments for the protection of both communities and natural
    resources. The Department will continue to rely on collaboratively
    developed mutual aid agreements with State and local jurisdictions to
    support firefighting efforts.
        Question. The BLM is asking for the 10-year average for
    suppression, or $257 million, which is $26 million more than last year.
    This is a significant increase in tight budgetary times. How can we
    bring down these costs?
        Answer. We are employing a range of tactics to address high fire
    costs. In some cases, keeping fires small through successful initial
    attack may make the most sense. In these cases, quick suppression
    response avoids higher suppression costs on extended attack,
    significant resource damage, loss of economic benefits from tourism and
    resource-dependent industries, and loss of community infrastructure.
        Question. In many other locations and situations, however,
    different fire management situations may be appropriate. Continuing to
    emphasize both Wildland Fire Use (WFU) and Appropriate Management
    Response (AMR) strategies may provide the means to better control the
    rising costs of wildfire suppression. Wildland Fire Use is the
    management of naturally ignited fires to achieve resource benefits.
    These fires generally require fewer management resources so are less
    expensive than suppression fires. DOI increased its use of WFU fires
    from 170,000 acres in 2004 to more than 197,000 acres in 2005, and
    plans to continue to emphasize this strategy where possible in 2006.
    Appropriate Management Response may involve selecting suppression
    strategies that do not involve containing a wildfire to the smallest
    size possible because of safety reasons or because less-aggressive
    suppression can be more cost-effective. AMR balances the allocation of
    suppression resources with the level of risk a wildfire poses to the
    public or resources.
        The use of fewer suppression resources reduces costs of not only
    suppression operations but also of the cost to repair resource damage
    caused by suppression operations. In areas in which AMR is an
    appropriate tactic, larger areas may burn, reducing both wildland fuels
    and the potential for large, destructive, and expensive wildland fires
    in future years.
        Do you have any specific proposals to reduce suppression costs?
        Answer. Both Wildland Fire Use and Appropriate Management Response
    are critical strategies under the Fire Program Analysis planning
    system, currently in development. Shifting fire management resources in
    a cost-effective manner is an underpinning of this system. Under these
    strategies more resources will be allocated to high priority wildfires
    that threaten public safety, property, and resources. Fewer resources
    will be allocated to wildfires that are less threatening, resulting in
    more efficient use of available resources.
        Interagency teams from both DOI and USDA Forest Service are
    currently addressing specific recommendations to manage large fire
    costs. These efforts, under the guidance of the Wildland Fire
    Leadership Council, will be reported to the Council at the next
    meeting. A preliminary report is expected this summer and will be
    shared with the Committee.
        Over the long term, hazardous fuels reduction will play a key role
    in controlling wildfire suppression costs. In total, the DOI and Forest
    Service hazardous fuels reduction programs are treating more acres, and
    more critical acres, in Wildland Urban Interface areas each year.

                               AML FEE EXTENSION

        Question. The fiscal year 2007 Budget contains a proposal to extend
    the AML fee from October 1, 2006 through Oct. 1 2007. However, since
    the AML fee is set to expire on June 30, 2006, there is a 3 month gap
    in the collection. In June, the unappropriated balance of the AML Trust
    Fund will be $1.85 billion. Currently, interest earned on the unused
    portion of the AML fund is transferred to the United Mine Workers
    Combined Benefit Fund.
        The authority to collect the AML fee expires in June 2006. If the
    authorization for the fee collection is not extended, what will be the
    effect on the Combined Benefit Fund?
        Answer. In accordance with the existing provisions of Surface
    Mining Control and Reclamation Act, OSM is obligated to set the fee at
    a rate sufficient to ensure that the UMWA Combined Benefit Fund
    continues to receive annual transfers to defray the costs of providing
    health care benefits to unassigned beneficiaries under that plan.
    Should the fee not be extended, OSM is prepared to promulgate a rule
    implementing that provision. This rule would only take effect if the
    collection authority is allowed to expire.
        Question. What will be the impact on abandoned mine reclamation?
        Answer. If the AML fee is not reauthorized, only about 23 percent
    of the estimated $3.0 billion needed to reclaim the coal related health
    and safety hazards remaining could be eliminated with the remaining
    unappropriated funds available for high priority coal work. More than
    2.1 million citizens would remain at risk to the health and safety coal
    related problems of abandoned coal mines.

                          DELAYS IN TRIBAL RECOGNITION

        Question. The Committee is concerned about delays in the
    recognition process for Indian Tribes. For example, the Little Shell
    Tribe in Montana received a proposed favorable finding for recognition
    in 2000, and no progress has been made in the intervening years to
    finalize that finding.
        What is the cause of the delay in this case?
        Is this kind of delay typical around the country?
        What measures are you taking to expedite the process?
        Answer. The Federal Acknowledgment regulations govern the
    Department's administrative process for determining which groups are
    ``Indian Tribes'' within the meaning of Federal law. To be Federally
    acknowledged the petitioner must meet seven mandatory criteria, which
    the Office of Federal Acknowledgement must verify. Anthropologists,
    genealogists, and historians in OFA review, verify, and evaluate
    petitions from groups seeking Federal acknowledgement. A final
    determination that a group is an Indian tribe means, among other
    things, that is has continuously existed as a tribe, has inherent
    sovereignty, and is entitled to a government-to-government relationship
    with the United States. OFA makes a recommendation whether to
    acknowledge a group to the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, who has
    been delegated the authority to make the decision.
        The Little Shell Tribe first applied for recognition in 1984, and
    received preliminary approval in 2000. After receiving preliminary
    approval the regulations require a 180 day comment period. Little Shell
    asked for and received ten extensions on the comment period, as well as
    a suspension, in order to collect additional documentation necessary
    for final approval. During that time OFA held a number of technical
    assistance meetings with Little Shell to assist them in preparing their
    final draft petition. Little Shell submitted a final draft of their
    petition in 2005. Meanwhile Little Shell is still working on collecting
    additional evidence, primarily membership lists.
        The Little Shell petition is in the ``Ready, waiting for active
    consideration'' category. Little Shell was informed that their petition
    would be put into this category due to the number of extensions and the
    suspension they requested and were granted. OFA expects to place the
    Little Shell petition in the active consideration category in 2007.
        The delay experienced by the Little Shell is not typical. Their
    petition has been delayed due to their record number of requests for
    extensions and suspension while they collected necessary evidence.
    Nationwide there are currently ten petitions under active
    consideration; ten petitions are under ``ready and waiting for active
    consideration'' status; two are in post decision appeal process; and
    one is in litigation. There are 232 petitions that are not ready for
    evaluation: 70 are incomplete; 146 are only letters of intent; ten are
    no longer in contact; and six require legislation to permit processing
    under 25 CFR Part 83.
        OFA recently added a fourth professional research team with
    administrative support and associated infrastructure. With the
    additional research team, OFA will produce four proposed findings and
    four final determinations or reconsidered final determinations per year
    to address the petitions that are current on the ``Active
    Consideration'' and ``Ready, Waiting for Active Consideration''
    priority lists.

                           FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

    Endangered Species
        Question. Please justify the request of $100,000 for the ongoing
    wolf monitoring effort in the Snake River Basin. If the State of Idaho
    has subcontracted with the Nez Perce Tribe to monitor wolves, why is it
    necessary to continue to direct $295,000 of Service base funds to the
    tribe?
        Answer. The $100,000 will be used by the Fish and Wildlife Service
    Snake River Basin Office for personnel and equipment, such as radio
    collars, capture equipment, and aircraft time. The Nez Perce Tribe,
    under cooperative agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and in
    cooperation with the State of Idaho, conducts the day-to-day, on-the-
    ground monitoring, outreach, information and education and assisting
    with control actions of wolf populations in the North Central Idaho
    Experimental Nonessential Population Area. The State of Idaho is
    responsible for the day-to-day operations in the remainder of the
    State. The Service believes it is necessary to direct these resources
    to the Nez Perce for its participation in the wolf recovery program in
    Idaho.
        Question. The committee is concerned about the Service's $493,000
    reduction request for recovery of Lahontan cutthroat trout--
    particularly since this species is not yet recovered. Please itemize
    the Service's proposed expenditures in fiscal year 2007 towards
    recovery of this species.
        Answer. Lahontan cutthroat trout were extirpated from Pyramid Lake,
    Walker Lake, and Lake Tahoe by the mid 1940's. The U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service have been working with multiple state, federal, and
    local entities for the last 5 years to:
      --Further our understanding of available populations for use in
            reestablishment, primarily through genetic conservation
            research and brood stock development at Lahontan National Fish
            Hatchery;
      --Improve our understanding of habitat utilization by Lahontan
            cutthroat trout, primarily through radio telemetry research,
            population monitoring, and spawning habitat assessments; and
      --Implement watershed connectivity projects to improve opportunities
            for Lahontan cutthroat trout to reestablish in the future.
        The FWS is in the early stages of projects in each of the three
    basins but making great strides through strategic use of the 2006
    funding. The funds have allowed the FWS to build strong support for
    Lahontan cutthroat trout conservation and recovery. But the FWS still
    has important and critical work left to do to establish populations
    through work with our partners.
        In 2007, utilizing Recovery funding, the Service plans to initiate
    the following actions:
        (1) A second year of the radio telemetry study on the Truckee
    River, in partnership with the Nevada Department of Wildlife and the
    Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, to improve our understanding of the
    distribution and movement of Lahontan cutthroat trout in the Truckee
    River system. $60,000
        (2) Continued efforts to reintroduce Lahontan cutthroat trout to
    Fallen Leaf Lake to improve our understanding of how Lahontan cutthroat
    trout use historic lake habitats. Research to build a survivorship
    model for different size classes. $120,000
        (3) Streamside incubation of the Pilot Peak strain of Lahontan
    cutthroat trout on the McCarran restoration project, in partnership
    with The Nature Conservancy and the Pyramid Lake Paiute tribe, to
    imprint Lahontan cutthroat trout to the Truckee River so they return to
    migrate and spawn. $70,000
        (4) Performance evaluation of the Pilot Peak strain of Lahontan
    cutthroat trout in Pyramid Lake in partnership with the Pyramid Lake
    Paiute Tribe. $80,000
        (5) Development of a Lahontan cutthroat trout rearing pond and
    streamside incubation project in coordination with the historic State
    hatchery restoration project at Lake Tahoe, in partnership with
    University of California, Davis and the local community at Tahoe City.
    $163,000
        The President's budget request includes an increase in 2007 for two
    Fisheries Operational Needs System (FONS) projects within Hatchery
    operations: a mass-marking program for the reintroduction of Lahontan
    cutthroat trout into historic habitats in Walker Lake, Truckee River
    and the Tahoe Basin ($180,000); and, Lahontan cutthroat trout recovery,
    in partnership with the Community of Fallen Leak Lake and the Forest
    Service, which will focus on the continued recovery needs of the
    species in Fallen Leaf Lake located in the Tahoe Basin ($32,000). These
    FONS projects concentrate on hatchery related activities addressing
    hatchery production and related hatchery costs identified by the
    program as a priority but for which funds have been unavailable. These
    projects and the activities described above are complimentary and
    contribute to recovery of Lahontan cutthroat.
    Habitat Conservation
        Question. Please explain and justify how the administration and
    implementation of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program varies by
    region.
        Answer. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is executed by
    each Regional Director within the Fish and Wildlife Service. Each
    Regional Director designates a manager for the program. The Assistant
    Regional Director for Ecological Services manages the program in
    Regions 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and the California Nevada Operations Office, and
    the Regional Refuge Chief manage the program in Regions 3 and 6.
    Regardless of where management responsibilities reside in the Regions,
    the program is bounded by the policies described in section 640 FW1 of
    the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Each regional coordinator is
    responsible for providing guidance to the field regarding all current
    policies, procedures, or national directives issued by the Washington
    Office; collecting data on the accomplishments, costs, and benefits of
    the Region's activities; developing, administering, and monitoring
    multi-State partnership agreements; conducting oversight reviews of
    field stations; and developing regional budget allocation
    recommendations for all program activities and stations.
        Question. What is the role of the Project Planning Program in the
    implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005? Given this country's
    commitment towards energy independence, why is the Service proposing a
    $1 million cut to the program?
        Answer. The Service's Project Planning Program provides our
    federal, state, and local partners with biological expertise to support
    many different types of development and conservation projects across
    the country. Project Planning is the ``environmental streamlining'' arm
    of the Service and plays a central role in advancing energy,
    transportation, water, and restoration projects--all Administration
    priorities. The Program's mission is to help expeditiously create
    ``win-win'' projects for economic development of fish and wildlife
    conservation.
        The Service's role in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 addresses
    several major energy issues which include: the development, study and
    incentives for renewable energy sources, oil, and gas. The Service is
    currently involved with the planning and implementation of four key
    provisions of theEnergy Policy Act: Sections 241, 365, 368, and 1834.
    Section 241 requires that an interagency rule be developed to provide
    an appeal process for all parties to challenge submitted alternative
    hydropower project conditions or prescriptions. Section 365 requires
    that an interagency memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, and Bureau of
    Land Management be developed. The MOU, signed by the Secretaries of
    Department of Agriculture, Interior, Army, and Administrator of the
    EPA, dedicates several Service staff to BLM field offices to expedite
    and streamline oil and gas permitting process on BLM lands. Section 368
    directs the Secretaries of Energy, Agriculture, and the Interior to
    prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate
    issues associated with the designation of energy corridors on federal
    lands in eleven Western states. Section 1834 directs the Secretaries of
    the Interior and Army to: (1) develop a study evaluating the potential
    for increased hydroelectric generation at existing federal facilities,
    and (2) report the study results to Congress by February 2007. Project
    Planning expects to continue collaboration and assistance with involved
    agencies and bureaus to expediently accomplish these Energy Policy Act
    provisions.
        The $1 million reduction in Project Planning includes a $262,000
    reduction associated with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission actions
    in the Northwest Forest Plan area (Oregon, Washington, and California).
    Savings of $76,000 will be realized by streamlinging program
    administrative support activities. The remaining requested reduction
    eliminates the earmarks of $542,000 for the Middle Rio Grande Bosque
    Initiative, and $99,000 for the Cedar City, Utah ES Office.The FWS will
    continue to work with partners to help obtain funding from other
    sources and continue to work with partners on critical projects as
    funding allows.
        The Service is committed to continuing to meet our responsibilities
    on our energy workload and will focus on providing biological
    assistance on high priority projects and those with the greatest
    conservation benefit.
        Question. Please provide an update of the CBRA mapping pilot
    project.
        Answer. The Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000
    directed the Service to complete a Digital Mapping Pilot Project that
    includes: (1) digitally produced maps for between 50 and 75 Coastal
    Barrier Resources System areas; and (2) a report to Congress that
    describes the results of the pilot project and the feasibility, data
    needs, and costs of completing digital maps for all CBRS areas. The
    Service is mapping a total of 60 existing CBRS areas as part of the
    pilot project. We anticipate the pilot project draft maps and report
    will be completed and delivered to Congress in 2006.
    National Wildlife Refuge System
        Question. The National Park Service employees the resources of a
    Service-wide Inventory and Monitoring Program at 270 parks, in order to
    track the status and trends of species diversity, abundance and
    distribution. This is a high priority for the Park Service, who has
    requested a $1 million increase for fiscal year 2007. To what extent is
    there a similar program on National Wildlife Refuges? Given that a
    primary focus of the Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance Program is
    monitoring and assessment, what role does or can this program have? Is
    there an ecological benefit to having a coordinated program,
    particularly on federal lands residing within common ecosystem
    boundaries?
        Answer. The Fish and Wildlife Service does not have an inventory
    and monitoring program within the National Wildlife Refuge System
    similar to that of the National Park Service. The NPS model involves
    clustered parks with assigned scientists working with each cluster to
    develop protocols and databases and collect data.
        FWS does have important inventorying and monitoring requirements,
    but some of its priorities are different than those of NPS. While there
    is a role in the NWRS for landscape-scale and Systemwide monitoring
    similar to that of NPS, refuges have a much greater need than NPS for
    station-specific monitoring. Most refuge lands in the contiguous U.S.
    are intensively manipulated, either to restore indigenous habitats or
    to provide for the needs of specific species or guilds of species.
    Parks do some land management (mostly around prescribed fire or control
    of invasive species), but such activities are much more extensive on
    refuges, and so refuges need more site specific monitoring than NPS to
    track the success of such actions.
        During the last 10 years, the NWRS has improved its inventorying
    and monitoring activities on a landscape-scale and on site-specific
    efforts. This has included more rigorous policy guidelines,
    increasingly focused efforts aligned with adaptive management,
    increased technical assistance to field stations (including web-based
    tools), efforts to standardize databases and protocols, and attempts to
    capitalize on successful efforts like those of the NPS. The NWRS is
    also exploring the adaptation of many elements of the NPS program
    including the NPSpecies program, some aspects of their ARC GIS platform
    applications, some of their web-based tools, and possibly some of their
    nomenclature standards.
        Monitoring is only one of a broad range of responsibilities
    assigned to the Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance Program. Others
    include technical assistance to other Federal agencies, tribes, and
    States; fish passage restoration; outreach and education; and elements
    of subsistence management in Alaska. Based on the NWRS ability to
    monitor and cooperate with other partners, the FWMA program is probably
    not the best candidate for an exclusively collaborative monitoring
    effort with NWRS. Some cooperative efforts already exist across FWS
    programs, most notably related to migratory birds, where, for example,
    refuges contribute to mid-winter waterfowl surveys coordinated by the
    Migratory Bird Program in conjunction with State wildlife agencies. If
    appropriate to a data need and study design, other collaborative
    efforts might be designed with the Management Assistance or Endangered
    Species Programs.
        There is value to coordinated monitoring efforts in some cases,
    particularly if it is designed to address focused objectives.
    Activity Based Costing
        Question. Please explain what activity based costing is, what it
    measures, and how the data were used to justify almost $2 million in
    administrative savings. Provide for the record a complete list of all
    activities measured.
        Answer. Activity Based Costing and Management (ABC/M) is a cost
    accounting and management tool that will provide the Service with
    improved visibility into the full costs of daily operations and
    outputs. It is expected that ABC/M data will be used extensively across
    the FWS and DOI for process improvement, budget formulation and
    justification, and performance measurement in upcoming fiscal years.
    Employees define the work that must be completed to achieve the outputs
    and outcomes identified in the GPRA Performance Plan. The work is
    broken into activities that describe the consumption of resources or
    cost associated with doing that work. The Service's ABC system has 176
    codes for different work activities. This is not a new financial
    accounting system, but a costing approach that provides a different,
    more effective way to view and interpret managerial cost and
    performance information--rather than report costs just by object class
    or division, ABC/M assigns resources to work activities so they can be
    viewed from an operating business process perspective.
        The Service first identified a target of reducing $2 million in
    program administration, and then used ABC data to help determine the
    distribution of the reduction.
        The categorized list of activities follows:
    Process 1: Protect and Manage Species
        Protect and Manage Candidate, T&E and CITES Species
        Manage Candidate Species and Prevent the Listing of Species
          A2: Plan and Implement Candidate Conservation Actions
          A3: Evaluate Species for Candidate Status
        List Endangered Species
          B2: Prepare and Process Listing Petitions
          B3: Prepare and Process Listing Rules for US/Domestic Species
          B4: Prepare and Process Critical Habitat Rules for US/Domestic
                Species
          B5: Provide Litigation Support for Listing of US/Domestic Species
          B6: Prepare and Process Foreign Listings
        Develop Recovery Plans or Special Rules for Endangered Species
          C2: Develop Recovery Plans for T&E Species
          C3: Prepare, Process and Implement Special 4d, Experimental
                Population and Other Rules for T&E Species
          C4: Conduct 5-Year Reviews
          C5: Prepare and Process Delisting/Downlisting Petitions
          C6: Prepare and Process Delisting/Downlisting Rules
        Conduct Recovery Actions
          D2: Implement Recovery Actions for T&E Species
          D3: Plan and Implement Post-Delisting Monitoring
          D4: Provide Litigation Support for Recovery Actions
        Provide ESA (Section 7) Consultations
          E2: Provide ESA Section 7 Consultations for Wildland Fire to
                Service and Other Federal Agencies
          E3: Provide ESA Section 7 Consultations for Water Use to Other
                Federal Agencies
          E4: Provide ESA Section 7 Consultations for Hydropower to Other
                Federal Agencies
          E5: Provide ESA Section 7 Consultations for Forage to Other
                Federal Agencies
          E6: Provide ESA Section 7 Consultations for Forest Resources to
                Other Federal Agencies
          E7: Provide ESA Section 7 Consultations for Non-Energy Minerals
                to Other Federal Agencies
          E8: Provide ESA Section 7 Consultations for Energy to Other
                Federal Agencies
          E9: Provide ESA Section 7 Consultations for Recreation to Other
                Federal Agencies
          EA: Provide All Other ESA Section 7 Consultations to Other
                Federal Agencies
          EB: Provide ESA Section 7 Intra-Service Consultations to Service
                Programs except for Wildland Fire
          EC: Provide Litigation Support for Section 7 Consultations to
                Service and Other Federal Agencies
        Evaluate Need for, Process and Monitor Permits, Agreements and
            Assurances for T&E Species
          F2: Evaluate Need for, Process and Monitor HCP Permit
                Applications
          F3: Process and Monitor Safe Harbor Permit Applications
          F4: Process and Monitor Candidate Conservation Agreements with
                Assurances
          F5: Process and Monitor Recovery Permits for T&E Species
          F6: Provide Litigation Support for Permitting Actions of T&E
                Species
        Conduct Law Enforcement for T&E and CITES Listed Species
          G2: Conduct and Assist with Law Enforcement Investigations for
                T&E and CITES Listed Species
          G3: Conduct Import/Export Inspections for T&E and CITES Listed
                Species
        Protect and Manage Non T&E Species
        H2: Process Non-T&E Litigation for Resource Protection
        Reintroduce or Enhance Non T&E Species
          J2: Produce and Reintroduce Aquatic Species for Non T&E Species
                Conservation
          J3: Develop New Aquatic Technologies for Non T&E Species
          J4: Conduct Disease Monitoring and Treatment for Non T&E Species
          J5: Conduct Terrestrial Wildlife Population Management
        Plan Resources for Non T&E Species
          K2: Develop Species Management Plans for Non T&E Species
          K3: Develop Bird Conservation Plans for Non T&E Species
        Manage Harvest and Take for Non T&E Species
          L2: Develop Bird Regulations
          L3: Manage Migratory Bird Populations
          L4: Manage Harvest for Fisheries
          L5: Manage Marine Mammal Harvest and Take
          L6: Manage Alaska Subsistence Harvest Other Than Marine Mammals
        Monitor Status of Non T&E Species
          M2: Survey, Assess and Monitor Non T&E Aquatic Species
          M3: Conduct Migratory Bird Harvest Surveys
          M4: Conduct Migratory Bird Surveys and Monitoring
          M5: Assess Migratory Bird Populations
          M6: Conduct Migratory Bird Research
          M7: Survey, Assess, Monitor Non T&E Wildlife and Plants Other
                Than Aquatic and Migratory Bird Species
        Prevent, Manage and Control Invasive Species
          N2: Prevent, Manage and Control Non-Native, Invasive, Terrestrial
                Plants
          N3: Prevent, Manage and Control Non-Native, Invasive Terrestrial
                Animals
          N4: Prevent, Manage and Control Invasive Aquatic Plants
          N5: Prevent, Manage and Control Invasive Aquatic Animals
        Process Permits
          P2: Process Migratory Bird Permits
          P3: Process Permits for Rights of Way
          P4: Process Refuge Special Use Permits
          P5: Process International Trade Permits, Domestic Permits and
                Special Use Permits
          P6: Process Import and Export Licenses
          P7: Process Designated Port Exception Permits
        Conduct Law Enforcement for Non T&E and Non CITES Listed Species
          Q2: Conduct and Assist with Law Enforcement for Non T&E and Non
                CITES Listed Species
          Q3: Conduct Import/Export Inspections of Non T&E and Non CITES
                Listed Species
          Q4: Conduct Refuge Patrol and Enforcement
          Q5: Provide Forensics Support for Law Enforcement
        Protect Foreign Species
        R2: Implement Provisions of the Western Hemisphere Convention
        R3: Participate in Activities for the Trilateral Committee
        R4: Implement CITES Treaty, Directives, and Related International
            Obligations and Develop Related Policies
        R5: Implement Provisions of Other Bilateral and Multinational
            Agreements, Treaties, Accords and Orders
    Process 2: Protect and Manage Habitats
        Develop Habitat Plans
        S2: Develop Land Protection Plans
        S3: Develop Comprehensive Conservation Plans
        S4: Develop Strategic Landscape Based Plans and Projects
        S5: Develop Habitat Management Plans
        Inventory, Assess, and Monitor Habitats
        T2: Inventory, Assess, and Monitor Wetlands
        T3: Inventory, Assess, and Monitor Uplands
        T4: Inventory, Assess, and Monitor Riparian/Stream Habitats
        T5: Inventory, Assess, and Monitor Marine/Coastal Habitats
        Manage and Protect Lands and Habitats
        U2: Acquire and Manage Real Estate
        U3: Acquire Easements
        U4: Exchange or Dispose of Lands
        U5: Manage Wilderness Areas
        U6: Manage Water Quality and Quantity
        Manage and Protect Habitats
          V2: Manage and Protect Wetlands
          V3: Manage and Protect Uplands
          V4: Manage and Protect Riparian/Stream Habitats
          V5: Manage and Protect Marine and Coastal Habitats
        Restore and Enhance Habitats
        W2: Restore Wetlands
        W3: Restore Uplands
        W4: Restore Riparian/Stream Habitats
        W5: Restore Marine and Coastal Habitats
        Ensure Environmental Compliance
        Ensure Environmental Quality and Safety
          X2: Evaluate and Audit Environmental Safety and Compliance
          X3: Conduct Contaminant Assessments
          X4: Clean up Contaminated Service Lands
          X5: Ensure Air Quality
        Respond to Hazardous Waste Issues and Spills
          Y2: Prepare for and Implement Spill Response Plans
          Y3: Review Hazardous Waste Actions
          Y4: Conduct Natural Resource Damage Assessments
        Conduct Environmental Review for Customers
          Z2: Review and Develop Environmental Provisions for Federal
                Projects, Plans, and Permits
          Z3: Review and Develop Environmental Provisions for FERC
                Hydropower Projects--Municipal (MUN)
          Z4: Review and Develop Environmental Provisions for FERC
                Hydropower Projects--Non-Municipal (PUB)
          Z5: Review and Develop Environmental Provisions for FERC
                Hydropower Projects--Non-Specific (COM)
          Z6: Manage Oil and Gas Activities
        Manage Fire Operations
        2A: Prepare for Wildland Fires
        2B: Prepare Fire Management Plans
        2C: Reduce Hazardous Fuels--Prescribed Fire (Non-WUI)
        2D: Reduce Hazardous Fuels--Mechanical (Non-WUI)
        2E: Reduce Hazardous Fuels--Other Methods (Non-WUI)
        2F: Reduce Hazardous Fuels--Prescribed Fire (WUI)
        2G: Reduce Hazardous Fuels--Mechanical (WUI)
        2H: Reduce Hazardous Fuels--Other Methods (WUI)
        2J: Suppress Wildland Fires (Non-WUI)
        2K: Suppress Wildland Fires (WUI)
        2L: Stabilize Burned Areas
        2M: Rehabilitate Lands Damaged by Wildland Fire
        2N: Monitor and Evaluate Fuels Reduction and Post-Fire
            Rehabilitation
        Manage and Preserve Cultural Resources and Museum Items
        3A: Manage and Protect Cultural and Heritage Resources
        3B: Manage and Protect Museum Items
    Process 3: Serve People
        Provide Opportunities for Recreation and Community Partnerships
        4A: Provide and Manage Opportunities for Quality Wildlife Dependent
            Recreation
        4B: Provide and Manage Opportunities for Other Public Uses
        4C: Develop Visitor Services Plan
        4D: Process Litigation for Recreation
        Communicate with Stakeholders, and Inform and Educate Others
        5A: Conduct External Relations--Media, Congressional, and Other
        5B: Develop and Provide Information and Educational Materials and
            Activities
        5C: Manage Volunteers and Community Partnerships
        5D: Develop and Manage Partnerships
        5E: Consult and Coordinate with Native American Tribes
        Provide Security and Crime Prevention for Off-Service Lands
        6A: Provide Emergency Response and Public Safety Operations
        6B: Conduct Security Activities
    Process 4: Administer Grants
        7A: Administer Endangered Species Act Grants
        7B: Administer Federal Assistance Grants
        7C: Administer Migratory Bird Grants
        7D: Administer Multinational Species Conservation Fund Grants
        7E: Administer Other Domestic and International Grants and Co-
            operative Agreements
        7F: Monitor Grant Programs and Projects
        7G: Monitor Grant Fiscal Processes
        7H: Protect License Fees
    Process 5: Construct and Manage Facilities and Equipment
        8A: Provide Leased Space Operations and Program Management
        8B: Construct Buildings
        8C: Construct Roads, Bridges, Tunnels 4    8D: Construct Dams and
            Water Storage Facilities
        8E: Construct Water Conveyance Facilities
        8F: Construct All Other Structures and Facilities
        8G: Maintain Buildings
        8H: Maintain Roads
        8J: Maintain Bridges
        8K: Maintain Dams and Water Storage Facilities
        8L: Maintain Water Conveyance Facilities
        8M: Maintain All Other Structures and Facilities
        8N: Maintain Equipment
        8P: Inventory DOI Facilities and Assess Facility Condition
    Process 6: Provide Management and Administrative Functions
        Provide Management and Policy Oversight
        9A: Provide Directorate Leadership and Oversight
        9B: Conduct Policies and Directives Management
        Manage Human Capital
        9C: Administer Pay and Benefits
        9D: Administer Employee and Labor Relations
        9E: Administer External Civil Rights
        9F: Administer Internal Civil Rights
        9G: Administer Recruitment, Staffing and Ensure Diversity
        9H: Conduct Workforce Planning
        9J: Evaluate and Counsel Personnel
        9K: Manage Professional Responsibility (Internal Affairs)
        Manage Information Resources
        9L: Plan IT Investments
        9M: Acquire IT Investments
        9N: Secure IT
        9P: Operate, Maintain and Manage IT Investments
        Manage Budget, Finance and Performance
        9Q: Develop and Allocate Budgets
        9R: Perform Financial Management Operations
        9S: Conduct Strategic Planning and Performance Management
        9T: Collect and Analyze Activity Based Costing Information
        9U: Conduct Competitive Sourcing Initiatives
        Provide Other Support
        9V: Administer Occupational Safety and Health
        9W: Manage Purchases, Contracts and Acquisitions
        9X: Provide Office Support
        9Y: Manage Records, Files, Mailrooms and Libraries/Info. Services
        9Z: Process Information Quality, FOIA, Privacy Act and Liability
            Requests/Claims
        Manage and Attend Training
        92: Develop and Deliver Training
        93: Attend Training

                             NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

    Historic Preservation Fund
        Question. Please provide a table showing the funding history for
    Grants-in-Aid to States and Territories versus Grants-in-Aid to Tribes,
    along with the number of Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, for the
    last ten years.
        Answer. The table below shows appropriated funding for Grants-in-
    Aid to States and Territories, Grants-in-Aid to Tribes, and the number
    of Tribal Historic Preservation Offices eligible to receive an HPF
    tribal grant at the beginning of each fiscal year from fiscal year 1997
    through fiscal year 2006.

                     HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND--GRANTS-IN-AID TO STATES AND TERRITORIES AND INDIAN TRIBE: FISCAL YEAR 1997-FISCAL YEAR 2006
                                                                    [In thousands of dollars]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal years--
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      1997     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002     2003     2004     2005     2006
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Grants-in-Aid to State and Territories........................   29,394   29,394   31,394   31,598   46,495   39,000   33,779   34,570   35,500   35,717
    Grants-in-Aid to Indian Tribes................................    1,896    2,296    2,596    2,572    5,560    3,000    2,981    2,963    3,205    3.941
    Eligible Tribal Historic Preservation Offices.................     [17]     [19]     [22]     [27]     [29]     [35]     [45]     [52]     [58]     [58]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ONPS: Resource Stewardship
        Question. To what extent does research funded through the Natural
    Resources Research Support Program get published in peer-reviewed
    literature? What policies are in place to ensure that research on
    National Parks is made publicly available?
        Answer. A small portion, less than ten percent, of funding under
    the Natural Resources Research Support Program are dedicated to
    research performed internally by the NPS. The majority of Natural
    Resources Research funding provides research support for air quality,
    Research Learning Centers, Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units, and the
    National Cave and Karst Research Institute. Internal NPS research is
    limited to specialized air quality and visibility research, a
    discipline not sufficiently covered by the USGS Biological Resource
    Discipline or other Federal agencies. In 2005, 13 professional papers
    were published in peer-reviewed literature, while 14 additional papers
    were submitted for publication and have yet to be published due to the
    extended period that routinely occurs between submission and
    publication. In addition, NPS researchers chaired six sessions during,
    and made more than 50 presentations to, professional conferences
    attended by their peers.
        Research on natural resources in units of the National Park System
    is either NPS-conducted or sponsored research designed to assist park
    managers in achieving desired resource conditions provided for in law
    or approved planning documents, or non-NPS research. The importance of
    peer review to both of these research categories is supported by
    current NPS policy and program guidance. NPS policy specifies that NPS-
    conducted or sponsored research is to comply with both professional
    standards, and with general and park-specific research permit
    conditions. NPS personnel are to make their findings available to the
    public, such as by publication in professional journals or presentation
    in interpretive programs (2001 NPS Management Policies, 4.2.1). NPS
    natural resource program guidance states that research must be
    scientifically valid and tested through peer review (1991 NPS-77
    Natural Resource Management Guideline, 5.5). This guidance also
    supports publishing the results of research in primary scientific
    literature, noting that the peer review inherent in the publication
    process is critically important in maintaining the quality of research
    conducted in the National Park System (1991 NPS-77 Natural Resource
    Management Guideline, 5.10.).
        Independent, non-NPS research conducted in parks is performed
    pursuant to an NPS scientific research and collecting permit. Such
    research must conform to NPS policies and guidelines regarding the
    publication of data and the specific requirements identified in the
    terms and conditions of the permit. Independent researchers must be
    fully qualified and conform to current standards of scholarship--
    standards that routinely include peer-review requirements on research
    results.
        Information derived from natural resource research can reach the
    public through interpretive and education programs, Research Learning
    Centers, various Internet-accessible information resources, and
    integration with park planning documents. In conjunction its renewed
    commitment to interpretation and education in 2003, the NPS established
    that interpretive programs would be based on sound scholarship content,
    methods, and audience analysis, and were to be informed by the latest
    research related to natural and cultural heritage (2003 Renewing Our
    Education Mission). The searchable web-based Investigators Annual
    Reports contained in the NPS Research Permit and Reporting System
    database span the full range of studies authorized to be conducted in
    parks (http://science.nature.nps.gov/research/ac/ResearchIndex).
        Applicable NPS policy and standards incorporate by reference those
    described within the Office of Management and Budget's final guidelines
    and the Department of the Interior's guidelines on information quality
    (2002 Directors Order#11B: Ensuring Quality of Information Disseminated
    by the National Park Service).
        Question. Do the Exotic Plant Management Teams work outside park
    boundaries? If not, why not? How is the work coordinated at a watershed
    or ecosystem level?
        Answer. The National Park Service does not have authority to expend
    funds appropriated for the Operation of the National Park System on
    non-NPS lands. A February 2005 Government Accountability Office report
    found that the NPS was the only major Federal land management agency
    lacking authority to expend such funds outside its boundaries even when
    a direct benefit would exist to natural resources within a park. This
    lack of consistency among Federal agencies was cited by GAO as a
    barrier to effective control of invasive species on Federal and non-
    Federal lands.
        The Natural Resource Protection Cooperative Agreement Act (HR 4294)
    introduced in the House, and a similar bill (S. 1288) introduced in the
    Senate, are designed to remedy this situation by authorizing the NPS to
    enter into cooperative agreements with states, local governments,
    tribal governments, organizations, groups and private landowners. Both
    of these bills will allow the NPS to participate using ONPS funding in
    collaborative activities on lands both inside and outside the National
    Park System, as long as it ``shall provide clear and direct benefits to
    park natural resources''. This is similar to existing authorities for
    other Federal land management agencies, such as the Bureau of Land
    Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Should this legislation be
    enacted, it would permit the NPS to participate in cooperative weed
    management programs at both local and landscape scales, so long as
    there is a clear and direct link to park resources.
        Broad scale cooperation among Federal, State and private interests
    at the watershed, ecosystem and landscape levels is an important
    component of invasive species management. Currently, the NPS is a
    recognized national leader in cooperative weed management programs due
    largely to the effectiveness and efficiency of its EPMTs. As an
    example, in the Yellowstone National Park area, invasive plants are
    managed in concert across three national parks, six national forests,
    two wildlife refuges, three states, several counties and numerous
    private landowners. Likewise, ``Team Tamarisk'', a partnership with
    several Federal agencies, State and local entities, and the EPMT
    stationed at Lake Mead National Recreation Area, has produced effective
    tamarisk weed management across watershed and agency boundaries.
    Coordinated early detection and rapid response is a key element in
    combating the establishment of new invasive plant species. The Alaska
    interagency cooperative weed group is an example of this strategy, with
    the NPS and other cooperating agencies continuously working to identify
    new exotic plant infestations and remove them before they can become
    widespread.
        Coordination across Department of the Interior bureaus supports
    ecosystem and landscape level efforts to control invasive species. A
    key aspect of this inter-bureau coordination has been the role of
    senior level management in the effort. The approach used by ``Team
    Tamarisk'' for integrated invasive plant management across
    administrative boundaries is the model for planning and coordinating
    multi-bureau efforts in priority geographic areas to maximize the
    efficiency and effectiveness of investments. Direct meetings between
    four NPS regional directors and their counterparts in other DOI bureaus
    have either been held or are scheduled in the near future to advance
    this coordination.
        NPS EPMTs have worked cooperatively on National Wildlife Refuge
    System lands under interagency agreements with the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS) on invasive plant control projects. These
    projects were funded with FWS appropriations. NPS EPMTs have also
    worked on local lands, such as in Clark County, NV, when funding was
    provided by the county government for invasive plant control and the
    control efforts benefited park lands.
    ONPS: Facility Operations and Maintenance
        Question. Please explain how a proposed $10 million reduction in
    the Repair and Rehabilitation Program, coupled with a proposed $93
    million reduction in the Line Item Construction and Maintenance
    Program, enables the Service to properly maintain its facilities long-
    term.
        Answer. The NPS remains committed to addressing the deferred
    maintenance backlog and to properly maintaining its facilities for the
    long-term. Despite the reduction in the line-item construction and the
    repair and rehabilitation funding requests, the overall fiscal year
    2007 amount requested for line-item construction, repair and
    rehabilitation, fee, and Federal Lands Highway is $933 million, which
    is $118 million higher than the 2001 funding level for these programs
    and more than double the amount available in the mid-1990's.
        In fiscal year 2007, the budgetary emphasis is changing to more
    long-term preservation and management, however, and the NPS is
    transforming the agency's approach to managing its facilities. During
    the past four years, the NPS has been implementing an innovative asset
    management program focused on developing a comprehensive inventory and
    condition assessment of the agency's asset base. Parks have completed,
    for the first time, a prioritization of their asset inventory.
    Condition assessments on eight industry-standard assets (such as
    buildings, water systems, roads and trails) will be completed at all
    parks by the end of 2006. This shift in emphasis for the agency is
    based on management reforms and performance measures, and features a
    state-of-the-art software system. Once these detailed condition
    assessments are completed, the NPS will have a better understanding of
    the current deferred maintenance needs. These new tools will allow NPS
    to have a better understanding of the true cost of ownership, including
    recurring operational costs of the facilities.
        The NPS continues to make significant progress in completing the
    numerous projects necessary to improve the condition of park
    infrastructure. Since 2002, nearly 6,000 projects have been undertaken
    and approximately $4.7 billion have been invested using line-item
    construction, repair and rehabilitation, fee, and Federal Lands Highway
    dollars. The 2007 budget proposes to protect the Administration's past
    investments by realigning funding within the NPS asset management
    program to focus on proactive measures that will preclude these
    resources from slipping to poor condition.
        The Cyclic Maintenance Program incorporates a number of regularly
    scheduled preventive maintenance procedures and preservation techniques
    into a comprehensive program that prolongs the life of a particular
    asset. The proposed increase in cyclic project funding would assist in
    preventing the continued deterioration of NPS assets. Increasing the
    project funding will afford parks the ability to maintain assets on a
    predictive cycle, rather than allowing them to fall into disrepair and
    ultimately adding to the backlog. Funds appropriated for the cyclic
    maintenance program would target those assets that are mission critical
    and still in maintainable condition, but could fall into poor condition
    without the proper application of life cycle maintenance. With the
    proposed increase of $10.0 million, the cyclic maintenance program now
    totals $71.5 million.
        The 2007 budget includes $86.2 million for the Repair and
    Rehabilitation program. Over the past five years, $345 million has been
    allocated for this program. In 2007, NPS will continue to prioritize
    projects that address critical health and safety, resource protection,
    compliance, deferred maintenance, and minor capital improvement issues.
    The budget request also includes a proposal to use additional
    recreation fee revenue for facility maintenance projects. For 2007, it
    is estimated that $100 million in recreation fees will be used for
    deferred maintenance projects.
        Within the total proposed for construction, line-item construction
    projects are funded at $121.9 million. The budget request reflects a
    shift from new construction projects to the up-keep of current
    facilities. Assuming the President's budget request is funded, the NPS
    intends to sustain the progress made in the asset management program,
    as measured by the facility condition index.
    Construction
        Question. Please explain how recent trends in energy prices and
    subsequent building costs have impacted the Service's ability to
    implement construction projects.
        Answer. The NPS is making efforts to manage this situation within
    available funds at the national, regional, and park level. With budget
    constraints in the construction account, it is critical for parks and
    regions to maximize available dollars before requesting additional
    funds. To improve construction estimates, the NPS has updated factors
    to reflect current market conditions. The scope of some projects has
    been reduced, and the NPS has imposed an internal requirement that
    projects be designed for only 95 percent of available funds. This
    provides additional flexibility to accommodate the volatile
    construction market.
        Additionally, contractors who provide estimates for the Park
    Service's major construction projects have received extensive training
    from the Denver Service Center about the unique governmental factors
    that need to be considered. These factors include the Davis-Bacon wage
    rates, remoteness, historic preservation considerations, and the need
    to keep facilities open to visitors and thus limit construction work
    hours. The NPS is also conducting independent validation of
    construction estimates for projects before they go to bid. Based on
    these validations, the Park Service can adjust estimates to ensure
    viability or propose a reprogramming to shift funds between projects.

                           ENDANGERED SPECIES: WOLVES

    Background
        Question. I want to thank you again for your assistance in dealing
    with our recent wolf problem in eastern Montana. Wolves have made a
    tremendous recovery and I'm proud of the cooperation by the State of
    Montana and the Service to draft a management plan that we can all
    agree on. The next hurdle, of course, is delisting the wolves.
        Can you please give us an update on where we are in the process of
    delisting wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming?
        Answer. The States of Montana and Idaho have developed wolf
    management plans that are adequate to maintain their share and
    distribution of the tri-state wolf population above recovery levels. On
    October 26, 2005, the Fish and Wildlife Service published a finding
    that the petition from Wyoming presented substantial information that
    the potential Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) gray wolf population may
    warrant delisting. The Service is currently working on the status
    review and finding based on this petition. On Feb. 8, 2006, the Service
    announced the intent to conduct rulemaking that would establish a
    distinct population segment of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the NRM.
    The NRM wolf Distinct Population Segment, as proposed in the Advance
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, will encompass the eastern one-third of
    Washington and Oregon, a small part of north-central Utah, and all of
    Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. The comment period closed on April 10,
    2006.
        Question. Why is it that all three states have approved wolf
    management plans before management authority can be turned over to an
    individual state?
        Answer. We use the following five factors to determine whether or
    not a ``species'' has recovered to the point that it should be
    delisted:
      --the present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment
            of its habitat or range;
      --overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
            educational purposes;
      --disease or predation;
      --the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and
      --other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
        These five factors must be applied to the entity, either species,
    subspecies, or distinct population segment, as it is listed. In the
    case of the potential Northern Rocky Mountains distinct population
    segment of wolves, before the Service can delist, the fourth factor--
    inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms--must be satisfied. Since
    the core population of the NRM wolves is found in these three states,
    all three states must have adequate regulatory mechanisms in place to
    maintain the recovered wolf population.

                   FWS LAND ACQUISITION: ROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT

    Background
        Question. Last year we appropriated $985,000 to begin purchasing
    easements along the front range west of Great Falls, MT. For those of
    you who don't know, this is the only remaining landscape in the Lower
    48 with a complete, intact, and functional assemblage of large
    carnivores, including the grizzly bear, gray wolf, wolverine, and lynx.
    Moreover, it is my continued hope that this program will become a fine
    example of cooperative conservation by ranchers, conservationists, and
    the Service. Judging from your budget proposal to more than double the
    funding in fiscal year 2007 (to $1.98 million), the program is a
    success.
        Can you please provide us with an update of the Rocky Mountain
    Front program, including your plans for the funds in fiscal year 2007?
        Answer.

                     ROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT CONSERVATION AREA
                             [Dollars in thousands]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal years--
                                      --------------------------------------
                                           2006         2007        Total
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Funding..........................         $985       $1,980       $2,965
    Acres Acquired...................        4,787        6,500       11,287
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The FWS is partnering with the Nature Conservancy and the Montana
    Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to implement the Rocky Mountain
    Front Easement Program. This program is part of a landscape
    conservation strategy to protect the unique, highly diverse and
    unfragmented ecosystem of the Front, which is located in north central
    Montana and encompasses the massive ecotone formed by the intersection
    of the western edge of the Northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountains.
        Among conservation biologists, the Front is ranked in the top one
    percent of wildlife habitat remaining in the United States. In 2006,
    Congress appropriated $985,000 for the FWS to acquire 4,787 acres of
    conservation easements from willing landowners in the Front. The FWS is
    moving forward with the 2006 acquisitions (identifying willing sellers
    and conducting appraisals, etc.)
        The 2007 President's Budget includes $1.9 million to acquire 6,500
    acres of conservation easements from willing landowners. By partnering
    with the Nature Conservancy and the State of Montana, the FWS is able
    to leverage Federal funds in the efforts to maintain biological
    diversity and related wildlife habitat values in the Front.

                  NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES: HURRICANE DEBRIS

    Background
        Question. Last year, hurricanes Katrina and Rita leveled whole
    communities and deposited an incredible amount of hazardous waste,
    appliances, cars, boats, and countless other debris on our National
    Wildlife Refuges.
        What is your timeline for cleaning up the debris?
        Answer. In December, the Service received $30 million in emergency
    supplemental funding. Funding was not adequate for debris removal, but
    provided for immediate stabilization on some affected refuges. The
    President's $132.4 million supplemental request includes funding for
    the removal of known hazardous debris on multiple national wildlife
    refuges impacted by the 2005 hurricanes.
        To expedite the process, the Service has entered into an agreement
    with the Tennessee Valley Authority to: (1) complete an assessment of
    hazardous materials and debris on all impacted refuges; (2) to complete
    any necessary environmental compliance documents; and (3) to develop a
    scope of work for actual hazardous debris removal activities. The
    Tennessee Valley Authority is used in this agreement because they are a
    support agency to the Environmental Protection Agency for debris
    removal under Emergency Support Function#3 in Cameron Parish,
    Louisiana. The recently enacted supplemental should allow the Service
    to quickly issue contracts to begin work on debris removal.
        Question. What is the role of the Service's Environmental
    Contaminants Program in assessing the damage and monitoring such
    factors as water quality?
        Answer. Impacts to our trust resources from hazardous materials are
    a significant concern being addressed with the help of the
    environmental contaminants program. Biologists from that program are
    working with refuge managers and biologists from across all of our
    programs on all hazardous materials concerns. Specifically,
    contaminants staff will assist in the development and review of the
    assessment, compliance, and scope of work necessary to complete
    hazardous debris removal on national wildlife refuges impacted by the
    2005 hurricanes. The Service intends to initiate an inventory and
    monitoring program on the ecological recovery of national wildlife
    refuges as a result of damages from devastating hurricanes of the past
    two years.
        Question. Your fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental request
    includes $24 million for debris removal and hazardous materials clean-
    up. Will these funds cover complete removal and clean-up needs, and, if
    not, would you use fiscal year 2007 base funds?
        Answer. The Service believes that the amounts requested are
    adequate to remove known hazardous debris, although they will not cover
    cleanup of known non-hazardous debris. Costs to complete cleanup of all
    known debris (both hazardous and non-hazardous) may be much higher. The
    Service has prioritized $20 million for the removal of known hazardous
    debris on four national wildlife refuges in Louisiana, and $12 million
    for these cleanup activities on Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. This
    will be a massive cleanup effort and as additional assessments are
    conducted, it may become necessary to redirect some of this request to
    provide for additional removal activities. At this time, the Service
    has not made a decision whether to use fiscal year 2007 base funding to
    cover any additional cleanup needs.
        Question. Are there instances where you are considering leaving
    some of the debris in place so as to minimize further ecological
    damage?
        Answer. Yes, the Service will not remove all debris deposited on
    national wildlife refuges as a result of the hurricanes. The Service
    will focus its priority on the removal of all known hazardous materials
    on refuge lands, but it is not feasible or cost-effective to remove all
    of the debris. As with all management activities, the Service will rely
    on experts, good science, and its historical knowledge to ensure that
    debris removal focuses on hazards and that impacts are minimized to
    these sensitive coastal marsh ecosystems.

                    FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE: CONSTRUCTION

    Background
        Question. You propose to cut $25 million (-56 percent) from the
    Fish and Wildlife Service construction budget. Furthermore, the meager
    $19 million request includes more funds for salaries and overhead than
    for on-the-ground projects.
        Given the relatively few projects in the request, how can you
    justify the budget for personnel and other overhead costs--particularly
    when you assess each project for additional overhead costs?
        Answer. An adequate engineering staff is critical for the FWS to
    properly maintain and replace its facilities. Recent appropriations
    levels for the Construction program have totaled more that $40 million
    per year. In many cases these are multi-year projects that require
    involvement of the engineering staff over the course of several years.
        In addition, supplemental funding for hurricane recovery totaled
    $30.0 million in 2006 and an additional $132.4 million is included in
    the current supplemental budget recently signed by the President. Many
    of these proposed hurricane recovery projects will be continued into or
    initiated in 2007. If FWS were to reduce the personnel associated with
    its engineering staff, it would not be able to complete these recovery
    activities in a timely fashion. FWS also needs additional staff to
    manage the additional funds in the recently enacted highway
    reauthorization bill (SAFETEA-LU). Over the five-year life of the
    SAFETEA-LU program, $145 million will be dedicated to refuge roads.
        Question. Does the request includes a $7 million reduction in
    Refuge deferred maintenance?
        Answer. Within construction, there is a $6.7 million reduction in
    refuge projects; however, we are focusing funding on Klamath and
    hatchery repair and rehabilitation projects. The 2007 budget focuses
    funding for deferred maintenance through the refuge operations
    maintenance program and the additional funds received in SAFETEA-LU.
    The FWS will carefully target deferred maintenance funds to address the
    highest priority needs. Since 2001, the Refuge Maintenance program has
    increased by $9.4 million, or 12.6 percent. The recently enacted
    highway reauthorization bill (SAFETEA-LU) includes $29 million in 2007,
    a 30 percent increase over 2004. Over the five-year life of the
    SAFETEA-LU program, $145 million will be dedicated to refuge roads.
        Question. How is the Service tracking deferred maintenance and what
    has been the trend in the last 5 years?
        Answer. The refuge system prioritizes maintenance needs through
    data used to develop five-year budget plans, including the Asset
    Priority Index (API) and the Facilities Condition Index (FCI). APIs
    help assess each asset's contribution to the refuge mission, allowing
    the refuge manager to estimate the annual operation and maintenance
    cost of each individual asset. The FCI helps determine whether
    replacement is more appropriate then repair, tracks the performance of
    the maintenance program, and provides the maintenance performance
    metric under the DOI strategic plan.
        The refuge system's Condition Assessment Program, established in
    fiscal year 2001 to systematically evaluate the condition of real
    property and itemize costs for maintenance needs, measures the state of
    refuge properties with replacement values of more than $50,000 every
    five years. At the end of fiscal year 2005, half of all assets with
    current replacement value over $50,000, (11,097 out of 22,226) have
    been assessed through the field inspection stage. The refuge system
    expects to complete the first cycle of comprehensive condition
    assessments by the end of 2006. After that point the refuge system will
    cyclically complete condition assessments as 20 percent of field
    stations each year, assuring that every field station undergoes
    condition assessments every five years.
        Since 2001, the Service has invested $618 million in its refuge
    maintenance program. During the five-year period including fiscal years
    2002 through 2006 the refuge maintenance budget increased approximately
    12.6 percent. The Refuge System utilized maintenance funding to
    complete 2,382 projects through 2005. These projects have included the
    rehabilitation of critical facilities including administrative offices,
    and other facilities supporting refuge maintenance, visitor services,
    and habitat conservation.
        Question. What is the Service doing to ensure that deferred
    maintenance doesn't get out of control?
        Answer. Because the refuge system will complete the first five-year
    cycle of condition assessments this year, we are in a much better
    position to understand how to best prioritize limited resources. The
    refuge system prioritizes maintenance needs through data used to
    develop five-year budget plans, including the Asset Priority index
    (API) and the FCI. FCIs help determine whether replacement is more
    appropriate than repair, track the performance of the maintenance
    program in improving asset condition, and provide the means to compare
    performance across the Department and within the FWS. APIs reflect the
    priority of each asset's contribution to the refuge mission. The refuge
    system can now estimate the annual operational and maintenance cost of
    each individual asset.
        We expect that the use of these tools will help the FWS refine its
    five-year construction and deferred maintenance plans to ensure that
    funding is going to the most critical deferred maintenance needs. This
    way we can ensure safe work environments for our staff, safe visits for
    the general public, and the creation of new facilities that protect the
    resources under our stewardship while providing necessary visitor
    services.

               NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION

    Background
        Question. Madam Secretary, the total request for maintenance and
    construction is $622 million, including a $93 million (43 percent)
    reduction in the line item construction and maintenance budget. The
    budget justification states that the $122 million request will focus on
    deferred maintenance.
        Given our mutual commitment to reducing the maintenance backlog
    over the last several years, what safeguards have you put in place to
    ensure that reductions like these won't lead to further backlog
    problems down the road?
        Answer. Despite the reduction in the line-item construction and the
    repair and rehabilitation funding requests, the overall fiscal year
    2007 amount requested for deferred maintenance activities is $933
    million, which is $118 million higher than the 2001 funding level for
    these programs and more than double the amount available in the mid-
    1990's. The 2007 budget proposes to protect the Administration's past
    investments by realigning funding within the NPS asset management
    program to focus on proactive measures that will preclude these
    resources from slipping into poor condition.
        The Cyclic Maintenance Program incorporates a number of regularly
    scheduled preventive maintenance procedures and preservation techniques
    into a comprehensive program that prolongs the life of a particular
    asset. The proposed increase in cyclic funding would assist in
    preventing the continued deterioration of NPS assets. Increasing
    funding will afford parks the ability to maintain assets on a
    predictive cycle, rather than allowing them to fall into disrepair and
    ultimately adding to the backlog. Funds appropriated for the cyclic
    maintenance program would target those assets that are mission critical
    and still in maintainable condition, but could fall into poor condition
    without the proper application of life cycle maintenance. With the
    proposed increase of $10.0 million, the cyclic maintenance program
    totals $71.5 million.
        The 2007 budget includes $86.2 million for the Repair and
    Rehabilitation program. Over the past five years, $345 million has been
    allocated for this program. In 2007, NPS will continue to prioritize
    projects that address critical health and safety, resource protection,
    compliance, deferred maintenance, and minor capital improvement issues.
    The budget request also includes a proposal to use additional
    recreation fee revenue for facility maintenance projects. For 2007, it
    is estimated that $100 million in recreation fees will be used for
    deferred maintenance projects.
        Within the total proposed for construction, line-item construction
    projects are funded at $121.9 million. The budget request reflects a
    shift from new construction projects to the up-keep of current
    facilities. Assuming the President's budget request is funded, NPS
    intends to sustain the progress made in the asset management program,
    as measured by the facility condition index.
        The NPS also continues to make significant progress in completing
    the numerous projects necessary to improve the condition of park
    infrastructure. Since 2002, nearly 6,000 projects have been undertaken
    and approximately $4.7 billion have been invested using line-item
    construction, repair and rehabilitation, fee, and Federal Lands Highway
    dollars.
        In addition to investing significant levels of funding, the NPS is
    transforming the agency's approach to managing its facilities. During
    the past four years, the NPS has been implementing an innovative asset
    management program focused on developing a comprehensive inventory and
    condition assessment of the agency's asset base. Parks have completed,
    for the first time, a prioritization of their asset inventory.
    Condition assessments on eight industry-standard assets (such as
    buildings, water systems, roads and trails) will be completed at all
    parks by the end of 2006. This shift in emphasis for the agency is
    based on management reforms and performance measures, and features a
    state-of-the-art software system. Once condition assessments are
    completed, the NPS will have a better understanding of the current
    deferred maintenance needs. These new tools will allow NPS to have a
    better understanding of the true cost of ownership, including recurring
    operational costs of the facilities.

                           NPS HISTORIC PRESERVATION

    Background
        Question. Your fiscal year 2007 request proposes to create a new
    umbrella program--America's Heritage & Preservation Partnership
    Program--as the new home for Save America's Treasures, Preserve
    America, and Heritage Partnership Programs. In the process, you propose
    to increase Preserve America (+$5 million) at the expense of Save
    America's Treasures (-$10 million) and Heritage Partnership Programs
    (-$6 million).
        How will the proposed budget reorganization help local communities
    gain access to these programs, as described in your budget
    justification, particularly if there is no change in the delivery of
    these programs?
        Answer. The Department continually strives to improve the
    effectiveness and efficiency of its programs and services. The
    Department identifies areas of synergy among programs and look for ways
    to leverage those commonalities in the pursuit of its mission of
    preserving nationally significant historical and cultural resources.
    The American Heritage & Preservation Partnership Program (AHPP) was
    established with that exact effort in mind. It combines the synergistic
    elements of Save America's Treasures, Preserve America and Heritage
    Partnership Programs and leverages them in an effort to achieve the
    goals of preserving and increasing awareness of our National cultural
    resources. This new structure will allow local communities to determine
    which strategies best suit their heritage needs; apply to the most
    appropriate programs for repairing historic buildings, conserving
    museum resources, and promoting heritage development; effect better
    coordination; and generate greater efficiencies in enhancing and
    expanding opportunities for cultural resource preservation throughout
    the Nation.
        Question. Considering that Grants-in-Aid to States, Save America's
    Treasures, and Preserve America all rely on identical performance
    measures, how are these programs not duplicative?
        Answer. Grants-in-Aid to States, Save America's Treasures and
    Preserve America are three distinct programs used by the National Park
    Service to promote distinct local preservation goals. Grants to States
    and Territories are used primarily to support State Historic
    Preservation Offices. State offices use this funding to survey and
    inventory historic properties, manage the National Register process at
    the local level, and develop and implement preservation programs and
    compliance review.
        Funding requested for the America's Heritage and Preservation
    Partnership Program, including Save America's Treasures and Preserve
    America, allows local communities to determine which strategies best
    suit their heritage needs and apply directly for Federal aid. Save
    America's Treasures funding is used to support restoration projects to
    preserve irreplaceable historic sites or collections of national
    significance for future generations. The Preserve America program does
    not fund ``bricks and mortar'' restoration projects, which are covered
    under Save America's Treasures grants. Instead, it complements the Save
    America's Treasures grants program by offering one-time ``seed money''
    in the form of competitive 50:50 matching grants to help local
    communities develop sustainable resource management strategies and
    sound business practices for the continued preservation of heritage
    assets. Such activities include planning and feasibility studies,
    heritage education curricula, and heritage tourism business cases.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard

        Question. How much of the Interior Department's budget goes toward
    the costs of litigation to defend the regulations and laws under your
    purview?
        Answer. Within Interior, the BLM has made the greatest advancement
    in capturing the costs of its activities. Using its costing data, BLM
    was able to provide an estimate of litigation costs. In fiscal year
    2004, BLM spent approximately $14.3 million on litigation activities
    including the costs of gathering information, preparing documents and
    records, preparing and giving testimony, and working with solicitors
    and attorneys on specific legal cases. The only other estimates on
    costs of litigation for other Interior agencies are those reported by
    the Office of the Solicitor.
        The fiscal year 2006 enacted operating budge for the Office of
    Solicitor (Office) is $54.6 million and includes the costs of
    litigation. The Office provides the principal support to the Secretary
    for defense of laws and regulations under the purview of the Secretary
    of the Interior. The primary role of the Office is to provide high
    quality legal advice regarding the goals, objectives, and
    responsibilities that are given to the Secretary by the President and
    Congress. The Office coordinates with the Department of Justice
    regarding litigation involving the Department of the Interior. The
    Office performs the critical task of communicating the Department's
    legal position to the President, Congress, other executive branch
    agencies, and the public.
        The majority of the Office's resources are devoted to the defense
    of a wide range of litigation against the United States, both
    administrative and judicial, and to other legal services, ensuring that
    the Department's bureaus carry out their responsibilities in accordance
    with the law. In most judicial litigation, attorneys actively assist or
    are co-counsel with attorneys from the Department of Justice. In some
    judicial litigation and all administrative litigation, attorneys
    represent the Department without assistance from DOJ.
        The Office provides everyday legal service assistance in drafting
    and reviewing legislation, proposed and final regulations, contracts,
    memoranda of agreement, decisions, agreements, leases, rights-of-way,
    title documents, and other legal instruments, as well as providing both
    written and oral legal advice on legal questions. In addition, the
    Office provides critical legal support for the Department's key
    initiatives, assists the bureaus in responding to congressional
    direction in appropriations and substantive legislation, and advises
    the bureaus on legal options for streamlining processes and improving
    program management and implementing plans to carry out departmental
    goals. The Office assists the bureaus in responding to Inspector
    General, congressional, judicial, and public (FOIA) requests, as well
    as subpoenas for documents.
        Question. How do you plan to work with Congress to provide more
    control over the implementation of laws and regulations, for example
    the ESA, to states?
        Answer. The Department continues to work with Congress to ensure
    that laws and regulations pertinent to the mission and programs of the
    Department of the Interior are carried out as effectively as possible.
    The Department also continues to strive to find collaborative efforts
    and partnerships that enhance opportunities to foster a culture of
    responsibility in implementing legislation.
        Interior agencies also continually strive to improve regulations
    and policies to ensure that they are explicit, well defined, and
    consistent with current laws. For example, the recent Program
    Assessment Rating Tool review of the Endangered Species program found
    that FWS can make improvements in endangered species-related
    regulations and polices. This may include revising the definition of
    adverse modification, issuing critical habitat guidance, and explicity
    characterizing the benefits of critical habitat designations. FWS is
    currently working on these improvements as well as developing a process
    for regularly scheduled independent evaluations of the program.
        The Department is also focusing resources on cooperative
    conservation programs, such as the Private Stewardship Grant, Landowner
    Incentive, and Partners for Fish and Wildlife programs, that foster a
    non-regulatory approach to solving conservation problems at the local
    and state level.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                    NATIONAL STREAMFLOW INFORMATION PROGRAM

        Question. In December I sent a letter with eight of my colleagues
    to the Secretary of Interior and to the Office of Management and Budget
    strongly supporting the State Cooperative Program and the National
    Streamflow Information Program (NSIP), programs that fund stream
    gauging and water analysis across the nation. My analysis shows that
    these two programs are the most efficient and most effective ways to
    provide our nation with essential information on floods, water
    supplies, our international water obligations and impacts on regional
    hydrologic changes.
        The administration has provided a minimal increase in the NSIP
    program, well below the national requirements, but in the same proposal
    dramatically decreased the State Cooperative Program. This approach to
    stewardship of our water resources must be reversed.
        Can you explain how these cuts to the State Cooperative Program are
    going to be offset by NSIP, and which New Mexico programs or projects
    will be cut?
        Answer. The two proposed program changes are not related. The
    Cooperative Water Program reduction is targeted at interpretive studies
    that are ending and should not affect streamgages or other basic data
    collection. The proposed increase for the NSIP will help to stabilize
    and augment the national streamgaging network, and thus will not offset
    the reductions proposed for the Cooperative Water Program. The USGS
    does not plan to stop any ongoing projects in New Mexico or in any
    other State. The reduction will target only those projects that were
    already planned to conclude by the end of 2006.
        Question. Will you commit to providing my office a strategy for
    meeting all our high-priority water monitoring needs as articulated in
    the USGS description of the goals for the NSIP and State Cooperative
    Programs, along with a description of the expanded budget needs to meet
    these goals by July of 2006?
        Answer. The USGS has performance measures and 5-year plans for
    high-priority monitoring activities, which comprise the bureau's
    strategy for monitoring activities. By July 2006, the Department can
    deliver the 5-year plans, the written analysis and summary of results
    from review of Water information and dissemination activities using the
    Program Assessment Rating Tool, and a budget summary of the monitoring
    activities.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

           BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS--REPLACEMENT SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

        Question. The budget request proposes to reduce funding for
    replacement school construction by $37 million. That's a cut of 43
    percent from the current enacted level, and 74 percent from the 2004
    level. According to the budget justification, the reason for the cut is
    so that BIA can ``focus on building schools that have already been
    funded.''
        How many replacement school projects is BIA currently managing?
        How many staff are assigned to the replacement school program?
        How many more years will it take BIA to catch up with the backlog?
        Answer. During this Administration, we have obtained a total of
    over $1.3 billion for BIA school construction projects. With the 2007
    budget, we will have provided over $1.5 billion in six years.
        By the time we have completed the work proposed in our 2007 budget,
    65 percent of BIA schools will be in good or fair condition. This will
    reverse the status of schools from four years ago when 65 percent of
    BIA schools were in poor condition. Of the 37 replacement schools
    funded between 2001 and 2006, 10 have been completed and another 19 are
    scheduled to be completed in 2006 and 2007. BIA is currently managing
    27 replacement school projects.
        The BIA has 112 employees working on the construction program.
    Although the replacement school program is the largest program within
    construction, these employees also work on other programs such as major
    and minor facility improvement and repair. In addition to BIA
    employees, the Army Corps of Engineers and the General Services
    Administration also provide technical expertise and assistance on
    replacement school projects. The construction program also works
    closely with the Tribes through Public Law 638 and Public Law 297
    contracts to plan, design, and build the replacement schools.
    Successful coordination with the Tribes is integral to reducing the
    backlog.
        In 2007, we are proposing a program of $157 million for Indian
    school construction. As recently as 1999, spending on BIA school
    backlog needs was only $60 million a year.
        Funding at higher levels than requested for 2007 would get us ahead
    of our ability to prudently manage the construction program. The
    requested 2007 funding will support replacement of the Muckleshoot
    Tribal School in Washington and the Dennehotso Boarding School in
    Arizona.
        BIA released the new replacement school list in February 2004. The
    list contains 14 schools which have the greatest health and safety
    concerns in the BIA school system. The 2007 budget will provide funding
    to complete the fourth and fifth schools on the list. There are an
    estimated 27 schools in need of replacement subsequent to the
    completion of the current priority list; however cost estimates are not
    available for these schools. The time it takes to fund these schools is
    dependent upon construction cost estimates and outyear funding levels,
    both of which are changing or unknown at this time.

          BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS--JOHNSON-O'MALLEY EDUCATION GRANTS

        Question. The budget proposes to eliminate the $16.3 million
    currently in the BIA Education account for the Johnson-O'Malley
    Assistance Grants. According to the budget justification, ``the
    elimination of the JOM program will allow the Bureau to focus on its
    primary mission requirement of providing basic education to Indian
    children in Bureau-funded elementary and secondary schools.'' That
    statement infers that the Bureau is moving money from a program that
    supports Indian children who attend non-Bureau schools to those who go
    to Bureau schools. Yet, as I look at the budget, there isn't one non-
    administrative programmatic increase in the Education account for a
    Bureau funded school. In fact, the only real programmatic increase is
    the $630,000 being put in the Juvenile Detention Education program.
        Please identify the program or programs that provide ``basic
    education to Indian children in Bureau-funded elementary and secondary
    schools'' to which the $16.3 million in Johnson-O-Malley funding was
    transferred. And if the money was transferred outside of BIA, please
    identify the agency and program where these funds were moved.
        Answer. The Johnson-O'Malley program provides funding to meet the
    needs of Indian children in public school systems. Tribes fund Johnson
    O'Malley grants out of Tribal Priority Allocations. Johnson-O'Malley
    grants are proposed for elimination in 2007 because they are
    duplicative of funding available in the Dept. of Education and because
    there is a lack of accountability from the Tribes on the utilization of
    the funding and the benefit to Indian students.
        The Department of Education has two programs that provide funding
    for purposes similar to JOM grants. Together, these programs are funded
    at $667 million in 2007. The Indian Education Grant program funds
    competitive grants to improve education opportunities for Indian
    students. The activities funded under this program are similar to those
    funded by the JOM program, and tribes as well as schools are eligible
    to apply for the grants. The type of programs/services JOM and Indian
    Education Grants support include tutoring, counseling, cultural
    activities, summer education programs, and career days. The 2007
    request for this program is $119 million. Impact Aid is directed to
    local school districts that have Federal and Indian land because
    property taxes cannot be collected on this land. The school districts
    decide how to use the funds. We estimate that 2007 impact aid payments
    to districts with Indian students will be $548 million.
        Johnson O'Malley funds have not been transferred to other BIA
    school operations programs. However, the 2007 request does include a
    $4.8 million increase in the Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP)
    to fund the Department of Defense comparability pay increase for
    teachers at BIA-funded schools and $2.5 million to implement management
    aspects of the BIA Indian school system Program Improvement and
    Accountability Plan. The increase in ISEP funding will provide about
    $100 more per student in activities directly related to education
    programs at BIA-schools. Management improvements will help improve the
    effectiveness of the education services provided in the Bureau funded
    school system which are struggling to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress
    goals. The BIA budget dedicates other increases to contract support,
    law enforcement, and trust services and also includes additional funds
    for tribes to develop energy resources, all of which are priorities to
    Tribes on a nationwide basis.

     BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS--TRIBAL COLLEGE & UNIVERSITY OPERATING GRANTS

        Question. For fiscal year 2007, the administration is asking for
    $54 million for the support of the 24 Tribal Colleges nationwide.
    That's the same amount as was provided for 2006. Despite the fact that
    enrollment is growing at these institutions and that students are
    taking more classes, which raises the Indian Student Count, the
    administration didn't ask for an increase in the amount provided for
    operating grants. Under this budget request, the 2 colleges run by BIA
    would receive $413,000 to cover their fixed costs. But the 24 colleges
    run by the Tribes are left to fend for themselves. The budget says that
    ``the basic operations and technical assistance line items are fully
    funded.'' If the colleges have to absorb increases in utilities or
    employee pay costs, how can the administration say that those
    institutions are being ``fully funded?''
        Why were the tribal colleges not given any fixed cost increases?
        Answer. Tribal Colleges and Universities are vital contributors to
    improved quality of life in native communities. These schools, which
    address the needs of the most economically depressed regions of Indian
    Country, significantly strengthen community economic potential. Tribal
    education is one of the key fact ors to providing a brighter future for
    these communities.
        The Bureau of Indian Affairs strongly supports these institutions,
    and in the 2007 President's Budget requested $54 million for tribally
    controlled colleges and universities operating grants, the highest
    amount ever requested. This is 22 percent higher than the $42.3 million
    requested in the 2006 President's Budget. These funds will provide the
    faculty, facilities, and instructional programs for these schools to
    provide tribal members with skills and knowledge necessary for economic
    development.
        Based on student count estimates, TCUs will receive about $5,100
    per student in the 2006-07 and 07-08 school years, and increase of
    $500, or 11 percent, per student over the 05-06 school year. Actual
    funding will depend on actual student counts.

           BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS--UNITED TRIBES TECHNICAL COLLEGE

        Question. For the 5th year in a row, the administration has
    proposed eliminating the BIA funding for United Tribes Technical
    College in Bismarck, ND. The budget justification says that ``UTTC
    receives funding from a variety of other Federal, state, program
    partnerships, and other private sources. Therefore, the Bureau is not
    requesting additional funds.''
        Is the criteria of not funding projects which receive funds from
    other sources being applied solely to UTTC, or are all other projects
    and programs within the Department's budget being treated similarly?
        Do any of the Line-Item Construction projects included in the
    National Park Service budget receive outside funding?
        Answer. Funding decisions for UTTC in the 2007 budget reflect
    distinctions drawn in underlying authorizing legislation. The Bureau of
    Indian Affairs is authorized to administer operating grants to Tribal
    colleges and universities that meet the criteria established in the
    Tribal Colleges and Universities Act of 1978, as amended. UTTC is not
    eligible for funding under the Act and therefore is not included in the
    BIA budget. UTTC, along with Crownpoint Institute of Technology, are
    the exclusive recipients of $7.365 million in tribal college operating
    grants authorized in the Carl Perkins Act administered by Dept. of
    Education. Colleges and universities funded by BIA under the 1978 Act
    are not eligible for these grants.
        In formulating the Department's budget, priority is given to the
    programs which carry out the mission of the Department. The Department
    does consider the availability of other funds in decision making. For
    example, the NPS state assistance program is reduced partially because
    states can use funds available to them from other sources for the same
    purposes as the grants.
        With respect to whether Line-Item Construction projects included in
    the NPS budget, in some cases NPS cost-shares with private or state
    partners. This reduces the cost to the Federal Government.

              OPERATIONS FUNDING FOR FEDERAL LANDS AND PROPERTIES

        Question. I am concerned that once again the President's Budget has
    not addressed the steady erosion of Interior bureaus to maintain and
    operate its parks, refuges, and other lands. For over 100 years, past
    Presidents and Congresses have designated lands for the perpetual
    enjoyment of the American public with the expectation that future
    generations would do their part to maintain this heritage.
        Since fiscal year 2001, DOI has ``absorbed'' more than $400 million
    in fixed costs including annual pay raises, health insurance premiums,
    workers and unemployment compensation, GSA rent, and the working
    capital fund. The idea that agencies have the magical ability to
    ``absorb'' inflationary costs year after year is an illusion. I think
    it is time for us all to recognize that years of ignoring inflation is
    having a detrimental effect on parks, refuges, and rangelands. I think
    we need to be more forthcoming about the costs to federal lands for
    increases in grants and other programs that benefit non-federal lands.
        I notice that travel, fuel, employee relocations, supplies, and
    equipment are not even considered in Interior's fixed cost
    calculations. These are goods and services that a park or refuge have
    pay to keep the gates open. Interior has not requested or received an
    increase for general inflation in over 15 years. This has led to a
    steady erosion of the base budgets for parks, wildlife refuges, public
    lands, and facilities. Just about everything has gone up in cost, but
    the Department has not received a cent to cover those costs.
        How much in fixed costs do you expect Interior bureaus to absorb in
    fiscal year 2007?
        Answer. The budget proposes that Interior bureaus absorb about 70
    percent in pay and health costs and fully funds all other fixed cost
    items. The budget includes $125.9 million for fixed costs and proposes
    an absorbtion of $43.5 million. These figures assume the pay raise is
    enacted at the budget request level of 2.2 percent.
        Question. Based on commonly accepted inflation factors, how much
    did Interior agencies lose to inflation in 2005?
        Answer. The fixed costs budget request provides increases for
    general schedule pay raises based on Presidential pay policy, health
    benefits based on anticpated increased rates, rent increases for space
    costs under the terms of existing leases, and payments to other
    agencies for workers and unemployment compensation payments based on
    anticipated billings from the Department of Labor. In 2005 the budget
    requested $70.9 million for fixed costs and proposed Interior absorb
    about 40 percent of the fixed costs or $56.7 million. The enacted
    budget included a higher than proposed pay raise. Based on these
    factors Interior absorbed $103.3 million in fixed costs. There was also
    an across-the-board reduction of $149.2 million.
        Question. Based on commonly accepted inflation factors how much do
    you expect in 2006 and 2007?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2006 the budget request included full
    funding for fixed costs, or $157.1 million, but the pay raise was
    enacted at a higher level than the budget proposal and as a result
    interior absorbed $29.3 million. The across-the-board reduction was
    $156 million. In 2007 the fixed cost request totals $125.9 million for
    fixed costs and proposes an absorption of $43.5 million.

               LANDOWNER INCENTIVE AND PRIVATE STEWARDSHIP GRANTS

        Question. The administration budget does propose increases for a
    variety of grants programs for private landowners, localities, and
    states.
        Two programs that fared extremely well in the budget request are
    the Landowner Incentive Grant program and the Private Stewardship grant
    program. The Landowner Incentive Program is increased 11 percent and
    Private Stewardship grants are increased 29 percent above the enacted
    level. These increases are out of line with the overall decrease in
    spending for the Department funded by this subcommittee.
        What justifies the high priority and large funding increases for
    these private lands programs, especially when many other tested
    programs have been cut?
        Answer. The Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) and the Private
    Stewardship Grants Program (PSGP) offer complementary approaches to
    enhance relationships with our partners and address important habitat
    needs for imperiled species.
        LIP provides competitive grant funds to State and territorial fish
    and wildlife agencies and Tribes to establish or supplement their own
    landowner incentive programs and to provide technical or financial
    assistance to private landowners for the protection, restoration, and
    management of habitat to benefit federally listed or other species
    determined to be at risk. By helping, rather than regulating, the
    Service has found LIP to be a cost effective way to build public
    support for wildlife conservation in rural communities, stretch
    existing conservation dollars to achieve the greatest possible benefit,
    and prevent the need for more drastic, and costly, regulatory actions
    later on. So far, over 50 States and one territory (the U.S. Virgin
    Islands) have used Landowner Incentive dollars to either initiate or
    enhance their efforts to work with private landowners. Dollars are
    being used to implement important conservation actions identified in
    the State's Wildlife Action Plan, thereby addressing issues impacting
    multiple species of conservation need
        The PSGP provides grants and other assistance on a competitive
    basis directly to individuals and groups engaged in voluntary
    conservation efforts on private lands that benefit federally listed,
    proposed or candidate species or other at-risk species. In contrast to
    other grant programs, which usually support projects of third parties,
    groups and individuals themselves use the funds provided through PSGP
    for on-the-ground projects to conserve species on their property.
    Interest from private landowners in this program remains high. For
    example, in fiscal year 2005, private landowners submitted 191 eligible
    proposals requesting approximately $21,625,279; of those, the Service
    was able to fund 72 projects that provided benefits for 120 unique
    listed species and an additional 19 unique candidate species.

                            AMERICAN WHITE PELICANS

        Question. After several decades of recovery, populations of
    American white pelicans have been declining in the 21st century. As you
    know, American white pelicans breed in several large colonies in north
    central states, including Chase Lake, North Dakota. An interagency,
    multi-state white pelican workshop was conducted in Jamestown, North
    Dakota in January 2006 to examine the white pelican situation across
    the major pelican nesting areas in North Dakota, Montana, South Dakota,
    and Minnesota. Scientists at the conference identified West Nile virus
    as a potentially serious threat to the species, and recommended that a
    continent-wide pelican population survey is key to answering many of
    the questions we have about the future of white pelicans. No survey has
    been conducted since the early 1980s. I know the white pelican is not
    endangered, at least not yet, and is not a game bird, but it is a
    species of concern. None of us wants to see white pelicans put on the
    endangered species list.
        How much base DOI funding do you plan to dedicate to white pelican
    research in fiscal year 2007?
        Answer. Although certain local colonies have been declining, the
    overall continental population of American White Pelicans (Pelecanus
    erythrorhyncos) appears to be stable or increasing. Pelicans are long-
    lived birds that can probably withstand multiple years of reproductive
    failure while maintaining a relatively stable population size. While
    the Fish and Wildlife Service is concerned and would like to have a
    better understanding of factors that led to problems observed in 2004
    and 2005 with the pelican colony at Chase Lake National Wildlife
    Refuge, on a continent-wide basis these birds are abundant compared to
    many higher priority migratory birds. The Service's migratory bird
    priorities are documented in the 2002 Species of Conservation Concern
    List and in a list of 139 Focal Species of migratory birds. The
    American White Pelican is not currently a species of nationwide
    concern, although it is listed as a regional concern in Bird
    Conservation Region 26 (the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley).
        There are no funds dedicated to specific research projects
    concerning the white pelican. However, we continue to monitor the
    different colonies in the Northern Great Plains for deaths, adult
    abandonment of nests and young, predation, and general colony health.
    This monitoring can be accomplished with existing funds.
        Question. What will your Department do in 2006 and 2007 to address
    the declining pelican populations?
        Answer. As stated above, continent-wide American White Pelican
    populations are in general not declining. They are in fact increasing
    in some geographic areas, and otherwise largely maintaining stable
    populations (making them a low priority concern nationally from a
    migratory bird management perspective). However, we are concerned about
    certain local colonies declining, such as the Chase Lake colony. We
    continue to monitor the different colonies in the Northern Great Plains
    for deaths, adult abandonment of nests and young, predation, and
    general colony health.

                    OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION ON PUBLIC LANDS

        Question. The budget increases Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oil
    and gas management by $26.3 million, an increase of 30 percent over
    2005. I applaud your decision to increase environmental inspection,
    monitoring, and enforcement of drilling operations with an additional
    $4.9 million. Also included in the increase is $4.3 million to ``keep
    pace with the growing demand for APD's''. Opponents of speeding up
    approvals for oil and gas companies to drill on public lands point out
    that you have already approved thousands of applications that have not
    been put to use.
        Exactly how many approved APD's have not been exercised?
        Answer. The BLM does not track the number of APDs that have not
    been drilled. However, BLM does track the number of wells spudded, or
    originally drilled. In 2004, drilling activity lagged behind BLM's rate
    of APD approval; however the number of new wells now exceeds the BLM's
    rate of approving APDs, indicating that industry is adding capacity to
    utilize APDs and is drilling APDs approved in prior years.
        Industry has now ramped up to meet the national demand for energy
    and is utilizing a high percentage of the APDs that are approved.
    Industry has more than doubled its drilling since 2004. The number of
    wells spudded since the beginning of the fiscal year now nearly matches
    the number of APDs approved in 2006. The table below displays APDs
    approved and wells spudded for the period October 1 to April 1 in
    fiscal year 2006 and for the comparable period during the prior two
    years:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           2004         2005         2006
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    APDs Approved 10/1-4/1...........        2,382        2,722        3,373
    Wells Spudded 10/1-4/1...........        1,446        2,728        3,298
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Is it really necessary to speed up APD approvals in light
    of the number that have already been approved?
        Answer. Section 366 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains
    processing timelines that BLM is working to meet. The timely processing
    of pending APDs represents perhaps the Nation's best near-term
    opportunity to provide additional domestic energy supplies.

                                APPROVAL OF APDS

        Question. The Bureau of Land Management has hired an industry
    association to review and approve APD's from the industry they
    represent. This truly looks like the fox is guarding the henhouse. I
    can imagine the uproar that would have greeted the Clinton
    administration if it had chosen the Wilderness Society to process the
    paperwork for timber sales. At a minimum, this gives the appearance of
    a conflict of interest.
        How can you to assure this Committee that abuses are not taking
    place?
        Answer. The BLM has not hired an industry association to review and
    approve APDs. The BLM has utilized industry employees in the past,
    under volunteer agreements, to prepare supplemental information such as
    maps used in the processing of APDs. BLM does not utilize industry
    employees currently. In fiscal year 2005, the oil and gas industry
    offered the services of several employees in order to assist BLM to be
    able to process additional APDs in a few offices that were unable to
    keep up with the pace of new APDs. BLM's staffing has since been
    increased to handle this workload.
        The scope of work undertaken by these ``hosted workers'' was
    limited to resource input and scientific analysis in subject matters
    they had expertise in. All decisions are made by BLM managers. The BLM
    uses volunteer labor in several of it programs throughout the bureau
    and provides specific guidance on how this work force is to be used and
    supervised. The guidance for the use of such workers is found in BLM
    Manual 1114.2.22(C) (Volunteers). This policy states that hosted
    workers may provide advisory services, but may not make substantive
    recommendations and decisions that are appropriately made by BLM
    employees, supervisors, and managers.
        Work assignments for hosted workers were made by BLM supervisors
    and managers, not the sponsoring organizations. Prior to the arrival of
    hosted workers at a BLM Office, BLM identified the projects that hosted
    workers would be assigned to work on. Neither the hosted workers nor
    the consulting firm that recruited the workers had any role in setting
    work priorities.
        Hosted workers do not have access to BLM proprietary information
    and data. Access to data by volunteers is limited, carefully monitored,
    and controlled.
        Question. What other options did you consider before making this
    choice?
        Answer. As noted above, the BLM is not currently using ``hosted
    workers.'' As a short term measure, taken in order to respond to the
    unplanned increase in requests for APDs in 2005, BLM used the services
    of hosted workers. BLM considered options such as requesting additional
    appropriations, reprogramming and reassignments of staff from other
    offices. The hosted worker arrangement, under the BLM Manual policy for
    volunteers, provided the skills needed while BLM prepared a longer term
    response to the demand for APDs. BLM does not plan to use hosted
    workers to assist with APD processing in 2006 and 2007.
        Question. If Congress approves this budget increase, will you agree
    to stop using industry people to review APD's?
        Answer. The BLM is not currently using industry employees to review
    APDs. Using the 2007 budget increase, together with the Pilot office
    funding in 2006, BLM has the capability to add staff and hire
    contractors with the skills provided by these ``hosted workers'' in
    2005. BLM does not plan to use hosted workers to assist with APD
    processing in the future.

                        ALASKA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

        Question. Your budget adds $12.4 million for Alaska North Slope
    energy activities, including $8 million to prepare for oil drilling in
    the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
        Congress has not authorized oil exploration in ANWR, and even if it
    does, the first lease sale would not take place before 2008.
    Considering how many other programs are being cut or neglected in this
    budget, I believe we should put this $8 million to use in a more
    practical manner.
        Where would you suggest Congress redirect this $8 million that will
    not require new legal authorization?
        Answer. The Department's budget proposal supports the environmental
    analyses needed to explore and develop the area within the Alaska
    National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), where the U.S. Geological Survey
    estimates a mean expected volume of 10.4 billion barrels of technically
    recoverable oil if Congress acts to lift the ban on development. If
    Congress does not lift this ban, but still provides the
    Administration's funding request, up to $8.0 million of the funds
    requested would be used to respond to a significant and costly set of
    response and cleanup projects caused by accelerated shoreline erosion
    in Alaska. The erosion of the shoreline threatens government-owned
    legacy wells and other facilities. Proper abandonment of these
    government-owned legacy wells is important to prevent contamination of
    the oceans and lakes in the area.
        The 2007 BLM Budget Justification referenced a preliminary cost
    estimate of $24 million for emergency response and remediation
    activities that may be needed at various sites over the next five
    years. The BLM and Department will have a better cost estimate when the
    ongoing studies and the preparation of a long-term systematic plan for
    responding to the sites are completed.
        In 2005, shoreline erosion exposed the well casing and breached the
    reserve pit at the JW Dalton well, initiating a highly visible winter
    emergency site characterization. BLM's initial remediation response was
    successful and the State of Alaska's formal acceptance for the removals
    at the former reserve pit was received. In 2005, the Department
    provided $7.5 million in emergency funding to address the J.W. Dalton
    Well site issue and begin assessments and characterization of other
    sites that are at risk of inundation. The portion of the funding used
    specifically for the Dalton well has been used for the emergency
    response actions to plug and abandon the well; and to remove and manage
    the reserve pit contents in constructed temporary stockpiles.
        Transportation and final disposal of the wastes remain to be done
    before the J.W. Dalton project is complete. The disposal options study
    was completed January 30, 2006. The least-cost scenario is roughly $6.5
    million for contracting, with an additional $0.2 million needed for
    administrative costs to complete this final phase of the JW Dalton
    response.
        The stockpiles are located at the Air Force's Pt. Lonely DEW-Line
    site and the Air Force agreement stipulates that the stockpiles must be
    removed by 2008. The State of Alaska is allowing only a one-year
    extension to the temporary stockpiles. Funding is now needed to
    complete the removals. Completing the J.W. Dalton disposal is the
    highest priority.
        After the Dalton disposal, the next priorities, as identified by
    the 2005 NPR-A erosion inventory are:
        1. East Teshekpuk Legacy (USGS research) well and reserve pit
        2. Atigaru Legacy (USGS research) well and reserve pit
        3. Drew Point Legacy (USGS research) well and reserve pit
        A fourth priority site, the North Simpson (Navy) Legacy well, has
    no reserve pit associated with it and the BLM oil and gas staff have
    assessed the risk of the well itself as low. However, the wellhead has
    valves and is inundated in 4 feet of seawater. Although the risk to the
    marine environment is currently low, the wellhead valve can be expected
    to eventually deteriorate, presenting a hazard to the marine
    environment from the diesel fuel in the well case. In addition, the
    wellhead presents a navigational hazard to any watercraft which are
    near shore in the area. For these reasons, the local Native
    communities, the State of Alaska, and the North Slope Borough could be
    expected to strongly oppose lack of action to plug, abandon, and cut
    off this well.

                          HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA

        Question. Many employees of your Department distinguished
    themselves by their heroic efforts to rescue stranded people and feed
    those left with nothing along the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina
    and Rita. They are to be commended. The Fish and Wildlife Service
    devoted over $10 million worth of support for the recovery efforts.
    This is in addition to over $160 million in damages to Service lands
    and property. The President has requested sufficient funding for
    necessary repairs and reconstruction which I support. However, he has
    not requested money to reimburse the agency for its emergency response
    costs. Last year you covered the $10 million in emergency response
    costs by moving funds from the Fish and Wildlife Service construction
    account. Some of the construction funds came from leftover balances
    from completed projects. I'm glad to see those funds being put to good
    use. However, you also took funds from planned or uncompleted projects
    that are priorities of this Committee. These priority projects cannot
    be resumed unless funding is restored.
        Question. Will you use a portion of the pending supplemental to
    restore funds to these projects?
        Answer. The Fish and Wildlife Service does not plan to use a
    portion of the recently enacted supplemental to restore funds to these
    projects.

                            WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

        Question. The National Fire Plan was intended to establish a
    unified, seamless, interagency wildfire management program. The budget
    presents disconcerting evidence of a lack of coordination between the
    Departments of Agriculture and Interior. The Interior Department's
    budget for Wildland Fire Management is strangely at odds with that of
    the Forest Service. You propose elimination of rural fire assistance
    grants to small communities. The Forest Service budget, on the other
    hand, proposes an increase for their comparable volunteer fire
    assistance grants program. Your budget reduces funding for hazardous
    fuels reduction by $8 million. The Forest Service budget proposes a $10
    million increase for fuels reduction.
        On the other hand, the administration is holding joint USDA-
    Interior fire research funding steady, but the Forest Service is
    proposing to cut their share. Perhaps most surprising is that you are
    increasing fire preparedness funding while the Forest Service reduces
    theirs.
        Would you please explain how the administration came up with such
    an inconsistent budget?
        Answer. There are programmatic reasons for differences in the two
    agencies' budgets, and having a unified and coordinated program does
    not necessarily mean that funding for individual activities will always
    move in tandem. Wildland fire management, including fuels reduction,
    rural fire assistance, and preparedness, remains a top priority for
    both Departments. The Department of Interior and USDA Forest Service
    plan to treat approximately 3.0 million acres of hazardous fuel in
    fiscal year 2007. The Department of Interior alone expects to conduct
    hazardous fuels treatments on 1,052,000 acres, of which approximately
    43 percent are in critical Wildland Urban Interface areas. Overall
    fuels treatment funding for the Federal fire community (including the
    Forest Service) is level with 2006.
        Though the 2007 budget does propose to eliminate the pilot RFA
    grant program at DOI, the request does continue to fund the Ready
    Reserve program. This DOI pilot program began in fiscal year 2006 with
    $1.9 million in Preparedness funding. The purpose of this program is to
    strengthen initial attack and extended capabilities of rural fire
    departments (RFDs) that provide firefighting assistance on DOI lands.
    In 2006, firefighter training will be repackaged for delivery at local
    fire facilities around the country. Additional training will be
    developed that bridges existing training in both the structural and
    wildland fire sectors, and training delivery will begin. With these
    funds, a supplementary workforce of 1,000--2,000 RFD personnel would be
    trained each year. This enhancement of local capacity will reduce the
    Department's reliance on the more expensive alternative of transporting
    Federal and contract firefighters from other regions of the country.
        Furthermore, the Department will continue ongoing efforts to work
    with the Department of Homeland Security to meet the needs of rural
    fire departments for basic training and equipment through the much
    larger DHS Assistance to Firefighters Grant program. The Department
    recently updated the existing agreement with DHS that will ensure a
    greater role for the wildland fire agencies in reviewing grants to
    departments through programs they administer. As part of this enhanced
    collaboration, the two Departments now link websites to better direct
    those seeking grants to rural fire departments to available funding.
        DOI currently plans and budgets all predictable firefighting
    expenses within the Preparedness account, including all firefighters
    and aviation resources. The $6 million increase requested for
    Preparedness would fund fixed costs for this firefighting force.
        The Department and the Forest Service are currently engaged in the
    development of Fire Program Analysis, an innovative system that will
    inform fire management planning and budgeting across ownership and
    jurisdictional boundaries. Beginning with the 2008 budget request, this
    effort is designed to provide efficiencies through common and unified
    planning and budgeting in the future for both Departments.
        Question. Why don't your Departments coordinate your efforts and
    provide a coherent budget to Congress?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior and USDA Forest Service do
    coordinate budget activities regarding wildfire management. However,
    this does not mean that funding for specific activities will always
    move in unison because each agency has unique factors to consider in
    developing its budget request. Both agencies are engaged in the
    development of Fire Program Analysis (FPA), an effort designed to
    provide efficiencies through common and unified planning and budgeting
    in the future.
        Although the DOI and Forest Service wildfire budgets and budgeting
    processes are separate, the agencies collaborate and cooperate closely
    in all aspects of fire management, fire response, hazardous fuels
    reduction and public wildland fire education.

                             RURAL FIRE ASSISTANCE

        Question. Rural fire departments successfully respond to thousands
    of fires every year on federal lands--saving taxpayers many millions in
    federal emergency response costs. Your budget asserts that you will
    coordinate with the Department of Homeland Security to see that
    Interior's rural neighbors will have access to federal funding.
        Why are you proposing to cut assistance grants to rural fire
    departments that respond to wildfires on Interior's public lands?
        Answer. As explained above, the Department continues to fund the
    Ready Reserve program at $1.9 million. In 2007, this program will train
    and provide safety gear for about 1,000-2,000 local firefighters.
        The Ready Reserve program was appropriated $1.9 million in fiscal
    year 2006; awards are not yet complete. Those funds will be spent for
    the following:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Training Repackaging.......................................     $250,000
    Training Development.......................................      250,000
    Personal Protective Equipment..............................      585,000
    Training Delivery..........................................      789,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In fiscal year 2007, the program will direct all funds to training.
        Question. And how can you claim that DHS will help when the
    administration is also proposing to cut DHS firefighter grants from
    $648 to $293 million?
        Answer. DOI's Rural Fire Assistance grant applicants are eligible
    to apply for DHS Assistance to Firefighters (AFG) grants and may also
    be eligible for Forest Service grants. To better coordinate all
    available grant resources, the Department recently updated a Memorandum
    of Understanding with DHS and the Forest Service that will ensure a
    greater role for the wildland fire agencies to participate in the AFG
    grant evaluation process. As part of this enhanced collaboration, the
    two Departments now link websites to better direct those seeking grants
    to rural fire departments to available funding.
        The AFG web page (http://www.firegrantsupport.com/stories/
    afg_stories.aspx) details grants that funded such things as wildland
    urban interface type II and III engines (California), wildland fire
    training (Tennessee), and a brush truck (Alaska). Though the DOI
    program does not fund rolling stock, these communities were able to
    successfully compete for wildland fire equipment and training in this
    much larger grant program. Through our enhanced collaboration and
    cooperation, the Department expects to continue to educate our DHS
    partners about the wildland fire community and their specific needs to
    enhance their future capability to compete for scarce assistance.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        Question. The Administration claims that it is requesting $533
    million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I am not persuaded
    that this really the case. Your budget only requests $85.1 million for
    federal land acquisition, and grants to states for land acquisition and
    development of recreational opportunities. Federal land acquisition was
    $573 million in 2002 and it has gone down every year in the Bush
    administration. The state assistance side of the LWCF--which provides
    funds to states for acquisition of open space and development of parks
    would be eliminated. The Department's budget points to 10 other non-
    LWCF programs being counted as LWCF.
        Can you please explain how you say you are funding LWCF at $533
    million when it seems that all you are playing a shell game by renaming
    other programs so you can count them as LWCF?
        Moreover, how can you justify requesting such low levels for LWCF
    land acquisition when there is a significant backlog of inholdings in
    our national forests, wildlife refuges, parks, and BLM lands, with
    sellers willing to sell their property for the benefit of our natural
    resources?
        Answer. Recognizing that a number of programs contribute to meeting
    America's conservation and recreation needs, the Congress over the past
    decade has appropriated nearly $1.5 billion from the Land and Water
    Conservation fund for programs other than Federal land acquisition and
    State recreation grants. Specifically, in 2001, $456 million was
    appropriated from the Fund for other programs. In 2006, Interior,
    Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, $156 million was
    appropriated for other programs.
        The 2007 proposal would use LWCF funding for the following programs
    that were funded from LWCF beginning in 2001: Cooperative Endangered
    Species Conservation fund, North American Wetlands Conservation Fund,
    and State and Tribal Wildlife grants. The 2007 proposal also includes
    LWCF funding for the following two programs that have been funded from
    the LWCF each year since 2002: Landowner Incentive program and Private
    Stewardship grants.
        The 2007 budget focuses LWCF funding on achieving high-priority
    conservation and related goals. Linking cooperative conservation on
    public lands to nearby private lands enhances conservation, intensifies
    community participation and leverages the funding dedicated to these
    activities. Conservation partnerships that transcend Federal boundaries
    create opportunities to tap into the knowledge and resources of
    neighboring communities and enlist their support in long-term
    conservation and recreation goals. In addition these partnerships
    leverage funds through partnerships that yield at least a one-to-one
    match. The proposed 2007 funding level of $533 million includes $147.3
    million for the Forest Service and $386 million for DOI.
        With respect to the backlog of inholdings and willing sellers, as
    stated in the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture National Land
    Acquisition Plan of February 2005, that was submitted to the
    Appropriations Committees, the conservation of lands does not
    necessarily require Federal acquisition. Our agencies have systematic
    processes for selecting the appropriate tools to manage lands, ensuring
    that acquisition is used with discretion, extensive public input, and
    only where acquisition appears to be the best alternative. In addition,
    the concept of a ``backlog'' for land acquisition can be misleading for
    several reasons. First, conservation of lands does not necessarily
    require Federal acquisition. Second, in contrast to facilities
    maintenance, there are not objective criteria for what must be done.
    Third, many inholdings do not need to be acquired. The key conclusion
    of the Land Acquisition Plan is that land acquisition is only one of a
    suite of tools to reach the Departments' conservation and other land
    management objectives. Cooperative conservation programs provide
    alternative tools to protect and manage land and resources. These tools
    significantly leverage Federal funds and often broaden the ways in
    which lands are managed and conservation goals are achieved.

                        USGS NORTH DAKOTA ENERGY REPORT

        Question. A USGS scientist named Dr. Leigh Price researched the
    potential for billions of barrels of untapped oil reserves in the
    Williston Basin, which includes North Dakota, in 1999 and 2000.
    Unfortunately, Dr. Price died more than six years ago--before he had
    the chance to publish two studies that he was working on. The studies
    include a manuscript, ``Origins and characteristics of the basin-
    centered continuous-reservoir unconventional oil-resource base of the
    Bakken Source System, Williston Basin,'' and a detailed data set. I
    understand that USGS is currently reviewing Dr. Price's research for
    possible release. Since this research could be very important to both
    the scientific and energy development communities in my state, I am
    concerned that USGS has been abnormally slow in its decision about
    whether to make the information public. This research may be especially
    relevant since USGS is scheduled to do its next assessment of energy
    resources in the Williston Basin in 2007 or 2008.
        Do you plan to make this information publicly available?
        What is your timeline for making a decision about whether you will
    release this information to the public?
        Why has it taken the USGS six years to consider publishing this
    research?
        Answer. The scientist, Leigh Price--now deceased--submitted a draft
    manuscript for scientific peer review in 1999, just before his death,
    for publication as a ``USGS E-Bulletin.'' Only one reviewer returned
    any comments in the scientific peer review process. Therefore, the
    manuscript has not had peer review and has not received approval for
    publication by the Team Chief Scientist and the Director. In its
    current state, USGS cannot release the draft or any of its contents
    without violating policies relating to scientific merit, integrity,
    objectivity, impartiality, non-advocacy, and public benefit.
        The USGS is currently evaluating the information in the unpublished
    manuscript and locating the author's raw data that serve as the
    foundation for his interpretations. The USGS is also taking into
    consideration information presented in recent publications regarding
    the Williston Basin. In addition, USGS is required to determine whether
    the unpublished manuscript contains any proprietary information. Upon
    completion of all these evaluations, USGS will make a determination
    whether any information in this unpublished manuscript merits
    consideration for approval and publication and then the most
    appropriate means to disseminate that information, if appropriate.
        The last USGS assessment of petroleum resources in the Williston
    Basin was released in 1995. The results of this assessment are
    available at http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/oilgas/noga/index.htm. The next
    formal USGS study and reassessment of petroleum resources of the
    Williston Basin is slated for winter 2007/2008, with the publication
    and release of those findings shortly thereafter.

            STATESIDE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF) GRANTS

        Question. Your budget request eliminates stateside assistance
    grants through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The National Park
    Service budget justifies this cut by saying ``Paying for improvements
    to State and local parks is a decision better left to State and local
    taxpayers rather than to Federal taxpayers.'' This rationalization is
    hard to understand when you propose a $2.1 million increase for private
    stewardship grants for voluntary conservation efforts on private lands
    and another $2.7 million increase for landowner incentive program
    grants to states and tribes for financial assistance to private
    landowners.
        Please explain why these FWS grants are more appropriate for
    federal funding than conservation grants to states?
        Answer. The Private Stewardship Grants and the Landowner Incentive
    Program Grants are critical elements in the conservation and recovery
    of the nation's endangered and threatened species and other species of
    concern, and the habitats that support them. Recent studies have
    indicated that 75 percent of the species currently listed as either
    threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act rely on
    privately owned habitat for part or all of their lives. Likewise, the
    recently completed Wildlife Action Plans (also known as State
    Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plans) identify thousands of other
    species of concern that cannot be conserved without the habitats found
    on private lands. For example, in Tennessee, a state where 92 percent
    of the land is privately owned, landowner grants are being used to
    protect habitats in high priority rivers and streams. Projects funded
    by these grants are expected to benefit over 40 threatened or
    endangered species and provide improved water quality for all
    downstream users. Likewise in eastern Wyoming, where almost all the
    land is privately owned, conservation grants to landowners will be used
    to enhance or restore 10,000 acres of prairie and prairie stream
    habitats. This work will benefit dozens of species identified in the
    Wyoming Wildlife Action Plan while also providing financial benefits to
    the landowners.
        Given the importance of private lands to wildlife and the
    conservation opportunities they represent, the Private Stewardship
    Grants Program and the Landowner Incentive Program provide habitat for
    wildlife while simultaneously helping landowners maintain the economic
    viability of their property. By helping, rather than regulating, the
    Service has found these programs to be cost effective mechanisms to
    build public support for wildlife conservation within rural
    communities, stretch existing conservation dollars to achieve the
    greatest possible benefit, and prevent the need for more drastic, and
    costly, regulatory actions later on.
        The elimination of funding for LWCF State grants in the fiscal year
    2007 budget request is an example of the difficult choices that were
    made to propose a budget that could support the Administration's effort
    to cut the budget deficit in half by fiscal year 2009. In recognition
    of the need to constrain the budget, this was one area that could be
    reduced without affecting operations of the National Park System, which
    is the core responsibility of NPS. The fiscal year 2007 budget request
    increases operations funding by $23.4 million.
        The fiscal year 2007 budget does not include funding for new LWCF
    State grants but does include $1.6 million for State Grants
    Administration which will be used to review the accounting, billing and
    performance of grants provided in previous years. Nearly $3.9 billion
    has been appropriated through fiscal year 2006 for the State grant
    program including $312 million in the last four years.
        Question. How will the President fulfill his promise on the LWCF
    without the stateside program?
        Answer. The annual budget requests for 2002--2005 upheld the
    President's first-term commitment to fully fund the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund. Throughout the first term, the Administration
    requested $900 million for Interior and Forest Service programs within
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Congress did not appropriate
    funds at the request level.
        Beginning in 2006, the budget began to reflect the need to
    constrain funding with the goal of reducing the deficit. Despite the
    constraints, the 2006 budget request still included $496 million for
    the LWCF programs just within Interior. The Congress funded $264.5
    million. The 2007 budget maintains a robust funding level for the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund. The 2007 request includes $386 million for
    Interior LWCF programs, an increase of $121 million over the 2006
    enacted level.
        This funding level is achieved with a focus on high-priority
    conservation partnership programs. Linking cooperative conservation on
    public lands to nearby private lands enhances conservation, intensifies
    community participation and leverages the funding dedicated to these
    activities. Conservation partnerships that transcend Federal boundaries
    create opportunities to tap into the knowledge and resources of
    neighboring communities and enlist their support in long-term
    conservation and recreation goals. These cooperative conservation
    programs also have the significant benefit of leveraging federal
    dollars, sometimes by a ratio of four to one or more. They capitalize
    on community engagement, collaboration, and cooperation in working
    toward shared goals of healthy lands and thriving communities. Four-
    fifths of the land in this country is in private ownership. Local
    communities and landowners are in the best position to help in efforts
    such as providing habitat for the protection of endangered species.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                             NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

        Question. 2005 statistics show there are 79 million acres of
    national parks in the United States. Alaska has approximately 51
    million acres, or 65 percent of the country's national parks. Compared
    to the entire National Park System, the Alaska Region consistently
    receives less than 5 percent of operations funding each fiscal year.
        Can you explain to me why the Department spends such a small
    percentage of operations funds for the National Park System in Alaska
    when Alaska has over half of the nation's parkland?
        Answer. Many factors affect the funding level necessary to operate
    a park unit in a manner that is consistent with the National Park
    Service mission. Among the most important of these factors is the
    number of visitors a park receives, the nature of a park's cultural and
    natural resources, the prevalence of threats to visitors and resources,
    and the number of facilities and roads that must be operated and
    maintained. Most of the park units in the Alaska region are expansive
    and home to invaluable natural resources. However, due to their remote
    locations, Alaska parks have fewer facilities in comparison with parks
    in the lower forty-eight States and receive less than one percent of
    the overall visitation to national park units.
        The current funding level for Alaska parks reflects a balance
    between the need to protect resources over a large area and the
    relatively small number of visitors for whom the NPS must provide
    interpretive programs, safety and security, and facilities. However, as
    a result of needs identified by the NPS, Alaska national park units
    received funding increases at a rate faster than the average for all
    park units over the last ten years. From fiscal year 1997 to fiscal
    year 2006, Alaska parks had operations budget growth of 70 percent,
    greater than the 46 percent average for all parks. The NPS will
    continue to assess the needs of all parks to ensure that natural and
    cultural resources are protected and adequate services are provided to
    visitors.

                            FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE

        Question. The fiscal year 2007 budget request eliminates funds for
    the Regional Mark Processing Center. These funds are used by the
    Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission to maintain the coast-wide
    coded-wire tag database for anadromous fish produced in U.S.
    hatcheries, as required by the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The Fish &
    Wildlife Service justifies this cut on grounds the project is not
    directly related to its performance goals under the Department of
    Interior's strategic plan.
        How does this project not fit into the Department's performance
    goals? How will the United States meet its obligations under the
    Pacific Salmon Treaty if funds for this project are eliminated?
        Answer. NOAA Fisheries and the States have primary responsibility
    of managing the fisheries covered by the Treaty. As a result, the
    Regional Mark Processing Center's management of fishery harvest is not
    captured in the Service's Strategic Plan. Almost half of RMPC's
    operational budget of roughly $530,000 comes from the Service annually.
    For the U.S. to meet its obligations under the Pacific Salmon Treaty,
    the agencies currently involved in the financial support of the RMPC
    will make every effort to identify other base funding sources to cover
    a portion of the proposed reduction.
        Question. The Marine Mammal Act is that marine mammal populations
    and the marine ecosystems on which they depend be maintained at, or
    returned to, healthy levels. This mandate is particularly important to
    Alaska given the number of types of marine animals in the State and the
    need to ensure sustainable use of marine mammals for subsistence
    purposes.
        What is the Department's justification for eliminating funding for
    the Alaska Marine Mammals Program--almost $2 million was appropriated
    for this program in fiscal year 2006?
        Answer. The earmark provided in 2006 is targeted to two areas: (1)
    $969,000 for cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations,
    and (2) $990,000 for marine mammal surveys in Alaska. Although the
    elimination of the $969,000 earmark will reduce the scope and number of
    joint efforts pursued under cooperative agreements, the Service will
    maintain essential agreements through base funds in fiscal year 2007.
    The scaled-back agreements, many of which are predicated on a long-term
    approach, will still play an important role in maintaining partnerships
    with Alaska Natives, which provide key management tools for
    understanding marine mammal population trends and managing subsistence
    harvest.
        The 2006 Appropriation of $990,000 will be targeted towards the
    continued development of marine mammal population survey methods in
    Alaska. These funds provide the opportunity to obtain biological
    information to address high priority resource issues. For example, we
    have developed and are implementing an innovative survey technique to
    estimate the Pacific walrus stock. The Service will continue to seek
    ways to meet our management responsibilities for northern sea otter,
    Pacific walrus, and polar bear conservation that also recognizes
    current budget limitations.
        We anticipate that the tasks and projects funded with the marine
    mammal earmark will be completed in 2006. The Service is committed to
    continuing to meet our responsibilities for marine mammal conservation
    and management under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and recovery for
    those species listed under the Endangered Species Act.

                           BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

        Question. The fiscal year 2007 budget request eliminates funding
    for the Alaska Minerals Program. The BLM justifies this cut on grounds
    the mineral survey function is more appropriate for the State and other
    entities. Section 1010(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands
    Conservation Act (ANILCA) directs the Secretary of Interior to assess
    the oil, gas, and other mineral potential on all public lands in the
    State of Alaska in order to expand the data base with respect to the
    mineral potential of such lands. There are 73 mining districts in
    Alaska. 30 of these have been identified as high priority for
    assessments under ANILCA. The U.S. Bureau of Mines (through 1995) and
    BLM (since 1995) have completed the mineral assessments of 15 of the
    high priority mining districts.
        ANILCA directs the Secretary of Interior to assess the mineral
    potential on public lands in Alaska so I do not think the BLM's stated
    justification for eliminating the program is adequate. How can the
    Department justify this cut when assessments have been completed on
    only half of the high priority mining districts? In addition, there are
    43 remaining districts that have yet to be scheduled for assessment.
        Answer. The Department is focusing its available funding to meet
    its highest priorities, including responding to the Nation's demand for
    energy. The Alaska Minerals program provides mineral assessments which
    may provide some long term economic benefit, but which are not clear
    Federal priorities. The Department believes that industry or other
    entities with an interest in Alaska's long term mineral potential will
    invest the funds needed to continue assessments where needed.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Burns. Thank you all very much. The subcommittee
    will stand in recess to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, April
    6, in room SD-124. At that time we will hear testimony from the
    Hon. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, Environmental
    Protection Agency.
        [Whereupon, at 10:32 a.m., Thursday, March 30, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday,
    April 6.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Burns, Domenici, Craig, Allard, and
    Dorgan.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            MARCUS PEACOCK, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
            LYONS GRAY, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            MICHAEL W. S. RYAN, DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            DAVID A. BLOOM, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET
            ANN R. KLEE, GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
            BILL RODERICK, ACTING INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR
                GENERAL
            WILLIAM WEHRUM, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR
                AND RADIATION
            GEORGE GRAY, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND
                DEVELOPMENT
            BENJAMIN GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER
            GRANTA NAKAYAMA, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
                AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
            SUSAN HAZEN, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
                PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
            SUSAN BODINE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
                AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
            LUIS LUNA, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION
                AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
            LINDA TRAVERS, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
                ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

        Senator Burns. We'll call the committee to order. Sorry--
    well, I guess we're about on time. Murphy's Law took over this
    morning. You know, the old law of anything that can go wrong,
    will. It did. Then I got to looking this over, Mr. Director,
    and I'm going to make this flowery statement here that's been
    written by a very able person. Of course, I can't read, and
    that doesn't help things, but, nonetheless, I was just going to
    tell you, gather everything you've got up, go back downtown,
    and rework it, and come on back when you're ready.
        Mr. Johnson. We're ready, sir.
        Senator Burns. All right. Well, good morning, and thank you
    very much for coming this morning.
        We will hear the budget on the Environmental Protection
    Agency. I'd like to welcome our good friend, Steve Johnson, the
    administrator down there, who's with us, and it's a pleasure to
    have you and--as we make this discussion and try to come up
    with some--a meeting of the minds, as far as EPA is concerned.
        Let me begin by saying, EPA has one of the most important
    and difficult missions of all the Federal agencies. There's no
    question about that. You're torn in 65 different directions.
    How you keep it all together is--takes a man of great talent,
    and I think you are a man of great talent. The jurisdiction
    ranges from the responsibility of the cleanup of Superfund
    sites, such as the Libby asbestos site in Montana, to funding
    clean water and drinking infrastructure programs, to the
    enforcement of a long list of environmental laws.

                                 BUDGET REQUEST

        The administration has requested $7.3 billion in a total
    budget authority for fiscal 2007. This is $310 million below
    fiscal year 2006. That's a 4-percent reduction. That sort of
    concerns a lot of us on this committee. While the EPA has only
    been under the jurisdiction of this committee for the past
    year, the enormity of the clean water and drinking water
    infrastructure needs across this country has continually been
    impressed upon me. The administration has requested funding,
    $842 million, for the Drinking Water SRF, but it has
    recommended a large reduction in funding the Clean Water State
    Revolving Loan Fund. The administration is requesting $688
    million for the Clean Water SRF, which is $199 million below
    the fiscal year of 2006. In the Clean Water, the $688 million
    is just not enough. Clean Water and Drinking Water
    Infrastructure Gap Analysis published in 2002 indicates we
    still have a substantial gap in funding, which could help
    develop the country's clean water and drinking water systems to
    maintain the spending levels--or the current spending levels, I
    should say. The Gap Analysis estimates the United States will
    need to spend $540 billion for both clean water and drinking
    water capital needs in the next 20 years. I'm not certain yet
    what our subcommittee allocation will allow us to do, but I
    intend to try to fund by the State Revolving Loan Funds at the
    highest level.
        Despite the 4-percent reduction in the President's budget
    request, EPA has a few programs receiving substantial
    increases. The budget includes the following notable increase,
    $50 million for Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program. I can
    do that in one single swoop. If you'll just let me turn all
    that coal into diesel, I can take care of all that.
        And $20 million--and do it with private money. Now, that
    ain't a bad deal. I think that's kind of the way America
    works--$20 million above the enacted level for the Great Lakes
    Geographic Program and $55 million above the enacted level for
    homeland security initiatives at the Agency.
        But we also face significant challenges in cleaning up the
    1,238 active Superfund sites--1,238 Superfund sites on the
    National Priorities List, and 62 sites proposed to make the
    NPL. The administration is requesting $1.259 billion for
    Superfund Programs, which is $17 million above fiscal year
    2006.
        Now, there's no question that the Superfund Program could
    use increased funding to clean up sites currently on the NPL
    and those waiting to make the list. Libby asbestos site, in
    Montana, was added to the National Priorities List in 2002. The
    folks in Libby have suffered greatly, and I would like nothing
    more than to see this site cleaned up as soon as possible.
    That's why I included it in the language of last year's bill
    directing the EPA to issue a Record of Decision for Libby no
    later than May the 1st of this year. I understand that there is
    some discomfort at the Agency about moving forward with the
    final ROD for Libby, but I want the ROD issued swiftly, because
    folks in Libby deserve to know both the timeline and the
    details of the cleanup process, and I do not want the quality
    of the ROD to suffer. Most importantly, Mr. Administrator, I
    would like your word that the community will be involved in the
    greatest extent possible as that process moves forward.
        Now, there's many issues that I could raise at this point,
    ranging from the proposed funding increase for homeland
    security initiatives to the newly configured Diesel Emissions
    Reduction Grant Program, but I'll save my comments for the
    question part of the round of this hearing.
        So, again, I want to thank you for coming this morning. We
    appreciate your hard work down there, understanding it's
    probably one of the toughest jobs in this 17 square miles of
    logic-free environment in which we have to do business.
        So, I will--I don't have any colleagues to turn to.
        So, I'll turn to the administrator. Mr. Johnson, thank you,
    this morning, very much, and we'll look forward to your
    testimony.

                  SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN L. JOHNSON

        Mr. Johnson. Well, thanks, I appreciate being here. Mr.
    Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to be here
    to discuss the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request for
    the Environmental Protection Agency.
        The President's budget reflects his continued commitment to
    providing the critical resources needed for our Nation's
    highest priorities: fighting the war on terror, strengthening
    our homeland defenses, and sustaining the momentum of our
    economic recovery. The President's pro-growth economic
    policies, coupled with spending restraint, will keep the
    Government on track to cut the deficit by more than half by the
    year 2009.
        EPA is responsible for being a good steward of our
    environment and a good steward of our tax dollars. In keeping
    with the need for spending restraint, the President has
    included $7.3 billion to support the work of EPA and our
    partners nationwide in his budget.
        This budget fulfills every presidential environmental
    commitment and maintains the goals laid out in EPA's strategic
    plan, while spending less. When I accepted the position of EPA
    administrator, President Bush charged me with accelerating the
    pace of environmental protection while maintaining the Nation's
    economic competitiveness.

                           BUDGET REQUEST: PRINCIPLES

        As we prepare for tomorrow's environmental challenges, EPA
    will meet the President's charge by focusing on three
    principles:
        The first is results and accountability. This budget
    includes three programs that have been delivering some of the
    longest-standing and greatest environmental results. The
    President requested nearly $1.3 billion for the Superfund
    Program, a $17 million increase over last year's enacted
    budget, $841.5 million for the Drinking Water State Revolving
    Fund, and $688 million for the Clean Water State Revolving
    Fund.
        In order to continue our Nation's steady march toward
    cleaner air, the President requested $932 million for the Clean
    Air and Global Climate Change Goal. In order to meet this goal,
    last year EPA implemented a suite of clean air rules that
    dramatically cuts power plant emissions of soot, smog, and
    mercury in the Eastern United States. However, we continue to
    believe that Clear Skies, a permanent legislative approach, is
    a more efficient, effective, and long-term mechanism to provide
    certainty and achieve large-scale emission reductions across
    the country.
        The second principle is innovation and collaboration. The
    Great Lakes Program is an excellent example of regional and
    international collaboration. In his budget President Bush
    requested over $70 million to clean up and protect the lakes.
    This includes $50 million for the Great Lakes Legacy Act
    cleanup program, which is an increase of over $20 million over
    last year's enacted budget.
        As the President said, breakthroughs in new technology are
    powering our economy and dramatically improving our environment
    and nowhere is this more apparent than in the administration's
    investment in energy innovation. EPA plays a substantial role
    in this effort through the implementation of the Energy Policy
    Act of 2005. The President's budget includes over $100 million,
    to support the development and implementation of the renewable
    fuel standard rulemaking to strengthen preventive measures for
    underground storage tanks and to support the Agency's National
    Clean Diesel Campaign to reduce diesel emissions from existing
    engines.
        The third principle to accelerate environmental protection
    is best available science. The President shares this commitment
    to sound science. His budget request includes $7 million for a
    Water Infrastructure Initiative, as well as additional funding
    to study manufactured nanomaterials, for the Integrated Risk
    Information System, and for the Computational Toxicology
    Research Program.
        Before I conclude, I need to mention EPA's responsibility
    in supporting the President's top priority: The safety and
    security of the American people. For 2007, the President
    requested $184 million for EPA's Homeland Security efforts,
    which is an increase of $55 million over last year's enacted
    budget. By reaffirming our commitment to results and
    accountability, innovation and collaboration, and the best
    available science, the funding in the President's budget will
    allow EPA to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st
    century and beyond.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Last, I also want to thank the committee for significantly
    reducing the amount and number of congressional projects
    included in this year's appropriation bill.
        That concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. I would
    be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Stephen L. Johnson

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here
    today to discuss the fiscal year 2007 budget request for the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The President's fiscal year 2007
    budget request of $7.3 billion reflects the Administration's strong
    commitment to carrying out EPA's mission of protecting human health and
    the environment. The request demonstrates the President's continued
    commitment to providing the resources needed to address our Nation's
    highest priorities which include: continued support of homeland
    security, fighting the war on terror, and sustaining the recovery of
    our economy. At the same time, there is a need for discipline in our
    federal budget, and this request shows such discipline through its
    results-oriented approach.
        EPA's programs can work even more efficiently than they do today.
    We expect to be held accountable for spending the taxpayers' money more
    efficiently and effectively every year. To assist you, the
    Administration launched ExpectMore.gov, a website that provides candid
    information about programs that are successful and programs that fall
    short, and in both situations, what they are doing to improve their
    performance next year. I encourage the members of this Committee and
    those interested in our programs to visit ExpectMore.gov, see how we
    are doing, and hold us accountable for improving.
        This fiscal year 2007 budget incorporates the Administration's
    vision of a results-oriented and market-based approach to environmental
    protection while focusing on achieving measurable outcomes in the form
    of cleaner air, purer water, and better protected land. EPA will
    implement an environmental philosophy based on three principles in
    order to better fulfill its mission of protecting human health and the
    environment.
        The first principle is results and accountability. EPA must focus
    on environmental outcomes, not environmental programs. This budget
    request includes three programs that have delivered some of the
    greatest environmental successes. These three programs include:
    Superfund, for which $1.3 billion is requested, the Drinking Water
    State Revolving Fund for which $841.5 million is requested, and the
    Clean Water State Revolving Fund, for which $688 million is requested.
        The second principle is innovation and collaboration. This means
    the Agency will focus on collaborating with its state, tribal, local,
    and private enterprise partners. EPA will work with these partners to
    promote market-based strategies, advance stewardship opportunities, and
    invest in new and innovative technologies. The Great Lakes Program is
    an example of regional and international cooperation, and this budget
    requests over $70 million to clean and protect the Great Lakes. This
    request includes $50 million for the Great Lakes Legacy Act program, a
    $20 million increase, which will accelerate the cleanup of contaminated
    sediment that has accumulated for many years in the Great Lakes as a
    result of historical industrial sources.
        Using the best available science is the third principle which the
    Agency will utilize to fulfill its mission. Strong science and data are
    integral to making decisions about environmental issues. This budget
    supports the use of science and data by requesting $7 million for a
    Water Infrastructure initiative. These funds will provide EPA with the
    resources needed to conduct a major research effort which will reduce
    the cost of operation, maintenance, and replacement of old drinking and
    wastewater systems. The focus on the best science is also demonstrated
    in the request to fund the study of nanomaterials and their effect on
    human health. Additionally, our request supports the Integrated Risk
    Information System and Computational Toxicology programs to promote the
    best available science.
        Mr. Chairman, the Agency has accomplished a great deal in its past
    efforts to clean the water, improve our air quality, and protect our
    lands. The environmental challenges that we face are enormously complex
    and expensive but by relying upon what we have learned from our
    accomplishments and by incorporating the Administration's environmental
    philosophy with its focus on results, I believe we can meet the
    challenges that lie ahead in an efficient and productive manner.

                               HOMELAND SECURITY

        Homeland Security is a top priority for the Administration and an
    integral component of this budget. For fiscal year 2007, the President
    requests $184 million for Homeland Security. This is an increase of $55
    million over fiscal year 2006 enacted levels. EPA plays a leading role
    in protecting U.S. citizens and the environment from the effects of
    attacks that release chemical, biological, or radiological agents.
    Following the cleanup and decontamination efforts of 2001, EPA has
    focused on ensuring we are prepared to detect and recover quickly from
    deliberate incidents. The emphasis for fiscal year 2007 is on a few key
    areas: decontamination of threat agents, ensuring trained personnel and
    standardized lab capabilities to be called upon in the event of an
    emergency, and working with the drinking water utilities to protect our
    water supplies.
        Secure drinking water supplies are imperative and this budget
    requests $42 million for improved water security including the
    WaterSentinel pilot program. The WaterSentinel pilot program
    demonstrates how EPA has a critical role in protecting the citizens of
    this Nation. This program is designed to monitor and help secure the
    Nation's drinking water infrastructure and will provide early warning
    of intentional drinking water contamination. WaterSentinel consists of
    enhanced physical security monitoring, water quality monitoring,
    routine and triggered sampling of high priority contaminants, public
    health surveillance, and consumer complaint surveillance. In fiscal
    year 2007, EPA will establish, in selected cities, additional pilot
    contamination warning systems with water utilities through increased
    water monitoring and other surveillance. The addition of water
    utilities in fiscal year 2007 will allow for more comprehensive and
    diverse testing of contaminant warning systems. By the end of fiscal
    year 2007, EPA expects to begin disseminating information learned from
    the pilots to other water utilities.
        Clean Air and Global Climate Change
        The fiscal year 2007 President's Budget requests $932 million for
    the Clean Air and Global Climate Change goal. EPA implements this goal
    through its national and regional programs which are designed to
    provide healthier air for all Americans and protect the stratospheric
    ozone layer while also minimizing the risks from radiation releases,
    reducing greenhouse gas intensity, and enhancing science and research.
    In order to carry out its responsibilities, EPA utilizes programs that
    include many common elements, including: setting risk-based priorities;
    facilitating regulatory reform and market-based approaches; partnering
    with state, Tribal, and local governments, non-governmental
    organizations, and industry; promoting energy efficiency; and utilizing
    sound science.
        In March 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),
    which will reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
    oxides in 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia by 70 percent
    and more than 60 percent respectively from 2003 levels when fully
    implemented. This will go a long way to help many areas attain the fine
    particle standards and the ozone standards. We will continue to move
    forward with implementation of this and our other clean air rules in
    fiscal year 2007. However, we have received 14 Petitions for Review and
    12 Petitions for Reconsideration for the 2005 Clean Air Interstate
    Rule. EPA has also received two administrative stay requests (1 has
    been denied, 1 is pending); two judicial stay motions have been filed
    (both have been denied). While we are confident that we will prevail in
    the litigation concerning CAIR, there is always some uncertainty
    regarding the outcome of any litigation. We would much prefer to reduce
    emissions from power plants with the President's Clear Skies
    legislation. The authority provided by the Clean Air Act to put CAIR in
    place is limited. Regulations do not provide enough certainty--that is
    why the President has been urging Congress to pass a permanent, nation-
    wide solution.
        EPA's Climate Protection Programs continue to assist in reaching
    the President's goal of reducing greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent
    by the year 2012. The United States has joined five other countries
    (Australia, China, India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea) in the
    Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate. In 2007,
    EPA requests $5 million to support this partnership which will focus on
    deploying cleaner technologies in partner countries in order to reduce
    poverty, enhance economic growth, improve energy security, reduce
    pollution, and reduce greenhouse gas intensity.
        This fiscal year 2007 budget request includes $50 million for the
    new Diesel Emission Reduction Grants Program authorized by the 2005
    Energy Policy Act. The program will provide grants for projects that
    reduce diesel emissions from existing engines by using cleaner fuels,
    retrofitting them with emissions reduction technology, or replacing
    them with newer, less-polluting engines.
        Clean and Safe Water
        The fiscal year 2007 President's Budget requests $2.7 billion to
    implement the Clean and Safe Water goal through programs designed to
    improve the quality of surface water and drinking water. EPA will
    continue to work with its state, Tribal, and local partners to achieve
    measurable improvements to the quality and safety of the Nation's
    drinking water supplies as well as the conditions of rivers, lakes, and
    coastal waters.
        Also in fiscal year 2007, EPA will continue to work with states and
    tribes on implementing core Clean Water programs, including innovations
    that apply programs on a watershed basis. Water quality monitoring is a
    top priority in protecting and improving water quality and will provide
    the scientifically defensible water quality data that is necessary to
    defend our Nation's waters. Additionally, the Agency will support the
    protection and restoration of wetlands through its own programs such as
    Section 319 and State Revolving Fund, as well as other Federal programs
    such as those administered by Fish and Wildlife Service.
        The Budget also continues the Administration's commitments to the
    Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). The Budget
    provides $688 million for the Clean Water SRF, keeping the program on
    track to meet the cumulative capitalization commitment of $6.8 billion
    for 2004-2011. This funding level will allow the Clean Water SRF to
    provide $3.4 billion in loans annually, even after Federal
    capitalization ends, and will ensure communities have access to capital
    for their wastewater infrastructure needs.
        The Budget proposes $841.5 million for the Drinking Water State
    Revolving Fund, a $4 million increase over the 2006 enacted level. This
    request keeps the administration's commitment to provide sufficient
    capitalization grants to allow the Drinking Water SRF to provide $1.2
    billion annually, even after Federal capitalization ends.

                       LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION

        The Agency's fiscal year 2007 budget request to Congress implements
    the Land Preservation and Restoration goal through EPA's land program
    activities which promote the following themes: Revitalization,
    Recycling, Waste Minimization, and Energy Recovery; Emergency,
    Preparedness and Response, and Homeland Security.
        In fiscal year 2007, this goal will include new responsibilities as
    EPA takes on an important role in implementing the Energy Policy Act of
    2005 and it is reflected in the 2007 budget request. This budget
    includes $38 million for State and Tribal Assistance Grants to support
    EPA's underground storage tank (UST) program. This is a $26 million
    increase over fiscal year 2006 enacted levels. The UST program will
    continue working with states to implement the base UST program as well
    as the new provisions of the EPAct. The EPAct provisions focus on
    preventing future releases from USTs and include inspections, operator
    training, delivery prohibition, secondary containment, and financial
    responsibility.
        Revitalized land that was once contaminated can be used in many
    proactive ways, including creation of public parks, the restoration of
    ecological systems, the establishment of multi-purpose developments,
    and the establishment of new businesses. EPA uses its cleanup programs
    (including Superfund, RCRA, Corrective Action, Brownfields, Federal
    Facilities, and Underground Storage Tanks) to facilitate the cleanup
    and revitalization of contaminated properties. In fiscal year 2007, the
    Agency will continue to promote the minimization of waste. EPA's
    municipal solid waste program will implement a set of coordinated
    strategies, including source reduction (also called waste prevention),
    recycling (including composting), combustion with energy recovery, and
    landfilling. The Agency will work with other Federal Agencies within
    the National Response System to respond to incidents which involve
    accidental or intentional releases of harmful substances and oil.
        Enforcement activities are a significant component of the Land
    Preservation and Restoration goal which support the Agency's ability to
    clean up the majority of the most hazardous sites in the Nation.
    Enforcement allows the Agency to collect funding from Potentially
    Responsible Parties (PRPs) to finance site-specific cleanup. These
    accounts segregate site-specific funds obtained from responsible
    parties that complete settlement agreements with EPA. The Agency will
    continue to encourage the establishment and use of these Special
    Accounts within the Superfund Trust Fund in order to finance cleanups.
    These funds create an incentive for other PRPs to perform cleanup work
    they might not otherwise be willing to perform and the result is that
    the Agency can clean up more sites and preserve appropriated Trust Fund
    dollars for sites without viable PRPs.

                       HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS

        In fiscal year 2007, EPA's Budget carries out the Healthy
    Communities and Ecosystems goal via a combination of regulatory,
    voluntary, and incentive-based programs. A key component of the Healthy
    Communities and Ecosystems goal is to reduce risks to human health and
    the environment through community and geographically-based programs.
    Some of these community and geographically-based programs include:
    Brownfields, Wetlands Protection, and programs that concentrate on our
    nation's large bodies of water such as the Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico,
    and Chesapeake Bay.
        Community and Geographically-based programs comprise one of the
    most important components of the Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
    goal. In fiscal year 2007, the Agency requests $163 million for the
    Brownfields program to restore abandoned contaminated properties. This
    is a slight increase over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level for
    Brownfields. The Chesapeake Bay program also supports the Healthy
    Communities and Ecosystems goal. This program protects the Bay which
    needs improved water quality, overall protection, and restoration. This
    budget requests $26 million for cleaning up and protecting the
    Chesapeake Bay. This request is $4 million over the fiscal year 2006
    enacted level. Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) is
    another program which is vital to achieving the goal of Healthy
    Communities and Ecosystems. This program offers many communities the
    opportunity to improve their environment through voluntary actions.
        Another major focus of the Healthy Communities and Ecosystems goal
    is identifying, assessing, and reducing the risks from chemicals and
    pesticides. In fiscal year 2007, EPA will continue identifying and
    assessing potential risks from pesticides. In addition, EPA will set
    priorities for addressing pesticide and chemical risks, strategize for
    reducing such risks, and promote innovative and alternative measures of
    pest control. Also related to reducing pesticide and chemical risk, EPA
    will continue its Homeland Security activities which focus on
    identifying and reviewing proposed pesticides for use against pathogens
    of greatest concern for crops, animals, and humans in advance of their
    potential introduction. EPA will work closely with other Federal
    agencies and industry in order to carry out these activities.

                    COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP

        EPA's fiscal year 2007 Budget Request of $540 million for the
    enforcement program helps realize the Compliance and Environmental
    Stewardship goal through programs that monitor and promote enforcement
    and compliance with environmental laws and policies. In fiscal year
    2007, EPA will continue with its strong commitment to compliance and
    enforcement through collaborating with its state, Tribal, and local
    government partners. The Agency also will support stewardship through
    direct programs, collaboration and grants for pollution prevention,
    pesticide and toxic substance enforcement, environmental information,
    and creation of an environmental presence in Indian Country.
        Compliance assistance and enforcement are critical components of
    the Compliance and Environmental Stewardship goal and EPA supports
    these components by assuring requirements are clearly understood and by
    assisting industry in identifying cost-effective compliance options. In
    fiscal year 2007, EPA will use a two-part approach in ensuring
    compliance assistance and enforcement. First, EPA will help clarify
    environmental laws and regulations for regulated communities. The
    second step is for the Agency to reduce noncompliance through
    inspections, monitoring, and via enforcement when needed.
        In fiscal year 2007, EPA also will focus on promotion of
    Environmental Stewardship. Environmental Stewardship is a concept that
    seeks more than just minimal compliance with environmental regulations.
    Instead, it promotes voluntary environmental protection strategies in
    which states, Tribes, communities, and businesses are invited to
    participate. EPA will promulgate stewardship by educating, providing
    incentives, tools and technical assistance to states, Tribes,
    communities, and businesses. EPA will implement a performance-oriented
    regulatory system that allows flexible strategies to achieve measurable
    results.
        In fiscal year 2007 EPA will continue to work with industrial
    sectors to set pollution reduction goals, provide tools and technical
    assistance, and identify innovative strategies to reduce risks. In the
    tribal GAP program, the Agency will support approximately 517 federally
    recognized Tribes in assessing environmental conditions on their lands
    and building environmental programs tailored to their needs.
        Also in fiscal year 2007, the agency will continue to fortify the
    Environmental Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network). In
    fiscal year 2007, EPA, states, Tribes, and territories will continue to
    re-engineer data systems so that information previously not available
    or not easily available can be exchanged using common data standards.
    By the end of 2007 all fifty states and approximately ten Tribes will
    have established nodes on the Exchange Network and will be mapping data
    for sharing with partners and submission to EPA.
        In 2007, EPA also will continue its work with Performance Track by
    recognizing and rewarding private and public facilities that
    demonstrate strong environmental performance, beyond current
    requirements. To provide incentives to business to participate, EPA
    continues to implement and develop new regulatory incentives at the
    state level. It will support and leverage state environmental
    leadership programs by aligning Performance Track with at least 20
    state programs and double the measurable environmental improvements
    achieved to date.
        In summary, this budget will enable us to carry out the goals and
    objectives as set forth in our strategic plan, to meet challenges
    through innovative and collaborative efforts with our state, tribal,
    and private entity partners, and to focus on accountability and results
    in order to maximize environmental benefits.
        The requested resources will help us better understand and solve
    environmental problems using the best available science and data, and
    support the President's focus on the importance of Homeland Security
    while carrying out EPA's mission.

                       CLEAN WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING

        Senator Burns. Well, I thank you.
        Let's just--let's talk about this clean water
    infrastructure funding, Mr. Administrator. How does the--I'd
    just like to--for you to justify reducing that fund, at Clean
    Water SRF. In face of the above-mentioned funding estimates, we
    know we're about--over $500 billion over the next 20 years. We
    have no chance at all of ever making a dent in that unless we
    fully fund what we're supposed to be doing now. Now, we can
    shift funds, and we can delay funds, and something like that.
    The bad thing here are construction costs. Everything costs
    more every year. And so, we slip back and back. It's not that
    you cut those funds, but you increase the costs for the next
    time around.
        So, I--give us an idea. Where does local and rural areas go
    for seed funding on any project that they might have? Where do
    they go? Where are we headed? I guess that's my question.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you correctly point
    out, the needs of our Nation are great when it comes to water
    infrastructure. I believe we have laid out an approach that
    attacks that really massive problem in a number ways. One is
    that the $688 million that the President is requesting in this
    budget fulfills his commitment to have the Revolving Loan Fund
    for the Clean Water--State Revolving Loan--revolve at $3.4
    billion. So, the amount of money that's in our budget that he's
    requesting fulfills that obligation to achieve that kind of
    revolving. But that is not the only approach.
        Second is that we need to be looking at innovative
    technologies, because, whether it is a large system or a small
    system, we need to be investing in research and development. In
    fact, the President includes $7 million to look at new
    technologies. In fact, we've already evaluated 14 technologies
    that will be very helpful in helping small systems achieve
    various water compliance issues.
        Then the third is a multi-pronged approach that looks at
    this problem of ensuring that there is full-cost pricing. We
    need to be looking at this in a watershed approach, because
    what we do in a watershed in one area affects the others. We
    also need to be looking at conservation. What are things that
    we can do to help reduce the burden? Then, lastly, better
    management. There are opportunities across the Nation where
    systems are doing a much better job than others. We want to try
    to take those lessons learned and have them apply. So, we're
    really looking at it in a multi-pronged way.

                                   TECHNOLOGY

        Senator Burns. You know, one of these days--I know you
    don't get into this area, but most of us in the West do--and
    you have nothing to do with it, but--I don't know how
    technologies is going to--is going to help new--help a shovel
    out.
        I mean, this is--what we're talking about here, if you've
    got--if you've got a virtual shovel that's--that shovels
    virtual dirt to put a virtual pipeline in the ground, that's
    still not going to get any water on the other end. So, I don't
    know what new technologies does for you.
        But I would suggest, when you're in California the next
    time, you give me a call, and we'll go down, and we'll show you
    a--an irrigation area that's in the west-end farmers. You know,
    they lost about 10 percent of their water--irrigation water.
    They also lost about 8 percent of their land that they couldn't
    irrigate anymore. When you've got a little area down there that
    produces a $3.5 billion of agricultural products in that
    system, and then you want to cut them back, does not make a lot
    of sense to me. But they went through a series of underground
    laterals--mains and laterals on the irrigation system. Figure
    they saved about 20 percent of their water that they were
    losing just to evaporation. They--and that--I think that is a
    model that we--we've got to follow, one of these days, about
    how we do things. So, if you ever get down in California, you
    want to go and have them give you a tour of what they did
    there.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
        Senator Burns. Environmentally, is to get away from big
    sprinklers, and went to drip technology that Montana State
    worked out with--with Israel, by the way--it is something to
    behold. So, I think we've got to look around outside this
    thing.

                               HOMELAND SECURITY

        Homeland security. The administration has requested $184
    million for homeland security activities, $55 million over
    2006. The largest increases, for a water security program,
    included $30.5 million in Water Sentinel pilot projects. Give
    me an idea of what these projects are, and what criteria the
    Agency is using to select those projects, and also how those
    projects will be evaluated.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        The Water Sentinel Program is intended to address the
    homeland security issue with our Nation's water systems. It is
    a series of pilot studies that would look for contaminants of
    concern, real-time contaminants of concern--weapons of mass
    destruction, if you will. We are looking at technologies that
    would enable water systems to be able to detect a variety of
    these kinds of agents.
        With regard to the specifics, I would like to inform you,
    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that we are
    arranging a secure briefing, a classified briefing for you, so
    that you can have the details of the numbers of pilots, the
    rationale for this. I would encourage--and, in fact, urge--all
    the members to attend, because this is an area of critical
    need.
        Senator Burns. I would suggest that we do that. I'd try to
    round up all the committee to do that, just members only----
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Burns [continuing]. If that's the way you want to
    go. We can get that done for you. We can facilitate that.
        Mr. Johnson. I'd appreciate that.
        Senator Burns. Because I happen to believe that you're on
    the right track. Give us some idea on what you're going to do,
    where you're going to do it, and how you evaluate it. That's
    what I'm looking for now.
        Let's--I'm going to turn to my friend from Colorado,
    Senator Allard, who just arrived. Have you got a statement,
    Senator? If so, you can put it in the record. It's your turn to
    ask questions.
        Senator Allard. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I do have a
    statement. I would ask unanimous consent that it be made a part
    of the record.
        Senator Burns. Without objection.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Wayne Allard

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. The EPA
    oversees the many environmental regulations and requirements, some of
    which can be far reaching and have a disproportionate effect on small
    communities. I think that this fact makes it very important that
    Congress exercises close oversight of the Agency and its funding.
        I cannot stress enough the need to utilize sound, peer-reviewed
    science when making decisions about increasing regulations. I also
    believe that the cost-benefit analysis of regulations should be given
    more weight in many situations.
        Finally, I remain concerned about the climate within the EPA. I
    mentioned this last year at our EPA budget oversight hearing, and it
    seems that little--if anything--has changed since that hearing. From
    communications I have had with constituents, it seems that EPA no
    longer has an interest in assisting communities with complying with
    regulations set by EPA, but rather just in heavy-handed enforcement.
    Often small communities do not have the expertise to develop a plan to
    meet new regulations. The EPA should be willing to help those
    communities, rather than refuse assistance until they are able to take
    enforcement action.
        I look forward to working with the Administrator, and my colleagues
    in the Senate, to see that EPA is able to reasonably carry out their
    mission; and working with the Committee to ensure that activities at
    the Environmental Protection Agency are funded in a manner that is
    responsible and sufficient.

                             SUMMITVILLE MINE SITE

        Senator Allard. I understand you're sort of streamlining
    this hearing, because we're going to have votes coming on, and
    we're going to have--so, I'll try not to abuse my privileges
    here, as far as time is concerned.
        Senator Burns. It doesn't bruise very easily.
        Senator Allard. Yeah. I am interested, also, in some
    continued monitoring of water systems, particularly in some of
    those areas where our risks may very high. But, aside from
    that, I want to talk a little bit about the Summitville Mine
    site there in Colorado. I think you're aware of the cleanup
    there, what's been going on.
        The question I have--can you tell me what level of priority
    this is for the Environmental Protection Agency, and kind of
    give me an update on the cleanup work at the site, where we are
    right now?
        Mr. Johnson. Senator, it is a priority area for us. The
    site is a result of sodium cyanide that was used to extract
    metals, and the metal leachate that is getting into and causing
    the problems. We've been working very closely with the Colorado
    Department of Health and Environment, and looking at it from a
    number of ways. One is, the existing water treatment plant is
    going to need some improvements. We're working with them both
    on the design and how that would be improved. In addition,
    there is work that's currently ongoing to consider the design
    of a new plant. In fact, some of the design work has already
    now been done, and we are now actively looking at that. We're
    working very closely with Colorado to determine what are those
    best remedies, given the contamination of the mine.
        Senator Allard. Now, in those--in working with Colorado----
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. I assume you've made some
    commitments as to what you plan on doing, and that Colorado's
    made some commitments on what they plan on doing.
        Mr. Johnson. We're----
        Senator Allard. How are you on your commitments?
        Mr. Johnson. As far as I know we're on track. The funds
    that are available to work on this are through a settlement
    account.
        Senator Allard. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson. Through the EPA Summitville Settlement
    Account. There are monies that are there to help this work. My
    assessment is that, we're still very much trying to assess what
    is the appropriate technology and the most cost-effective
    technology to address this.

                            EPA COLORADO COMMITMENTS

        Senator Allard. So, as far as you know, you've met all the
    commitments to Colorado, at this point?
        Mr. Johnson. As far as I know, yes. If you're aware of
    something we haven't----
        Senator Allard. Well----
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. I'd be happy to follow up.
        Senator Allard. Well, I've been asked to ask that question.
    I think there might be some concern there as to whether all the
    commitments have been made. So, maybe we need to visit----
        Mr. Johnson. Okay.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. A little bit about that.
        Mr. Johnson. I would be happy to.
        [The information follows:]

                              Colorado Commitments

        The 2001 Record of Decision (ROD) envisioned construction of a two-
    stage water treatment plant to remove copper and aluminum. EPA
    committed to funding a water treatment plant. EPA and the State of
    Colorado agree that the State aluminum water quality standard should be
    revised so that a one-stage plant would meet water quality
    requirements. The State staff is preparing to ask the State Water
    Quality Control Board to make the needed revision to the aluminum water
    quality standard for the Alamosa River.
        The State has the lead for managing the construction of the
    treatment plant. At issue is whether a one or two stage treatment plant
    will be funded. An alternate proposal is to provide added building
    space for a second stage should the Colorado Water Quality Control
    Board choose to not revise the current water quality standard. This
    option would add more than $1 million to the cost of a one-stage
    treatment plant.
        EPA has offered to waive the aluminum standard under its Superfund
    authority if it is not revised by the State Water Quality Control
    Commissioners. This approach has not been supported by the State. The
    State and EPA have agreed to wait until the Colorado Water Quality
    Control Board meets in 2007 on whether to revise the aluminum water
    quality standard in the Alamosa River to a level attainable with a one-
    stage plant.
        EPA and the State continue to fund the on-going operations of the
    existing water treatment plant. EPA and the State are also funding the
    necessary improvements at the existing water treatment plant in order
    to meet OSHA safety requirements.

        Senator Allard. Now, can you provide me with the status of
    the settlement funds that were earmarked for cleanup costs at
    Summitville?
        Mr. Johnson. I don't have that number off the top of my
    head, but I'll be happy to provide it for the record.
        [The information follows:]

                 Summitville Mine Site, Settlement Funds Status

        EPA and the State maintain separate settlement fund accounts. EPA's
    settlement balance is approximately $4.6 million. The State of Colorado
    has estimated that it has $8 million in its settlement balance. The
    State is using this funding for site operation and maintenance costs.

        Senator Allard. That's another thing I'll be interested in.
        Mr. Johnson. Okay. All right.
        Senator Allard. I think that there--I mean, it's
    progressing along. My understanding is that now fish are
    beginning to show up in the river below the Summitville.
    Somebody reported that to me----
        Mr. Johnson. Okay. Good.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. Which is the sign that, you
    know, we're at least moving through some recovery there.
        Mr. Johnson. Good.
        Senator Allard. I realize it's a complicated--it's a
    serious problem there, complicated, and has some long-term
    effects that are going to take us a while to work through. I
    just wanted to make sure that continues to be----
        Mr. Johnson. Good.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. An important priority.
        Mr. Johnson. It is, very much. Senator, I might just add,
    although not directly applicable in this situation, what we
    find across the United States is that there are over 500,000
    abandoned mines where there aren't responsible parties, there
    aren't----
        Senator Allard. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Opportunities----
        Senator Allard. Yeah.

                             GOOD SAMARITAN PROJECT

        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. For settlement accounts, and that
    we have launched a product--or a project administratively with
    Trout Unlimited, called the Good Samaritan Project, where we
    have organizations that want to get in and clean up these mine
    tailing areas, but, for fear of liability, have not----
        Senator Allard. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. For many, many years. So, we
    have----
        Senator Allard. That's the Good Samaritan Law, which----
        Mr. Johnson. We're very interested in and we're moving
    forward administratively, and we'll also be talking with you
    more about the legislation.
        Senator Allard. Yeah, well, I think I have some
    legislation----
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. On the Good Samaritan Law----
        Mr. Johnson. Right.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. That we're working on. We're
    trying to get it through committee. I think it's something that
    needs to be dealt with so that individuals can pick up these
    and--like you say, they would like to clean up the environment,
    and they're willing to make some personal commitments to do
    that. So----
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. We need to give 'em that
    opportunity without having 'em incur a huge liability that----
        Mr. Johnson. Right.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. Was no fault of their own.
        Mr. Johnson. Exactly.
        Senator Allard. There's a debate about, ``Well, are we
    letting off the big polluters when we do this?'' and all that.
    But my view is that we'd do more good than harm, and that's--we
    simply need to do something in that area, and I'm glad to----
        Mr. Johnson. Yes. Good.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. Hear you state that.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
        Senator Allard. Also, with regard to Summitville, has the
    Agency considered any alternative treatments for the site?
    Could you please update me on the status of any alternatives
    that may be considered?
        Mr. Johnson. There is technology, from an organization
    called Arcadius, that we have seen in a pilot phase, which
    shows some promise. We are encouraging them to submit a more
    fulsome proposal that moves it beyond the pilot stage. We're
    encouraged that, at least in a pilot way, it appears to be a
    workable new technology. We're encouraging them to send us
    something that expands that.
        Senator Allard. Okay. Well, if you'd just get back to my
    office, give us----
        Mr. Johnson. Okay.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. Answer some of these----
        Mr. Johnson. Okay.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. Questions, we brought up and
    kind of visit the staff, we'd appreciate that.
        Mr. Johnson. Sure.
        Senator Allard. And----
        Mr. Johnson. It is my pleasure.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. We want to stay on top of it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The information follows:]
                 Summitville Mine Site, Alternative Treatments
        EPA Region 8 and State of Colorado staff have met with ARCADIS, an
    engineering consulting firm, a number of times over the last twelve
    months, most recently March 6, 2006, to discuss a pilot test to use
    their cleanup technologies at the Summitville Mine Superfund Site.
        On April 21, 2006, ARCADIS submitted a plan to EPA Region 8 and the
    Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to perform a pilot
    test of their proposed technologies. The pilot test would involve the
    injection of carbon dioxide, a carbon source such as alcohol, as well
    as other nutrients into the primary mine pool in an attempt to reduce
    the generation of acid mine drainage and metals loads.

        Senator Burns. Senator Craig?
        Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Administrator Johnson, welcome before the committee. A
    couple of questions. Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that my full
    statement be a part of the record. Thank you.
        Senator Burns. Without objection.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Larry Craig

        Administrator Johnson, thank you for coming today. I have several
    concerns, and I am glad to have this opportunity to share those
    concerns with you and ask you some questions.
        My first concern is the arsenic standard. I, along with many of my
    Western colleagues, have been concerned for some time about the
    tremendous burden this standard is putting on small and medium-sized
    communities. There is not one of these communities that doesn't WANT to
    be in compliance. The issue is they can't get there. They simply can't
    afford it. There are approximately 175 communities that probably do not
    meet the current arsenic standard, which for small communities creates
    some very large problems. For instance, one rural community in my State
    of Idaho that was hit hard by the arsenic standard not only passed an
    expensive bond, but also laid off their only city police officer to try
    to afford to get into compliance. To me, this poses a greater public
    safety risk than the naturally occurring arsenic.
        I have heard rumblings that EPA may propose new internal regulatory
    guidance to allow for affordability criteria as it relates to future
    contaminants. As I understand it, this would give rural communities
    under 10,000 people an option of how they want to address expensive
    contaminant issues without economically crippling the community. While
    arsenic may not be one of the contaminants included in this guidance,
    we have to work harder to find solutions for these communities. The
    situation for some of them is getting desperate.
        I also have some concerns about pesticide application and EPA
    discharge permits. As you know, recent court decisions have
    contradicted long-standing federal policy that the application of
    agricultural and other pesticides in compliance with labeling
    requirements do not require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
    System (NPDES) permits. This has created ambiguity for pesticide users
    like farmers, fire fighters, irrigators, and mosquito abatement
    districts who must have access to the tools necessary to manage pests
    and maintain public health.
        Gem County, Idaho is currently defending itself against a court
    case alleging that even though they applied a pesticide as directed by
    the EPA-approved label, the County has to have a NPDES permit. This is
    a major problem, and one that has the potential to set a wrongful
    precedent unless the EPA takes more decisive and effective action to
    protect your own rule.
        I believe the EPA-proposed rule you issued in February of 2005 is a
    step in the right direction, but it is not fully consistent with the
    Agency's longstanding policy that if you apply a pesticide in
    accordance with its label, you are not required to have an NPDES
    permit. Your proposed rule does not protect users from citizen's
    lawsuits when they are simply performing long-practiced, approved and
    heavily regulated pest management and public health protection
    activities. We have an established process that tests chemicals
    extensively and regulates their use. Requiring NPDES permits for
    application is redundant, unnecessary, and ill-suited to agriculture.
    It is an attempt to redefine current law through lawsuits, rather than
    the legislative process, and we must say enough is enough.
        I have co-sponsored legislation, S.1269, with EPW Chairman Inhofe
    that would provide further clarity by ensuring that NPDES permits would
    not be required if a pesticide is used to, near or over a waterway in
    accordance with its labeling and other federal regulations. But this
    legislation shouldn't even be necessary.
        My third concern is regarding air emissions from confined cattle
    feed operations (CAFOs) and Superfund. You know I have been working to
    clarify the applicability of the Superfund and EPCRA programs to
    agriculture, particularly as it relates to livestock operations. To
    think that a dairy operation or a beef cattle feedlot should be
    regulated identically to a weapons dump, an abandoned mining site, or
    an oil spill is simply ridiculous.
        Yet again, we have environmental lawsuits attempting to tell
    Congress what WE intended to do when passing the Superfund Act in 1980.
    The EPA is currently implementing the ``Air Consent Agreement,'' where
    a small sampling of producers have voluntarily agreed to have the EPA
    gather air emissions data on their farms to more intelligently
    understand how fugitive air emissions should (or should not be)
    regulated by the Superfund and EPCRA.
        I believe that agriculture was never intended to be regulated just
    like mines, weapons dumps, etc. And lawsuits like these are really a
    backdoor attempt to shut down the livestock industry in this country.
        I will address these issues further in my questions, and look
    forward to working with you on these problems. Thank you.

                               ARSENIC STANDARDS

        Senator Craig. My first inquiry is about arsenic standards.
    I've heard rumblings that EPA may propose new internal
    regulatory guidance to allow for affordable criteria as it
    relates to future contaminants. As I understand it, this would
    give rural communities, under 10,000 people, an option of how
    they would address expensive contaminant issues without
    economically crippling their communities. In other words,
    that's the general concept.
        In Idaho--and Idaho is not alone in this, because of
    western geology--the arsenic standard has caused considerable
    problems in small-to medium-sized communities. There are
    approximately 175 communities that probably do not meet current
    arsenic standards, which, for some small communities, creates
    huge problems. One community, their entire community budget, or
    city budget, would be committed to that, alone, even though
    they've been drinking that water for 100 years.
        For instance, one of our rural communities is--was hit hard
    by the arsenic standard, not only passed an expensive bond, but
    also laid off their entire city police force--or city police
    officer--no, their only city police officer--I guess that's the
    way I should word it--which is their entire police force--to
    try to afford the compliance. To me, this poses, I think, a
    greater public risk than the issue of arsenic, based on
    historic records.
        If, in fact, EPA is planning on this new regulatory
    guidance, will arsenic be included as a contaminant under the
    affordability criteria? And will these communities get a
    waiver? Or, if arsenic is not, why?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, Senator, you've asked a number of
    questions. Let me try to work----
        Senator Craig. Have at it.
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. My way through.
        First, the arsenic standard, as you correctly point out, is
    a new standard, a health protective standard of 10 parts per
    billion. We are aware that for some of the small and rural
    communities, there are challenges in meeting that. We've been
    working to address the challenges by both technology and our
    research and development. As I mentioned a little while ago,
    we've evaluated or are now evaluating 14 technologies that deal
    with arsenic contamination. We're continuing to evaluate new
    technologies specific to arsenic.
        Second is, with regard to waivers or exemptions, the
    standard is the standard. What we do have under the Safe
    Drinking Water Act is the authority, working with the State, to
    extend the compliance period. Of all the systems that I and Ben
    Grumbles, the head of our water program, has been working with,
    the issue is not whether you're going to comply or not, the
    issue is, how do we get them into compliance, and over what
    time period? So, our focus has been providing compliance
    assistance.

                        BILATERAL COMPLIANCE AGREEMENTS

        We've been encouraging an approach called Bilateral
    Compliance Agreements between the State and the utility to work
    out the specifics so that the small water systems can get in
    compliance, but it may take them more time.
        With regard to the affordability----
        Senator Craig. Let's talk----
        Mr. Johnson. Okay.
        Senator Craig [continuing]. About compliance.
        Mr. Johnson. Okay.
        Senator Craig. In other words, if there is a good-faith
    effort and clearly a path forward is being demonstrated by the
    community in relation to the State and EPA, I mean, is that
    part of all of that picture----
        Mr. Johnson. That is part of all----
        Senator Craig [continuing]. Timelines?
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Of that picture, yes, sir. That
    is part of that picture.
        Senator Craig. Okay.
        Mr. Johnson. We've been working, I think, very
    constructively to try to work through that.
        Second, with regard to the affordability guidance the
    Agency has the methodology that the Agency has used for years
    to determine whether something is affordable or not? We have
    recently released draft guidance. That draft guidance is for
    prospective contaminants, with the exception of, as we note, in
    the proposed guidance document, that it also applies to the
    disinfectant byproducts rule that I had signed just a couple of
    months ago.
        Senator Craig. But does not include----
        Mr. Johnson. But----
        Senator Craig [continuing]. Arsenic.
        Mr. Johnson. It does not include arsenic.
        Senator Craig. Okay.
        Mr. Johnson. That's correct.
        Senator Craig. Okay. Well, I know you're working at
    flexibility. That's obviously appreciated. In some instances, I
    suspect--and I'm glad you're looking out at new technology--
    there is a rush toward that approach by many in the private
    sector to see if we can't get technology down to an affordable,
    workable, sustainable way. You know, there isn't any community
    out there that doesn't want to comply.
        Mr. Johnson. Right.
        Senator Craig. There is the reality of compliance, some of
    these small communities I've just mentioned. So, you lay off
    your police force, one or two.
        Mr. Johnson. Right. Yes.
        Senator Craig. That community is simply not going to tax
    itself beyond its capability, especially when it's drinking
    water it's drunk for so long and has found no side effects,
    that they know of, anyway.
        Why is the EPA not more actively defending their own rules
    and authority on the pesticide application and EPA discharge
    permit issues?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, I believe that we are. In fact----
        Senator Craig. So, it's in the eye of the beholder.
        Mr. Johnson. So--perhaps it's in the eye of the beholder--
    --
        Senator Craig. Your eye tells me what?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, my eye tells me that we recognize that
    this is an issue of uncertainty between the pesticides law,
    FIFRA, and the Clean Water Act. What we did was issue some
    guidance to say, if, in fact, a pesticide is used in accordance
    with its label directions, then an NPDS permit is not required.
    We are in the process of going through the rulemaking process
    to make sure that is embodied in regulation.
        Senator Craig. Okay.
        Mr. Johnson. We're very active. We have guidance. We're
    working on the regulation----
        Senator Craig. Well, we'll stay tuned.
        Mr. Johnson. So, that's for my eye.
        Senator Craig. Okay. We'll stay tuned with you. It's an----
        Mr. Johnson. Okay, good.
        Senator Craig [continuing]. Important issue to be resolved,
    and effectively, responsibly--second-guessing doesn't work here
    very well for any of the parties involved. Trying to
    understand----
        Mr. Johnson. Right.
        Senator Craig [continuing]. Where they need to be.
        Last, Mr. Chairman--Administrator Johnson, since I've
    become engaged in the issue of confined herds, large herd
    operations, air emissions, and----
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Craig [continuing]. Superfund issues, as it relates
    to large dairies and feed lots, EPA has not been consistent in
    their position, in my opinion, on this issue. Could you give me
    the status of the Air Consent Agreement, and talk about what
    direction you see this going?

                       COMBINED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION

        Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. The Combined Animal Feeding
    Operation, CAFO, as it's known. The issue of air emissions was
    one that there was great uncertainty in the science. The
    National Academy of Sciences, in a report, noted that we needed
    additional science, that there wasn't science to really
    discern, ``Is there a problem? Isn't there a problem? What is
    there, what isn't there?'' Their strong recommendation was that
    you needed to do research to understand what is going on.
        Well, the research that we need is from those CAFOs. So, we
    entered into consent agreements with a number of operations,
    now well over 2,000 operations. As part of that agreement,
    these CAFOs are collecting and monitoring information, per our
    design, which will then be brought together. In the next year
    or so, as we gather all that information, then we'll be able to
    actually assess the science, and then say, ``Is there a
    problem?'' If there is, here are the steps that need to be
    taken to address it. If there isn't a problem, then so be it.
    This CAFO agreement is, we believe, a very effective means of
    gathering the information so that we can base our decisions on
    sound science.
        Senator Craig. What kind of timelines do you have as it
    relates to gathering information and then what might follow
    from that information?
        [The information follows:]

                                CAFO Agreements

        EPA expects the nationwide AFO air emissions monitoring study to
    begin later this year and it will last two years. This two-year
    timeframe is necessary for the scientific purpose of allowing the
    monitoring study to take into account variable factors such as weather
    throughout the different seasons and between the different years. Data
    will start to become available to EPA the first year of the study, and
    will undergo extensive validation and quality assurance by the Agency.
    Data will be published on a rolling basis. No later than 18 months
    following the monitoring study's conclusion, EPA will then publish
    emission-estimating methodologies, also on a rolling basis.

        Mr. Johnson. We are continuing to sign up additional
    farming operations. In fact, the specific number is probably
    close to 2,700 operations, to date. The monitoring is
    beginning. I think it's going to take some 9 months to a year
    to gather the information. Then, once we gather that, it's
    going to take us some time to assess it.
        Senator Craig. It's got to run through a----
        Mr. Johnson. So----
        Senator Craig [continuing]. Variety of seasonal and----
        Mr. Johnson. There are seasonal and geographic dimensions.
    We want to make sure that we do proper peer review. We want to
    do this in an open and transparent way. A lot of people are
    very interested in it. I would be happy to get back to the
    record for you on the specific----
        Senator Craig. Well, I----
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Schedule.
        Senator Craig. It is very important to my State, and,
    frankly, it's very important to the future of American
    agriculture, that we get this right and we don't make it
    impossible, at the same time.
        Mr. Johnson. Right.
        Senator Craig. You know, large animal operations have
    impacts, and we all know that. Nobody wants not to do it well.
        Mr. Johnson. Right.
        Senator Craig. We simply need the tools to do it with.
        Mr. Johnson. Right.
        Senator Craig. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Burns. Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Johnson, thank you. I'm sorry I was
    delayed at another hearing. But I've looked at your testimony,
    and appreciate your being here.

                        CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND

        Let me ask you, first, about the Clean Water State
    Revolving Fund. As you know, EPA's Gap Analysis shows that
    there's about $120 billion gap between what we're currently
    spending and what we need to spend on the infrastructure. The
    administration has requested $687 million. That's $700 million
    below the 2004 level, $400 million beneath the 2005 level, $200
    million beneath the 2006 level. Let me ask, if I can, why the
    22-percent cut in this account?
        Mr. Johnson. Senator, you're absolutely correct when you
    say that the needs are great. The needs assessments are
    literally in the hundreds of billions of dollars for both clean
    water as well as the drinking water. The President's budget
    reflects what the President's commitment was for the Clean
    Water State Revolving Loan Fund. That commitment was that, over
    a period of time, the loan fund would revolve at $3.4 billion.
    The monies that have been requested fulfill that presidential
    commitment to have the loan fund revolve at that $3.4 billion.
    But that's only a piece of the pie.
        The other piece is that we really need to be working on
    trying to help water systems, particularly the small water
    systems. We believe that there are four pillars to that to
    address that. One is conservation. Another is full-cost
    pricing; ratepayers have a responsibility, as well. Third is,
    we need to be looking at this problem not just facility by
    facility, but by watershed because that's where the
    contaminants and the issues and the availability all need to be
    considered. Then, last, the issue of better management is the
    fourth pillar.
        We know of the importance of better management from other
    systems. The chairman just mentioned some things on water lines
    of one particular area in California. What we're trying to do
    is gather those good experiences, these success stories, that
    could be used by other systems.
        The last piece included in the President's budget is $7
    million for innovative technologies. We know that the need is
    great. We're seeing innovative technologies that could address
    some of the issues. So, for example, rather than replacing a
    pipe, having to dig up the pipe, we're seeing some liner
    technology that might be a more cost-effective and better
    option for dealing with some of the issues. So----
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Johnson, what was the recommendation
    from your agency with respect to this year's budget, as you
    sent it up the line? Can you tell me that, for this account?
        Mr. Johnson. I don't----
        Senator Dorgan. Did your agency----
        Mr. Johnson. I don't----
        Senator Dorgan [continuing]. Recommend----
        Mr. Johnson. I don't----
        Senator Dorgan [continuing]. A 22-percent cut?
        Mr. Johnson. I don't remember what the discussions were
    within the administration. My goal was to make sure that we
    honored the President's commitment. This budget reflects that.
        Senator Dorgan. All of the--most of the pillars he
    described, however, are made more difficult by these budget
    cuts, I would expect. I mean, we--your own gap analysis would
    suggest that your budget should reflect the ability to respond
    to that. But I under---it's really not your budget. I was
    trying to see if I could figure out what you had requested, but
    I understand it's OMB and now the President's budget. You're
    duty bound to come here and put on a suit and be aggressively
    supportive of it. And I respect that view.

                          CENTER FOR AIR TOXIC METALS

        Let me just say, the President's budget zeros out $33
    million that Congress provided through the Science and
    Technology account for specific research projects. Two million
    dollars of that went to the Center for Air Toxic Metals at the
    University of North Dakota. That goes back to 1992. The center
    is to develop information on trace elements and--so that
    pollution prevention strategies could be developed and
    implemented and so on. There's no discussion anywhere in this
    budget about why the administration chose to zero out that $33
    million of research projects. There's no information about the
    specific projects that were funded previously and would now be
    defunded. Can you tell me what the----
        Mr. Johnson. Well, I'd have to look at the $33 million. The
    specific project referred to is, as are a number of projects,
    congressional special projects, called earmarks. The
    administration doesn't carry over those earmarks as part of the
    next budget. In fact, as you know, I've been at EPA 25 years,
    and no administration carries over those earmarks. So----
        Senator Dorgan. I understand that, but normally----
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. But on the specific one--I'm not
    sure about the $33 million. I'd be happy to get back to you,
    for the record.
        Senator Dorgan. Yeah. I mean, that's the Science and
    Technology account. In fact, this particular center, the Center
    for Air Toxic Metals, was actually created by the EPA. So--at
    any rate, if you would get back to me on that, I'd appreciate
    it.
        Mr. Johnson. I'd be happy to.
        [The information follows:]

        The Center for Air Toxic Metals (CATM) at the Energy and
    Environment Research Center (EERC) of the University of North Dakota
    (UND) was established in 1992 to perform research on toxic trace
    element emissions. EPA will support the center in 2006 through a $2
    million congressional add-on to the President's fiscal year 2006 budget
    request--part of a larger set of 37 congressional additions totaling
    $33,275,000 for EPA's science and technology account. EPA expects
    fiscal year 2006 funding for CATM will support research and development
    concerning mercury's transformation in coal-combustion flue gases;
    sampling and analytical methods; control technologies; and mercury's
    interaction with selenium. Consistent with Agency policy and prior
    president budget requests, the fiscal year 2007 budget does not include
    funding for congressional add-ons provided in previous fiscal years.

                            PESTICIDE HARMONIZATION

        Senator Dorgan. Pesticide harmonization under NAFTA, we
    passed NAFTA--of course, I didn't support it--but on the floor
    of the Senate and during debate, the contention was, we're
    going to harmonize pesticides between the two countries. We
    just had a study by North Dakota State University that shows
    that if North Dakota consumers--I should say farm producers--
    paid the same price as the Canadian producers just across the
    border, for virtually identical chemicals, they'd pay $41
    million less. They expect, and I would have expected, that we
    would have harmonized, because that's what NAFTA promised. And
    yet, there's been almost no effort at all to harmonize these
    chemicals so that you could do joint labels and farmers across
    the border could essentially buy the chemicals and bring them
    back if they're the identical chemical, or virtually identical.
        So, tell me, where are we on the harmonization?
        Mr. Johnson. That is an issue that you and I have been
    talking about for some time. I am pleased to report that, on
    the harmonization front, that we have made great strides. We do
    not control, and have no authority to control, prices, and our
    focus is on human health and environmental assessment, and
    making sure that the products that end up on the market comply
    with those health and environmental protective statutes.
        What we have done as part of the NAFTA agreement is work on
    pesticide harmonization. In fact, we have now, between Canada
    and the United States, jointly registered 20 new active
    ingredients. We have been working cooperatively with our
    Canadian counterparts in trying to sort through all the data
    requirements, making sure that they are not only consistent,
    but to do everything we could to have joint registrations. As I
    said, I'm pleased to report that we have actually jointly
    registered 20 new active ingredients.
        Senator Dorgan. I'm aware of----
        Mr. Johnson. Clearly, there are opportunities to do more,
    more work to support harmonization.
        Senator Dorgan. Can you give me a timeline with respect to
    your agency's work on this, so we can expect a time when the
    requirements of NAFTA will be met, generally? If you would give
    me a report on that.
        Mr. Johnson. I will.
        [The information follows:]

                            Pesticide Harmonization

        While EPA's existing programs are fully consistent with our
    obligations under the NAFTA, we are continuing to work toward the NAFTA
    goal of harmonization of regulatory standards whenever possible,
    without lowering the level of health and environmental protection
    afforded under U.S. laws. We meet formally with our NAFTA counterparts
    at least two times a year (the next meeting is set for May 24, 2006)
    and maintain frequent contacts with our Pest Management Regulatory
    Agency (PMRA) colleagues. The EPA does not have authority over
    pesticide pricing, but we are continuing to work with state officials,
    stakeholders, and our international trading partners to explore
    remedies under existing authorities and through cooperative approaches.
    EPA has been working to break down trade barriers and promote a level
    playing field through our harmonization efforts under the NAFTA
    Technical Working Group on Pesticides (TWG). Under the TWG, the United
    States and Canada have established a successful Joint Review Program to
    share the work of evaluating pesticides being marketed in both
    countries. To date, over 20 new pesticide products have been
    simultaneously registered under the Joint Review program. While the
    United States and Canada have been open to NAFTA labels, and actively
    encouraged pesticide producers to submit candidates, agricultural
    pesticide producers have been reluctant to apply for NAFTA labels. We
    have put the structure in place but in order for the process to work,
    pesticide producers will need to participate. EPA, Canada, and Mexico
    have initiated a stakeholder process involving representatives from
    government, industry, and growers, to explore solutions related to
    pesticide joint labeling as a way of addressing price disparity. EPA
    and its Canadian counterpart agency plan to hold a meeting with these
    stakeholders later this year. EPA remains committed to providing
    growers access to pesticide products and continuing our pesticide
    harmonization efforts with Canada and other international partners
    which have already led to more consistent regulatory and scientific
    requirements, risk assessment procedures, and improved regulatory
    decision-making. EPA will also continue to provide technical assistance
    to support Congress, as necessary.

                                   RED RIVER

        Senator Dorgan. One other question. Today's not a good day
    to raise this, because the Red River is running north, and it's
    flooding the entire Red River Valley, and we're trying to run
    it through three communities, with dikes. It's the third
    highest flood in the history of the Red, so it's not a good
    time for me to raise questions about the need to replenish the
    water system of the Red River.
        But, as you know, the Red River does run dry. When the Red
    River dries up, as it has done in the past, it'll destroy the
    economies of Fargo and Grand Forks and so on. So, we've had
    this work going on, under the Dakota Water Resources Act, that
    would evaluate the ability to have an assured supply of water
    for the Red River Valley. The Bureau of Reclamation has been
    doing its studies. It is now almost done. It'll be done this
    December, 4 years behind the date in which it was supposed to
    have been done, but, nonetheless, you know, 4 years later,
    it'll be done. Now they're indicating that this is the Draft
    Environmental Impact Statement for the Bureau of Studies. EPA
    plays a part in that. The comment period was now extended by
    the Bureau, after consultation with the EPA. The EPA was not
    yet ready to sign off on the project, and asked for an
    extension because you want to compile a record.
        I can well understand wanting to compile a record, but I
    want you to understand, the Bureau has fallen behind 4 years.
    Our hope would be that we--you know, with 4 years' delay, we
    could certainly have a record out there someplace that somebody
    could glean and use and begin to digest. I hope that, if you
    have some issues, that you will understand the urgency that we
    have, and that, because it's 4 years delayed, you'll work with
    us and with the Bureau to try to move expeditiously on this.
        Mr. Johnson. You have my commitment.
        Senator Dorgan. All right. Again, I say, it's not a great
    time to raise the question of needing water in the river,
    because we've got way too much at the moment. We're trying to
    send it to Winnipeg, to get it through our cities, so that
    Winnipeg gets all of it.
        But, at any rate, let me thank you for your work.

                        CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND

        Senator Dorgan. But, you know, I'm concerned about the 22-
    percent cut in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. I don't
    think that helps our communities. I think that hurts us as
    we're trying to address these issues. I recognize, as I said
    before, you come here supporting a budget that may or may not
    be your recommendations, but, nonetheless, you're part of the
    team, and you've got to support this. I happen to think that
    it's going to shortchange the communities. It's not going to
    address the gap that we know exists, of 120 billion. It's going
    to leave us farther back than we should have been. But, you
    know, we've got serious--we've kind of driven in a ditch in
    fiscal policy here, for a lot of reasons, and we've got serious
    problems, so I'm not particularly surprised by all these
    recommendations, but I think the recommendations hurt, rather
    than help.
        Senator Burns. We always have a good, friendly competition
    between North Dakota and Montana. We can never figure out how
    the North Dakotans can flood out and burn out in the same day.
        That was a pretty good trick you pulled that time, you
    know. It really was.
        I've got a couple of questions left, also, Mr. Johnson. The
    Libby asbestos site, as I mentioned in my opening statement,
    could you please give us a status report on the Record of
    Decision, if we could get that done by May the 1st, if we can.
    I think we should talk about that.

                         LIBBY SITE RECORD OF DECISION

        Mr. Johnson. Well, yes, sir. On the Libby site, we
    appreciate all the work and your assistance and leadership in
    this area. We've actually cleaned up 595 properties. This year
    our plan is to clean up an additional 200. We have, in the
    Libby area, about 1,300 properties, and then, in the Troy area,
    probably 200 to 300. We have been working on a number of
    issues, and trying to work through the Libby, as well as the
    Record of Decision. I would love to have a few moments to talk
    to you about our status on the Record of Decision. We're going
    to be a little bit late on that date, but we're working on it.
        Senator Burns. We would----
        Mr. Johnson. I----
        Senator Burns. We would like to have a visit, if we
    possibly could----
        Mr. Johnson. Okay.
        Senator Burns [continuing]. Because folks up there are very
    nervous about that.
        We've already talked about feed lots and confined feeding.
    Eighty million dollars was rescinded from the Agency's budget
    in fiscal year 2006 in order--in an effort to offset the need
    for new appropriations. Give us an update on the Agency's
    progress of identifying that $80 million, expired grants,
    contracts, and agreements.
        Mr. Johnson. We've made very good progress. The GAO was
    technically correct, and we have gone back and looked at, and
    continue to evaluate, our contracts and grants. I expect that
    within the next few weeks, that we'll actually have what our
    plan is. It has taken a lot of very extensive work to go back
    and look through each of these agreements, both from a legal
    and from a financial standpoint. And so, as I said, we'll have
    our roadmap in the next few weeks, and then we'll meet our
    obligation. Obviously, we can't do the necessary steps on these
    contracts and grants until the September timeframe, but we're
    on target, and look forward to sharing that with you.
        Senator Burns. You might bring us up to date on your Diesel
    Emission Reduction Program. Give me a thumbnail report on that.

                       DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM

        Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. It's an exciting program. We've made
    great strides. In the President's budget, there is $49.5
    million requested. Based on our experience to date, from funds
    that have been used to both replace engines and to retrofit
    engines, we expect to leverage not only that $50 million of
    Federal taxpayer dollars, but another $100 million, to get $150
    million invested in diesel emission reductions. What that
    equates to, in terms of environmental benefit, is about 7,000
    tons of reduction of particulate matter. If you want to look at
    that in terms of health benefits, that's about $2 billion in
    health benefits. So, it's a wise investment, both from an
    environmental standpoint, and certainly from a public----
        Senator Burns. Tell me about----
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Health standpoint.
        Senator Burns. Have you done any work on any--any research
    on the use of turbochargers on diesel engines? They tell me--
    there's some work being done, and I'm wondering if you have
    monitored any of that work or----
        Mr. Johnson. Personally, I'm not aware of any----
        Senator Burns. Okay.
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. But I'd be happy to check----
        Senator Burns. Okay.
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. With our engineers.
        [The information follows:]

                     Use of Turbochargers on Diesel Engines

        The EPA's Clean Diesel Combustion (``CDC'') technology provides a
    lower-cost approach for making fuel-efficient diesel engines clean.
    EPA's CDC strategy, controlling the diesel engine's NOX
    emissions to EPA's Tier 2 levels without NOX aftertreatment,
    increases the turbocharger's performance requirements to levels which
    are beyond levels required in the market place today.
        On April 18, 2006, EPA Administrator Steve Johnson joined
    BorgWarner, Inc's Chairman and CEO Tim Manganello to celebrate a joint
    Government-Industry collaboration in this area of turbocharger
    technology. Through this collaboration, EPA invented turbocharger
    technologies are being evaluated and commercialized by BorgWarner (U.S.
    based corporation, with turbocharger manufacturing in Asheville, NC).
        Under the partnership, EPA is providing prototype turbochargers and
    proprietary insight to improve turbocharger efficiency at low
    temperature. BorgWarner has supplied modified production hardware to
    accelerate the commercialization and technology transfer process, as
    well as to support EPA's CDC industry partnerships with Ford and
    International Truck to continue their commercialization evaluations of
    CDC. A fact sheet and Press Releases from BorgWarner and EPA are also
    attached.
        This EPA-Industry partnership in the area of diesel engine
    combustion and turbochargers is one of several focused on enabling
    near-term energy conservation through the use of clean automotive
    technologies. EPA's innovative program has 35 engine and hybrid
    drivetrain related patents with 20 more underway.
                                     ______

               Clean Automotive Technology--Innovation That Works

            EPA AND BORGWARNER TO DEVELOP FUEL EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGY

        A new technology partnership known as a Cooperative Research and
    Development Agreement (CRADA) between the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA) and BorgWarner, Inc. was announced on April 18, 2006. The
    partnership will evaluate and determine the commercial viability of
    newly advanced turbochargers, air management, and sensors for use with
    diesel and high-efficiency gasoline engines.
        The initial efforts of the CRADA calls for EPA and BorgWarner to
    evaluate the technical and market potential of advanced turbocharger
    technologies designed to preserve and extend the diesel engine's
    efficiency, as these engines achieve the next generation of diesel
    emissions requirements.
        The technical challenge has been to make these high-efficiency
    engines clean and cost-effective, while maintaining or improving
    efficiency. These advanced turbocharging technologies are an extremely
    attractive part of a suite of technologies that enable both diesel and
    high-efficiency gasoline engines to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign
    oil and to reduce emission of greenhouse gases.
        Through the partnership, EPA and BorgWarner will evaluate these
    advanced automotive components that can allow the automotive and
    trucking industry to utilize EPA's Clean Diesel Combustion (CDC), as
    well as Homogeneous Charge-Compression Ignition (HCCI) gasoline
    combustion technologies.
        Broad industry interest in EPA's Clean Diesel Combustion has
    accelerated the need for more advanced air-boosting systems than are
    used in today's diesel.
        In order to meet the progressive requirements for advanced
    turbocharging and boosting systems, BorgWarner and EPA have been
    working jointly on innovative systems for use with CDC and other clean
    combustion engine technologies.
        These advanced air management systems provide the technical
    approaches and hardware necessary for ultra-clean diesel engines and
    gasoline engines to become as efficient as diesel engines.
        The advanced enabling technologies, along with CDC and other clean
    high-efficiency gasoline combustion technologies are being created in
    EPA's Ann Arbor Laboratory. BorgWarner and EPA will work to quickly
    evaluate and develop these concepts into commercially viable advanced
    turbocharger, air management, and sensor hardware.
        Successful commercialization of these advanced components will
    result in the use of more diesel and high-efficiency gasoline vehicles
    in the United States--which will:
      --Reduce emissions . . . thereby helping to clean up the environment
      --Save consumers money at the pump . . . by reducing fuel consumption
      --Reduce U.S. dependence on Middle East . . . increasing national
            security
      --Reduce record U.S. trade deficit . . . keeps money in United
            States--grows economy
                                     ______

     Partnership Geared Toward New Technologies to Reduce Fuel Consumption

        Cleaner engines mean cleaner air thanks to a partnership to develop
    advanced automotive components for cleaner, more fuel efficient engines
    and vehicles. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and BorgWarner
    will examine the commercial viability of newly advanced turbochargers,
    air management, and electronic sensors for use with clean diesel and
    high efficiency gasoline engines. Commercialization of these
    technologies will result in lower emissions and reduced fuel
    consumption, which in turn saves Americans money at the pump, improves
    environmental protection and lessens dependence on foreign oil.
        ``By advancing the technologies that are good for the environment,
    good for our economy, and good for our energy security, together with
    BorgWarner, EPA is meeting the president's call to get our nation off
    the treadmill of foreign oil dependency,'' said EPA Administrator
    Stephen L. Johnson. ``For the past century, diesel engines have been
    America's economic workhorse--reliable, fuel efficient, and long
    lasting. Through innovations in technology, this economic workhorse is
    expanding into an environmental workhorse.''
        Diesel powered passenger vehicles have significantly better fuel
    economy than their gasoline powered counterparts. Through the
    partnership, BorgWarner will build and evaluate unique turbochargers
    that will help maintain fuel economy in clean diesel combustion
    systems. The company also will develop air management and combustion
    sensor technologies. Partnering with BorgWarner allows this ``made in
    the USA'' technology to also support manufacturing jobs in the United
    States through their turbocharger manufacturing and engineering
    facilities in Asheville, NC.
        The EPA--BorgWarner partnership was established through a
    Cooperative Research and Development Agreement, which is a tool
    Congress established to facilitate technology transfer from National
    Laboratories to industry and the marketplace.
        More information about the partnership and clean fuel efficient
    technology: epa.gov/otaq/technology

                            DIESEL HYBRID TECHNOLOGY

        Mr. Johnson. We've done some very interesting work on
    diesel hybrid technology that uses hydraulic hybrid systems.
    So, instead of using a battery to store the energy that comes
    from braking, EPA's unique patented hybrid system stores the
    energy in a hydraulic system. In fact, we have a partnership
    with UPS where we are demonstrating this technology in their
    delivery trucks. You're going to begin seeing some trucks
    actually being used to deliver packages which have diesel
    hybrid hydraulic technology. The fuel savings for the hydraulic
    hybrid trucks is significant. So, we're very excited about the
    work that we've been doing with the Department of Energy, the
    hydraulic industry, and some of the engine manufacturers, to
    advance these kind of technologies.
        Senator Burns. Good.
        Senator Domenici, thank you for coming this morning.
        Senator Domenici. Who owns that patent? Whose patent is
    that?
        Mr. Johnson. It's actually an EPA patent.
        Senator Domenici. Terrific.
        Mr. Johnson. Researchers from our Ann Arbor, Michigan,
    laboratory are the ones that----
        Senator Domenici. Terrific.
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Have the patent.
        Senator Domenici. Are they out there trying to get it into
    the market and--
        Mr. Johnson. Yes. It is actually a joint partnership effort
    with a number of auto and truck manufacturers. UPS is going to
    be the first one in the market with this technology.
        Senator Domenici. Now, how do you come about that? Do you
    have a laboratory that does that work?
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, we have a laboratory in Ann Arbor,
    Michigan, that invented the technology and is part of the
    technology transfer partnerships helping to move this
    technology to the market. This is the same laboratory that
    deals with, you know, the window stickers that everybody sees
    on the windows of new cars.
        Senator Domenici. Yeah.
        Mr. Johnson. This is the laboratory that actually does the
    emissions and fuel economy testing of new cars to validate and
    verify testing that is done by the automobile manufacturers, so
    that the consumers can know the fuel economy of new vehicles.
    The engineers in this laboratory did the research and
    development of the unique hydraulic hybrid technology.
        Senator Domenici. Interesting.
        Mr. Johnson. Now we have 35 patents granted and 20 underway
    covering engine and hybrid technologies.
        Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of issues in
    this appropriations, but I'm only going to deal with a very
    small one that has been befuddling New Mexicans for a long
    time.
        I'm so grateful to you, Mr. Johnson, for helping us on
    arsenic in the small communities. We still are--still can't get
    it worked out with the State of New Mexico. I don't like to get
    you in the middle with the environmental people in the State,
    but I have no alternative. I--you have a different approach
    than they do, and I just must continue to push hard as to why
    they can't see fit to do what you think is possible to help the
    small users, those small arsenic-laden water systems.

                                ARSENIC STANDARD

        First, we want to thank you for the help--you've detailed
    responses to my questions--and your willingness to come and
    personally meet with me and others, and a number of Senators.
    You did that for us. You asked--I asked that the State use the
    minimum documentation necessary to meet your guidance on
    exemption applications--you're aware of that--to implement
    existing State policy and the EPA guidance so that communities
    can receive exemptions from economic hardships, which are--is
    in quotes--that's works of art--and adjust for New Mexico's
    relatively low median household income, and use alternative
    approaches to issuing formal exemptions in order to use the
    full flexibility provided by the EPA to buffer--excuse me--to
    offer bilateral agreements for time extensions for the
    individual water systems that meet general financial or
    concentration criteria. Do you believe that these suggestions
    are permissible under existing regulations? And, if so, do you
    think it justifiable for a State to permit these to be used by
    the water systems in the State?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, Senator, you raise a very important
    issue with regard to the revised arsenic standard. We are very
    supportive of these bilateral compliance agreements between the
    State and the individual utilities. We see that as an effective
    mechanism to provide the necessary window of time so that an
    individual utility can come into compliance with the 10-parts-
    per-billion arsenic standard. In all the discussions that I've
    had, it's not been whether they will or will not. Everyone
    wants to come in compliance with that. It's, How do we do that,
    and do we have sufficient time to do that? What we've been
    doing, and, certainly, as an agency, focusing on compliance
    assistance. How can we assist the communities? As I said, the
    bilateral compliance agreement is, we believe, an effective
    mechanism to be able to do that.
        In addition, as I believe I mentioned earlier, we have been
    actively continuing to research new technologies that help----
        Senator Domenici. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. That particularly--help all
    communities, but particularly help small communities.
        Senator Domenici. But we're not there yet.
        Mr. Johnson. Right.
        Senator Domenici [continuing]. Some of them aren't right
    behind the eight ball.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, we're----
        Senator Domenici. We're almost there, but the State is
    saying, ``Do it,'' and you're on the outside, saying, ``Maybe
    you can get extensions, and here are some ways to do it,'' if
    I----
        Mr. Johnson. And----
        Senator Domenici [continuing]. If I read it right.
        Mr. Johnson. We're committed to work with our State
    partners to help provide whatever we can do. The flexibility is
    given. As you appropriately point out, there are flexibilities
    within the statute so that--again, they need to meet the
    standard, but flexibilities in time, so that they have an
    opportunity to meet it.
        Senator Domenici. Now, you're going to continue to
    expeditious and fair reevaluation, as I understand it, and, if
    appropriate, re-promulgation of arsenic standards, in light of
    the new scientific--any new scientific data, as--that would
    indicate that the science relating to arsenic might be changed.
    You're still working in that arena. It's a--day-by-day,
    scientists are still working at that. Is that correct?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, it's true. It's true for a number of
    chemicals. As an agency, we always need to be open to what the
    new science tells us. Whether it's arsenic or some other
    contaminant of concern, we have to be open to that. So, both
    for arsenic, as well as a number of other compounds, as the
    science continues to evolve, as additional research, then we,
    as an agency, need to be open.

                       INTEGRATED RISK INFORMATION SYSTEM

        We do have, as part of the President's budget, a $9 million
    request to support IRIS, which is our Integrated Risk
    Information System, which is the principal system and the
    support of the scientists, to make sure that we're keeping up
    with the evolving science for contaminants.
        So, yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. What is that called?
        Mr. Johnson. The Integrated Risk Information System, also
    called IRIS----
        Senator Domenici. IRIS.
        Mr. Johnson.--I-R-I-S.
        Senator Domenici. Okay.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
        Senator Domenici. You're part of that team. You have $9
    million to spend in that activity?
        Mr. Johnson. That's correct.
        Senator Domenici. I want to thank you, personally, for what
    you do in your job. You don't get--people don't know what kind
    of job you have. I knew your predecessor very well, Paul
    Gilman. He's--he was--worked for me for a long time. I guess
    you know that.
        Mr. Johnson. Yes. Well, thank you, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you.

                                ARSENIC STANDARD

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Burns. Yes, sir.
        Senator Allard?
        Senator Allard. Well, I--you're going to get a little bit
    on arsenic from me, too.
        I mean, all----
        Senator Burns. We've all got it out there.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. We all have this arsenic
    concern. What is the--strictly from a health risk standpoint--
    I'm not talking about what's in the law, but I'm talking about
    from a health risk standpoint, what is generally the level that
    is acceptable?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, the maximum----
        Senator Allard. It's somewhat higher than what we have in
    law.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, the maximum contaminant level, set at
    10-parts-per-billion, is health protective. I know that the
    National Academy of Sciences and a variety of other people have
    opined on that particular issue. It's not one on which I am
    particularly an expert, myself. Let me--I'll turn to Ben
    Grumbles or--do you have any additional information? Ben
    Grumbles is the head of our Water Program, our Assistant
    Administrator for Water, Senator.
        Senator Allard. Thank you.
        Mr. Grumbles. Senator, I don't have the specifics on the
    science, but, based on the National Academy of Sciences report,
    when the Agency went through the rulemaking process to set the
    MCL and to move from the 50-parts-per-billion, which had been
    the previous standard, down to the 10-parts-per-billion, that,
    based on the science in that report, the Agency went through a
    process where the standard would have been even more stringent
    than the 10-parts-per-billion. It was somewhere in the 5- to 8-
    parts-per-billion. The administrator used the flexibility--the
    new flexibility provided in the Safe Drinking Water Act
    amendments of 1996, taking costs into account, and feasibility,
    and ended up with the 10-parts-per-billion standard, which is
    the current standard. So----
        Senator Allard. Set by, basically, the Congress--isn't that
    correct?
        Mr. Grumbles. Well, the----
        Senator Allard. Isn't that set in----
        Mr. Grumbles [continuing]. The Congress didn't specify the
    10-parts-per-billion, but the Congress provided for a process
    to go through for setting a standard, and the Congress did
    direct that the Agency set a standard.
        Senator Allard. Well, you know, I was always under the
    understanding that that 10-parts-per-billion was a much lower
    level than what historically has been accepted as a level where
    you would impact a life-threatening situation, as far as the
    human population is concerned. Now, there's--if you talk about
    arsenic levels, and you want to talk about other parts of the
    environment--you know, fish or birds or something--they might
    be much more sensitive to levels. But I was trying to get out
    of you about where the human risk level would be, where we have
    the increased. I have always been under the assumption it was
    higher. Now, I was formerly a health officer, and we had a
    higher level than that, that we considered before you actually
    concerned about just health risk. That's the figure I was
    trying to get on the record here. I thought it was somewhere
    around 50-parts-per-billion, which you threw out, which was our
    original standard that we had there.
        Mr. Grumbles. That's correct.
        Senator Allard. I guess if we're trying to protect birds,
    which tend to be very sensitive to these kind of things, and
    fish and all this, then that--maybe we have to go down to 10-
    parts-per-billion. I mean, the struggle that we're going with
    is, I have communities in my State, too, that have actually--
    they're not as low as the 10-parts-per-billion, but they're--
    it's not at a level that creates a health problem for the human
    population in that community. It seems to me--and Senator Craig
    also alluded to this, that people in my community have been
    drinking this water for decades and not had a problem, and all
    of a sudden they're faced with this challenge. It seems to me,
    in setting priorities, we look at the health risk. Right now
    the standard is so tight that this is a naturally occurring
    level in these communities, in that river that they get their
    water out of, is higher than 10-parts-per-billion, and you're
    asking that small community to clean up that river, and they
    didn't cause the problem. It was there by nature. Nature put it
    there.
        It seems to me that if we're going to be providing an
    exemption, and they are a struggling community that doesn't
    have a lot of money, it seems to me that there's--you can
    provide them some economic relief and not create a problem for
    them economically. If that level is higher than 10-parts-per-
    billion, and it's been there for hundreds of years, there's
    probably not many birds or fish that are surviving in that area
    right now, anyhow, because they haven't--they wouldn't be able
    to, if that's affecting them, at this particular point.
        Now, those communities where arsenic is added in, because
    of manufacturing operations or--that's a different story. But
    so many of us are at the top of the heap, from Montana and
    Colorado and Idaho. That's just a naturally occurring product--
    chemical that you find in drinking water. It's been there for
    hundreds of years. Now these communities are expected--and it
    seems to me that--and I guess my question is, Do we have the--
    do you have the flexibility to look at that, in a small
    community that's struggling, and not having any health effects
    to the human population, saying, ``Well, you know, this is a
    community that we can--we don't have to press them so hard to
    get it done, until we get our technology developed?''
        Mr. Grumbles. Senator, a couple of things. When the 10-
    parts-per-billion number was established, a definite factor
    involved in that was the threat to public health. Now, as the
    administrator said, we need to continue to review the science
    behind all our regulations. The Water Office doesn't--it's not
    currently on our agenda to revise--to go through a process to
    revise that 10-parts-per-billion standard, but what is
    extremely important is to continue to gather the science, and
    to use the 6-year review process, under the Safe Drinking Water
    Act, for regulations that have been promulgated, to ensure we
    revisit, over time.
        On the extensions part----
        Senator Allard. Let me--if it is a threat to human health,
    why do you let 'em drink it?
        Mr. Grumbles. If it is--I'm sorry--if it----
        Senator Allard. You said the 10-parts-per-billion was a
    threat to human health. So, why do you let 'em drink it?
        Mr. Grumbles. Well, it's a factor. It's one of the factors
    that's involved in the risk, in the health assessment.
        Senator Allard. I----
        Mr. Grumbles. Right.
        Senator Allard. The point is, though, is that 10-parts-per-
    billion, on and by itself, it might be----
        Mr. Grumbles. Right.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. A factor in accumulating--a
    number of accumulating factors. But, you know, if this is such
    a public health problem, you shouldn't let 'em ever drink the
    water, even now. You shouldn't ever let 'em drink the water.
    But the point is, is that this has been there for hundreds of
    years. These communities have been suffering--they've been
    dealing with this. There hasn't been an unusual death rate in
    these communities. It seems to me, in trying to provide--you
    know, you can give these communities a little relief,
    economically, and--it seems to me like you can have the science
    to support that, at least historically, and not have to force
    this economic burden on 'em until we get some technology that's
    developed that can actually work on it. It seems to me there's
    some common sense that we're missing here.
        Mr. Grumbles. Your points are well taken. That's one of the
    reasons why the administrator has ensured that our office
    maximize the flexibility that's provided. The statute calls
    them ``exemptions.'' It's really extensions of time to reflect
    the priorities and the economies of scale. That's why we point
    to the fact that small communities can have up to 9 years to
    comply with that standard as we develop more effective
    technologies, and funds are available under the Drinking Water
    State Revolving Fund and other mechanisms to make it
    affordable, over time.
        Senator Allard. Well, in my State, these small communities
    may not be increasing in population. Now, they may be, and may
    be in a better financial position in--9 years from now, but I
    don't see their economic situation improving, frankly. Do you,
    Mr. Chairman? I don't--you know, they're struggling. In some
    cases, they're actually losing population. Being able to deal
    with--and I don't see the cost of developing this technology
    really coming down, unless you really mass produce it.
        It just seems to me that we're really getting ourselves
    into kind of a--an area that we're just going to say to these
    people, ``Well, you know, your community's going to die, and
    the river arsenic level's going to stay the same, because the
    community won't be there to treat the water.'' And it seems to
    me we've lost focus on some common sense here, somehow or the
    other. I'd just encourage you, if you have the latitude there
    in the law, to give this some serious thought.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Allard.
        Well, I thank you, Mr. Director, for coming down this
    morning. I have no more questions, although there will be some,
    and then we'll have our visit, and then we'll meet--somewhere,
    we'll meet and iron all of our difficulties out. There's not
    that many of 'em. I will--I want to congratulate you. You've
    done a good job down there, and under very difficult conditions
    and circumstances, because I know what your job would be, and I
    don't think I could keep all those balls in the air if I were
    trying to do it.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Thank you all very much. The subcommittee will stand in
    recess subject to the call of the Chair.
        [Whereupon, at 10:37 a.m., Thursday, April 6, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

        [Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
    hearings on nondepartmental witnesses, the statements and
    letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Americans for the Arts

        Americans for the Arts is pleased to submit written testimony to
    the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior supporting
    fiscal year 2007 funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
    at a restored level of $170 million. At the end of this statement we
    will also touch on a special one-time request for $5 million for the
    NEA in the next Gulf Coast emergency package, separate from its regular
    fiscal year 2007 funding.
        The requested fiscal year 2007 funding of $170 million would:
      --restore the NEA's ability to perform its core mission of supporting
            the creation, preservation, and presentation of the arts in
            America;
      --strengthen the Challenge America program, which uses the arts to
            enhance America's communities through improved access to the
            arts for all Americans; and
      --cover increased administrative and grant-making costs.
        My statement focuses on the core programs of the NEA: Access to
    Artistic Excellence, Learning in the Arts for Children and Youth, and
    Challenge America: Reaching Every Community. I would like especially to
    explain how local arts agencies use these programs to serve their
    communities.
        Local arts agencies are Americans for the Arts' key constituency,
    and advancing full and affordable access to the arts is at the heart of
    their mission. Local arts agencies meet community needs by using the
    arts to address social, educational, and economic development issues as
    well as by supporting ``art for art's sake.'' They make grants, provide
    services to artists and arts organizations, and present arts
    programming to the public. Typically, local arts agencies lead
    community cultural planning--a community-inclusive process of assessing
    local cultural needs and mapping a plan of implementation. NEA
    leadership has played a pivotal role in creating and sustaining local
    arts agencies, which have grown in number from 500 in 1965, when the
    NEA was established, to 4,000 today. Three quarters of all existing
    local arts agencies are private non-profit organizations, of which many
    are designated official arts agencies for their communities and
    entrusted with granting government funds. The remaining quarter are
    government agencies.
        Turning to the core programs of the NEA:
        First, the Access to Artistic Excellence core program of the NEA
    helps local arts agencies build infrastructure, pool resources, and
    coordinate local partnerships and coalitions, with the aim of extending
    the reach of artists and arts organizations to new audiences. A few
    examples of recent fiscal year 2006 grants include:
      --The Arts Council in Stuart, FL, received a grant to support a needs
            assessment and cultural inventory as preliminary steps toward
            the development of a cultural plan, including a comprehensive
            catalogue of the county's cultural assets.
      --In Broward County, FL, a grant from the NEA supports an e-marketing
            program, a regional shared calendar database, and electronic
            advertisements for cultural events and organizations in a
            multi-county area.
      --South Dakotans for the Arts received a grant to support the Prairie
            Arts Management Institute, which provides intensive training
            for staff of small and mid-sized arts organizations from the
            ``prairie states'' of Middle America.
        The second of the NEA's core programs is Learning in the Arts for
    Children and Youth. To cite the NEA's applications guidelines, this
    program ``achieves its support of arts education through a focus on
    children, teachers, artists, arts organizations, and school leadership
    that will model best practices in arts education, disseminate those
    practices to the field, and build the case for quality arts education
    across the country. Critical to this strategy is the rigorous
    application of national, state, or local arts education standards.''
        Grants to local arts agencies from the Learning in the Arts core
    program typically support collaborations among teaching artists, local
    arts institutions, and providers of educational services to students in
    school and after-school. These grants play to the strengths of local
    arts agencies, which often maintain rosters of teaching artists and
    facilitate multi-party partnerships.
        Recent examples include:
      --The Fulton County Arts Council in Atlanta, GA, received a grant for
            after-school visual arts workshops and open studios for stained
            glass, clay, furniture making, glass blowing, and printmaking.
            The teenage participants are referred by the Fulton County
            Juvenile Court probation officer or a judge.
      --In Lafayette, LA, the Acadiana Arts Council received a grant for an
            after-school and summer program featuring workshops in the
            visual and performing arts, emphasizing job-building skills.
            Participants work with artists on projects including public
            mural, web design, and theater production.
      --In Tennessee, Allied Arts of Chattanooga is supporting local
            teaching artists who team with classroom teachers to develop
            and implement a curriculum that promotes reading and writing
            through dance, theater, and visual arts.
        The third core program of the NEA is Challenge America: Reaching
    Every Community. To quote the NEA once again:

        ``[T]his category offers $10,000 grants, primarily to small and
    mid-sized organizations, for projects that extend the reach of the arts
    to underserved populations--those whose opportunities to experience the
    arts are limited by geography, ethnicity, economics, or disability.
    Projects that are supported in this category generally are smaller in
    scale and shorter in duration than those in the Access to Artistic
    Excellence or Learning in the Arts for Children and Youth categories.''

        Grants are limited to four specific uses: special events with guest
    artists; professionally developed public art projects such as murals or
    sculptures that are developed with community engagement; civic design
    activities; and planning projects that address cultural tourism or
    economic revitalization.
        With a simpler application process and expedited review, these
    grants are especially valuable to arts organizations that lack the
    administrative staffing and expertise to compete with larger, better-
    funded organizations. Challenge America is a key component of the NEA's
    drive, which we praise, to ensure that direct federal support for the
    arts is spread broadly and fairly across the country. Our research
    shows that in fiscal year 2005, 114 congressional districts received
    direct NEA grants solely through this program.
        Recent examples of grants to local arts agencies include:
      --In Aliceville, AL, the Rural Members Association received a grant
            to support the Freedom Creek Blues Festival, which showcases
            Alabama blues artists.
      --In Idaho Falls, ID, the Arts Council received a grant to promote
            the Idaho Falls Cultural District, supporting the production of
            brochures, advertising, and banners for the district.
      --The Iowa Trails Council received a grant to support the design and
            installation of public art on the Cedar View Pedestrian and
            Bicycle Trail Bridges in Jefferson County, IA.
        Unfortunately, the administration's requested budget includes a cut
    of $3.46 million from the Challenge America core program of the NEA.
    The funds would be shifted to the other core grant programs as well as
    to cover increased administrative costs. As noted at the beginning of
    my statement, we are requesting that the NEA receive an appropriation
    that can accommodate these needs without taking funds from an existing
    program that is effective, popular, and essential to accomplishing the
    NEA's goal of distributing federal funds fairly across the country.
        Finally, I would like to address our special request for $5 million
    in disaster recovery funds for the NEA as part of the next relief
    package of reprogrammed or supplemental appropriations.
        As soon as Hurricane Katrina hit, the arts community stepped
    forward with open hearts and helping hands, in common with the rest of
    the nation. In the immediate aftermath of the storm, national arts
    organizations collected and disseminated information including damage
    reports, requests for help, and offers of aid. National organizations
    also solicited, coordinated, and/or provided assistance. For example,
    by Monday, September 5, the board of directors of Americans for the
    Arts had approved the release of $100,000 from our reserve funds. In 30
    days, we disbursed the entire amount in emergency grants to local arts
    agencies and other arts organizations in the affected areas. Finally,
    national arts service organizations asked for federal relief funds to
    be provided to the NEA to address specific, unique needs, and that
    would not duplicate other federal programs.
        The NEA's expertise is unmatched among federal agencies with
    respect to the internal operations of arts organizations, their public
    services, and their relationships to the broader community. Therefore,
    several national arts organizations have developed a proposal for $5
    million in NEA funds that would provide technical assistance and
    planning for nonprofit arts organizations. In view of the immense shock
    that the storm delivered to a regional economy, arts organizations must
    come up with plans to withstand several years of reduced funding and
    smaller audiences. Many that have been forced to suspend operations
    must figure out how, when, and--unfortunately--even whether to reopen.
    Regrettably, these organizations as nonprofits are ineligible for
    Economic Injury Disaster Loans from the Small Business Association.
    Most similarly cannot qualify for help in any form from FEMA. Finally,
    other federal funds, especially the Community Development Block Grants,
    which normally can be used at the discretion of city governments to
    assist the arts, are now being directed almost solely to assistance for
    homeowners. We certainly do not begrudge the help to these
    individuals--they need it. My points are simply that first, almost no
    federal help is currently available for the nonprofit arts, and second,
    the arts need help because they are key to the recovery and rebuilding
    of devastated communities. Third and finally, as I indicated, private
    groups and individuals from around the nation stepped forth and helped
    at a moment's notice. I understand that the arts could not be at the
    top of the list for federal help when a million people were displaced
    and an entire infrastructure was destroyed. Eight months later,
    however, it seems appropriate to begin investing in their recovery. To
    its credit, the NEA scraped together $700,000 in fiscal year 2006 funds
    to dispatch in discretionary grants. More funding, more broadly
    disbursed, is needed as quickly as possible.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Bird Conservancy, Audubon, Ducks
          Unlimited, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

        We are writing to express our support for the Neotropical Migratory
    Bird Conservation Act Grants Program in fiscal year 2007. We appreciate
    your past support of this extremely effective matching grant program
    that coordinates and funds the conservation of neotropical migratory
    birds and their habitats throughout the United States, Latin America,
    and the Caribbean. We urge your continued support in the current
    funding cycle.
        Each spring, some 5 billion birds from 500 different species make
    their spectacular migration from their winter habitats in Mexico,
    Central America, Caribbean, and northern parts of South America to
    their breeding grounds throughout North America. These species comprise
    a vast array of many well known birds, such as: ducks, geese, and other
    waterfowl; raptors; warblers; thrushes; shorebirds such as sandpipers
    and plovers; hummingbirds; orioles; and many others that fly in this
    annual ritual.
        Unfortunately, the survival rate for many migratory birds is
    relatively low, due in part to natural predation and general hazards
    along their migratory route. Exacerbating these challenges, however, is
    the continuing loss of habitat in the breeding grounds, staging areas,
    and wintering grounds of these species, particularly throughout the
    Caribbean, Latin America and Canada. Through the establishment of a
    matching grants program to fund projects that promote the conservation
    of these birds in the United States, Latin America, and Caribbean, the
    Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grants Program provides a
    comprehensive approach to address the varied and significant threats
    facing the numerous species of migratory birds as identified in the
    North America Bird Conservation Initiative.
        The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grants Program has
    provided an effective framework for nations, states, local governments
    and other entities to work together cooperatively for the protection of
    neotropical migratory birds in the Western Hemisphere. It has a proven
    track record of reversing habitat loss and degradation and of advancing
    innovative management and habitat restoration strategies for the broad
    range of neotropical birds. Grants have gone to conservation programs
    in 31 states and 33 Latin American and Caribbean countries for projects
    that protect, research, monitor, and manage neotropical migratory bird
    populations and their habitats. Partner funds have contributed $80
    million since fiscal year 2002, far exceeding the 3:1 federal match
    requirement to nearly 4:1. In fact, for the 37 projects approved in
    fiscal year 2005, partners leveraged $17.6 million in funds against the
    $3.9 million appropriated by Congress.
        We urge the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to prioritize
    fiscal year 2007 funding for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
    Conservation Act Grants Program at $5 million, the currently authorized
    level, an increase of $1 million from the appropriated amount in fiscal
    year 2006.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Arkansas Basin Development Association

        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Gerald H. Holman,
    Senior Vice President of the Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce, Wichita,
    Kansas and Chairman of the Kansas Interstate Committee for the Arkansas
    Basin Development Association (ABDA).
        The Kansas ABDA representatives join with our colleagues from the
    other Arkansas River Basin states to form the multi-state Arkansas
    Basin Development Association. We fully endorse the summary statement
    presented to you by the Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate
    Committee.
        Public Law 108-137 authorized a 12-foot channel on the McClellan-
    Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. The Corps is now obligated to
    operate and maintain the system as a 12-foot channel. Over 90 percent
    of the system currently is adequate for a 12-foot channel. Deepening
    the remainder of the channel to 12 feet will allow carriers to place 43
    percent more cargo on barges, which will reduce the amount of fuel
    consumed and emissions released. Funds in the amount of $7.0 million
    were allocated in fiscal year 2005 with $1.5 million used to complete
    the Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement with the other
    $5.5 million used on engineering, design, and construction activities.
    In conjunction with the deepening project the Corps is preparing a
    Basin Wide Master Plan that will include an integrated major
    maintenance construction and operational maintenance prioritized list
    for investment opportunities. Other environmental benefits include the
    creation of new aquatic habitat through new dike construction and the
    construction of Least Tern islands through beneficial use of dredged
    material.
        Therefore, we request $40 million to maintain the authorized depth
    by constructing dike structures to minimize dredging and dredging only
    necessary areas. This investment will increase the cost competitiveness
    of this low cost, environment-friendly transportation method and help
    us combat the loss of industry and jobs to overseas.
        The critical water resources projects in the Kansas portion of the
    Arkansas River Basin are identified below. The projects are
    environmental and conservation in nature and all have regional and/or
    multi-state impact. We are grateful for your past commitment to these
    projects.
        A. We ask for your continued support for this important Bureau of
    Reclamation project on behalf of the Wichita/South Central Kansas area:
        Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project.--This is the
    continuation of a Bureau of Reclamation project jointly endorsed by the
    City of Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2 and the State of
    Kansas. This model technology has proven the feasibility of recharging
    a major groundwater aquifer supplying water to nearly 600,000
    irrigation, municipal and industrial users. The demonstration project
    has successfully recharged more than one billion gallons of water from
    the Little Arkansas River. The project is essential to help protect the
    aquifer from on-going degradation caused by the migration of saline
    water.
        The Equus Beds are vital to the surrounding agricultural economy.
    Also, environmental protection of the aquifer, which this strategic
    project provides, has increasing importance to ensure quality water for
    the future since south central Kansas will rely to an even greater
    extent on the Equus Beds aquifer for water resources.
        The south-central Kansas economy including the Wichita MSA
    represents:
      --More than 20 percent of the state's employment.
      --More than one-third of the state's manufacturing employment and
            payroll.
      --At least 20 percent of the state personal income.
        The quality of life and economic future for more than 20 percent of
    the state's population and economy is dependent upon the availability
    of reliable, high quality water resources from the Equus Beds.
        The State of Kansas supports the project as the needed cornerstone
    for the area agricultural economy and for the economy of the Wichita
    metropolitan area. The Chief Engineer of Kansas has authorized full-
    scale construction.
        The aquifer storage and recovery project is a vital component of
    Wichita's comprehensive and integrated water supply strategy. The full
    scale design concept for the aquifer storage and recovery project calls
    for a multi-year construction program. Phase One is estimated to cost
    approximately $25 million and is scheduled for completion in 2007. The
    total project involving the capture and recharge of more than 100
    million gallons of water per day is estimated to cost $130 million over
    10 years. This is substantially less costly, both environmentally and
    economically, when compared with reservoir construction or other
    alternatives.
        We are grateful for your previous cost share funding during the
    demonstration phase, as a compliment to funds provided by the City of
    Wichita. As we enter the construction phase, we request continued
    Congressional support in two ways:
        1. House Bill 1327 was passed by the House of Representatives last
    year. The Senate passed a very similar bill, Senate Bill 1025. This
    legislation, or similar legislation, would authorize the project and
    also provide cost share funding up to 25 percent of the project cost to
    a maximum of $30 million. We request your support of this legislation
    authorizing the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project as a Federal
    project and directing the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in its
    final design and construction to completion.
        2. Through continued cost share funding of the full-scale Aquifer
    Storage and Recovery Project within the limits of House Bill 1327 or
    similar legislation for fiscal year 2007.
        B. The Arkansas River Basin is a treasure that must be protected
    for future generations. However, we are experiencing decline in water
    quality due to sediment and nutrient loading. The quality of the water
    in the Arkansas River and its tributaries, including the numerous
    reservoirs in the system, is a reflection of its watershed and land use
    practices. It is imperative that the subbasins within the system are
    studied using the watershed approach and that protective remedies are
    identified and implemented to reverse the continuing decline in water
    quality. We recommend adding the following high priority watershed
    studies to the fiscal year 2007 budget:
        1. Walnut River (El Dorado Lake) Watershed Feasibility Study.--A
    reconnaissance study was conducted in July 2000 by the USACE, Tulsa
    District, which identified ecosystem restoration as a primary concern
    in the Walnut Basin. The Kansas Water Office entered into an agreement
    with the USACE to begin a Walnut River Basin Ecosystem Restoration
    Feasibility Study for the entire basin.
        Following the initial phase of the feasibility study, it was
    decided that focusing the study to a smaller geographic area would make
    more efficient use of existing local, state, and federal resources. The
    project was re-scoped to focus study efforts on protection and
    restoration of El Dorado Lake and its contributing watershed.
        Public water supply storage in El Dorado Lake is owned by the City
    of El Dorado and represents an important future regional water supply
    source for the Walnut Basin. The reservoir and its watershed have been
    designated by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment as high
    priority for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation for
    eutrophication (nutrients) and siltation. Fecal coliform bacteria is
    another high priority TMDL pollutant. Because of the importance of
    protecting both water quality and quantity in El Dorado Lake, and to
    more effectively target limited resources, KWO has partnered with the
    City of El Dorado to address long-term protection and restoration needs
    for the reservoir and its watershed, in cooperation with other local,
    state and federal agencies.
        Study efforts include addressing identified opportunities to reduce
    sedimentation in El Dorado Lake and meet the watershed total daily
    maximum load (TMDL) issues of sediment and eutrophication for the
    purpose of preserving existing water supply storage, restoring riparian
    and aquatic habitat in the lake and watershed.
        The fiscal year 2006 budget for this project in the amount of
    $200,000 is for continuation of the feasibility study. We support the
    President's proposed fiscal year 2007 budget which includes $80,000 for
    completion of the feasibility study in September 2007
        2. Grand (Neosho) Basin Reconnaissance Study.--A need exists for a
    basin-wide water resource planning effort in the Grand-Neosho River
    basin, apart from the issues associated with Grand Lake, Oklahoma. A
    federal interest has been determined from the reconnaissance study as a
    result from a Congressional add in fiscal year 2003 and another add was
    appropriated in fiscal year 2004. The Reconnaissance Report has been
    approved. Feasibility Cost Share Agreements will be executed in 2006.
    The study would support management efforts by Kansas and Oklahoma
    agencies to address watershed and reservoir restoration issues in the
    Grand Lake Watershed. Local interest exists for ecosystem restoration
    projects and flood damage reduction projects. We request funding in the
    amount of $450,000 in fiscal year 2007.
        C. Grand Lake Feasibility Study.--A need exists to evaluate
    solutions to upstream flooding problems associated with the adequacy of
    existing real estate easements necessary for flood control operations
    of Grand Lake, Oklahoma. A study authorized by the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1996 was completed in September of 1998 and
    determined that if the project were constructed based on current
    criteria, additional easements would be required. Section 449 of the
    WRDA of 2000 directed the Secretary to evaluate backwater effects
    specifically due to flood control operations on land around Grand Lake
    and authorizes a feasibility study at full Federal cost if the
    Secretary determines that Federal actions have been a significant cause
    of the backwater effects. The Tulsa District is preparing a letter
    report which will be submitted to the ASA(CW) for a determination on
    proceeding with a full federally financed feasibility study. If the
    ASA(CW) determines that Federal actions have been a significant cause
    of the flooding, feasibility study activities would be initiated at
    full Federal expense. Since Grand Lake is an integral component of a
    system flood control operation consisting of 11 principal reservoir
    projects in the Arkansas River basin, changes in the operations of the
    project or other upstream changes could have a significant impact on
    flood control, hydropower and navigation operations in the Grand
    (Neosho) River system and on the Arkansas River Basin system, as well.
    A feasibility study is necessary to determine the most cost-effective
    comprehensive solution to the real estate inadequacies. We urge you to
    provide $500,000 to fund feasibility studies for this important project
    in fiscal year 2007 and to direct the Corps of Engineers to execute the
    study at full federal expense. This project has been a Congressional
    add for the past four years, but there are no funds in the fiscal year
    2007 President's budget request to continue this project.
        D. Continuing Authorities Programs.--We support funding of needed
    programs including the Small Flood Control Projects Program (Section
    205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as amended), Aquatic Ecosystem
    Restoration (Section 206 of the 1996 Water Resources Development Act,
    as amended), Ecosystem Restoration (Section 1135 of the 1986 Water
    Resources Development Act, as amended) as well as the Emergency
    Streambank Stabilization Program (Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control
    Act, as amended). Smaller communities in Kansas (Iola, Liberal,
    McPherson, Augusta, Parsons, Altoona, Kinsley, Newton, Arkansas City,
    Coffeyville and Medicine Lodge) have previously requested assistance
    from the Corps of Engineers under the Section 205 and Section 14
    programs. The City of Wichita also requests funding through these
    programs to address flooding problems. We urge you to support an
    increase of these programs to the $65 million programmatic limit for
    the Small Flood Control Projects Program, $35 million for Aquatic
    Ecosystem Restoration, $35 million for the Ecosystem Restoration
    Program and $25 million for the Emergency Streambank Stabilization
    Program.
        The Planning Assistance to States Program under section 22 of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1974, as amended, provides federal
    funding to assist the states in water resource planning. The state of
    Kansas is grateful for previous funding under this program which has
    assisted small Kansas communities in cost sharing needed resource
    planning as called for in the Kansas State Water Plan. We request
    continued funding of this program at the $10 million programmatic limit
    which will allow the state of Kansas to receive the $500,000 limit.
        Finally, we are very grateful that both the Corps of Engineers and
    Bureau of Reclamation have the expertise needed for the development and
    protection of water resources infrastructure. It is essential to have
    the integrity and continuity these agencies provide on major public
    projects. Your continued support of these vital agencies, including
    funding, will be appreciated. Our infrastructure must be maintained and
    where needed, enhanced for the future.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of these Committees, thank you very much
    for the dedicated manner in which you have dealt with the Water
    Resources Programs and for allowing us to present our funding requests.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the American Fisheries Society

        The American Fisheries Society (AFS) would like to provide input
    that may assist you in the task of determining the level of fiscal year
    2007 appropriations for the Department of the Interior's, Biological
    Research Discipline (BRD) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the
    Fisheries Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the
    National Park Service, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and the Bureau
    of Land Management (BLM). As the Nation's largest association of
    fisheries and aquatic science professionals with 9,000 members
    representing all states, commonwealths, and trust territories, we
    believe it is essential that interests of our members and our
    profession be considered in the appropriations process for agencies
    supporting fisheries and aquatic science and conservation. We ask this
    statement be included in the official record of the agency's
    appropriation hearings.
        The Nation's fisheries annually provide billions of dollars in
    recreational and commercial benefits. Millions of Americans and
    visitors spend hundreds of millions of hours fishing the country's
    rivers, streams, lakes, and marine coastal waters.
        Over the past few years the Congress has taken critically important
    actions to conserve these resources to ensure that their benefits will
    continue to be enjoyed by future generations. However, despite
    Congress' actions, our fisheries resources are at risk and in too many
    cases threatened. Additional funds are needed to better implement the
    management and research programs that are essential to reverse the
    current decline in many of our fisheries.
        Although we understand that this is a period of strongly competing
    government priorities, we also wish to note that robust research and
    technology development programs are the only means by which more
    effective and efficient fisheries management tools and actions can be
    developed and tested. Management and conservation decisions are only as
    good as the information upon which they are based and there is
    substantial evidence to suggest that better information is critically
    needed here. To address these needs the Society offers the following
    recommendations for your consideration.

                             U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

    Biological Resources Discipline
        The Biological Resources Discipline (BRD) provides critical
    scientific research and information needed for the effective management
    and restoration of the Nation's inland, anadromous, and estuarine
    fisheries and aquatic resources. With no regulatory role, BRD provides
    high-quality unbiased science for our nation's natural resources
    decision makers.
        In light of past under funding of the BRD, AFS is disappointed over
    the fiscal year 2007 request of $172.5 million for the Biology
    component. This is a slight increase over the fiscal year 2006 budget,
    and it is still almost a $3 million decrease from the fiscal year 2004
    budget. AFS also notes that although recent BRD budgets show progress
    by tracking in the same direction as inflation, they still are not
    keeping -up with inflation and have not yet made up for the 20 percent
    decrease experienced in 1996.
        The Society is a strong supporter of BRD's Co-Operative Research
    Units (CRU). CRU is of particular importance to fishery research,
    restoration, and management are the Co-operative Research Units (CRU).
    We strongly support the $274,000 increase to this important program.

                        U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

    Fisheries Program
        The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service works with others to conserve,
    protect, and enhance the nation's fishery resources and aquatic
    ecosystems for the benefit of the American people. The Fisheries
    Program safeguards these resources while helping to provide
    recreational opportunities for the nation's 50 million licensed
    anglers, as well as evaluates fish populations and their habitats and
    coordinates the restoration and recovery of aquatic populations,
    habitats, and ecosystems.
        The Society recommends the $3.859 million increase to the
    Cooperative Endangered Species Fund in mandatory appropriations. AFS
    also commends the fiscal year 2007 budget request for continuing to
    address the operations and management challenges faced by our aging
    National Fish Hatchery System, a system critical to fishery
    conservation, restoration, and recreation efforts, but that needs to be
    updated to function at its full capacity and achieve its management
    objectives. However, the total budget includes $114.6 million for the
    Fisheries program, which is a net program decrease of $2.1 million
    compared to 2006. Within this level of funding are program increases of
    $1.9 million for hatchery operations for endangered species recovery
    actions, $1.4 million for fish passage improvements, and an increase of
    $2.0 million for the National Fish Habitat Initiative. The Society
    recommends restoring the fiscal year 2007 Fisheries Program budget to
    the fiscal year 2006 level.

                           BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

    Wildlife and Fisheries
        The BLM manages public lands for a range of uses, including
    recreation, conservation, livestock grazing, hunting and fishing,
    forest management and wildland fire management, cultural resource
    protection, and energy and mineral production. Many of the BLM lands
    are managed for fisheries as well as other uses. Fisheries program
    priorities for 2007 include: inland-fisheries conservation; subsistence
    fisheries management; Pacific Northwest fisheries, including culverted
    fish passage issues; multi-species conservation; aquatic indicators of
    land condition; and partnerships.
        While we feel that the President and Congress have made an effort
    to increase funding for the important role of conserving our Nation's
    aquatic resources, we feel more funds should be allocated to these
    programs in fiscal year 2007. AFS was encouraged in fiscal year 2005 to
    see an increase of $100,000 for these programs and $430,000 in fiscal
    year 2006. The fiscal year 2007 budget request of $12.418 is still an
    encouraging increase over the fiscal year 2006 budget. However, AFS
    recommends an increase of the Fisheries Line Item to back the fiscal
    year 2001 level of $12.8 million.
        AFS is also pleased to see an increase of $181,000 in the fiscal
    year 2007 budget for Threatened and Endangered Species Management.

                          MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

    Outer Continental Shelf Program
        AFS supports MMS activities overseeing OCS leases, review of new
    exploration and development plans, examination of pipeline right-of-way
    applications, environmental assessments, and annual safety inspections
    of mineral extraction operations on-site. MMS OCS provides for safe and
    environmentally sound energy and mineral development on the OCS. AFS
    supports the MMS request of $159.365 million in fiscal year 2007 for
    OCS program activities, a net increase of $10,594 above the fiscal year
    2006 enacted budget.
        AFS is also pleased to see $250 million dedicated to the Coastal
    Impact Assistance Program in fiscal year 2007.

                             NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

    Park Management
        For fiscal year 2007, AFS recommends supporting the Resource
    Stewardship Line Item at the level requested of $362.4 million. AFS
    also supports The 2007 budget includes an increase of $1.0 million for
    natural resource programs to complete establishment of inventory and
    monitoring programs, and equip managers with critical information about
    the ecosystems they manage.

                             BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

        The AFS is concerned with the President's request of $970.7 million
    in fiscal year 2007 for BOR. This is a net decrease of $132.5 million
    below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. With the growing challenge of
    water quality and quantity, allocation and preservation, AFS wants to
    underscore the critical responsiblity the Bureau of Reclamation and
    other Federal agencies have in managing our water resources and their
    associated ecosystems and species for the public good, including
    compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
        The Society appreciates your consideration of our view. We welcome
    the opportunity to provide additional information and advice regarding
    fisheries efforts of the Department of Commerce.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

        On behalf of our America's fish and wildlife agencies, I urge the
    Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies to support funding in the
    amount of $85 million for the State Wildlife Grants Program in the
    fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
        The State Wildlife Grants Program is our nation's core program for
    keeping wildlife from becoming endangered. State fish and wildlife
    agencies enjoy a strong partnership with the federal government in
    managing our nation's wildlife resources. Working together, we are able
    to ensure robust fish and wildlife populations and keep species from
    declining to the point of becoming endangered. State Wildlife Grants is
    an integral element of this partnership, providing the federal
    government's share of support for proactive on-the-ground conservation
    projects aimed at declining fish and wildlife species and their
    habitats. State Wildlife Grants is not just a grants program. It truly
    is a core program of the Department of Interior for advancing a
    pressing national need.
        The President's budget includes $74.7 million, an increase of $5
    million above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $68.5 million. We
    appreciate the Administration's continued support for this program as a
    core component of their collaborative conservation agenda.
        Although the budget is tight, America's fish and wildlife agencies
    are recommending that Congress provide a funding level of at least $85
    million in order to restore this program back up to the highest level
    of funding it has ever received, in fiscal year 2002. Consistent
    funding is essential to the long-term success of this program, and the
    completion of wildlife action plans in every state and territory only
    underscores the need for adequate and reliable resources. A funding
    level of $85 million would send an important message about the
    Congress's commitment to following through on providing the support
    needed to implement the wildlife action plans. We are pleased that 170
    Representatives have already formally signed on to this commitment in
    the form of a ``dear colleague'' and we hope you will match that strong
    demonstration of support.
        We also urge your consideration of additional language to provide
    an incentive for states to cooperate on projects with other states as
    well as federal agencies when implementing the actions in their plans.
    Allowing implementation projects that include several states working
    together to implement actions identified in their comprehensive state
    wildlife strategies at a 75:25 match (vs. 50:50) will provide greater
    benefits to the nation. In addition, allowing federal funds to be used
    as a match for a particular State Wildlife Grants project will
    encourage greater cooperation between a federal entity within that
    state and the state wildlife agency in implementing the strategies/
    plans together. The strategies/plans have the potential to encourage
    everyone to work together resulting in a greater cumulative impact as
    well as avoiding costly duplication and unnecessary overlap.
        The President's budget includes a proposal to set aside $5 million
    of the new funds recommended for State Wildlife Grants for a new
    program of competitive grants. While we appreciate the intent to reward
    effective conservation proposals, we believe that the time is not yet
    right for a new competitive program to be created within State Wildlife
    Grants. The creation of such a program should be predicated on the
    attainment of higher levels of funding. State Wildlife Grants has
    provided a tremendous enhancement to the capacity of every state to
    address wildlife conservation. While we cannot currently support the
    creation of a competitive funding program, we are committed to making
    any programs that are enacted by Congress a success. If Congress deems
    that this is an appropriate course of action, we will work together
    with the Fish and Wildlife Service to make it a success.
        In closing, I again extend the appreciation of America's wildlife
    agencies for your continued support for the state-federal wildlife
    conservation partnership. We sincerely urge you to provide our
    requested level of $85 million for State Wildlife Grants.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission

        We are seeking your support for the President's fiscal year 2007
    Budget Request of $3 million to support the National Fish Habitat
    Initiative (NFHI) and, furthermore, we ask you to support an additional
    $3 million to be appropriated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
    Southeast Fisheries Program for the Southeast Aquatic Resources
    Partnership (SARP). The NFHI, led by the International Association of
    Fish and Wildlife Agencies in partnership with the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, is a nationwide fisheries habitat restoration plan
    modeled on the successful North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The
    SARP is developing a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan that will guide the
    implementation of the NFHI on a regional scale and serve as a model for
    other regions of the country. The Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan will
    identify and establish Fish Habitat Partnerships that will deliver the
    objectives of the NFHI in the Southeast.
        The SARP was initiated in 2001 to better address the conservation
    and management of aquatic resources in the Southeastern United States.
    This partnership developed because (1) the Southeast has the highest
    diversity of aquatic species and habitats of any region in the country,
    (2) these resources are facing serious threats to their future
    existence, and (3) no single State or Federal agency has the necessary
    resources and authority to address this impending aquatic crisis. It is
    only by working together through partnerships that we will make a
    difference. SARP includes the fish and wildlife agencies from 13 States
    (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida; Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
    Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and
    Texas), the Gulf and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commissions, the
    Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries.
        This unique and focused effort is poised to deliver a new regional
    approach to aquatic conservation for future generations. Securing $3
    million in additional funding for the SARP is critical for the
    successful implementation of the Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan.
        Thank you for your consideration of this request.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the American Geological Institute

        Thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geological
    Institute's perspective on fiscal year 2007 appropriations for
    geoscience programs within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction. We ask the
    Subcommittee to support the well-informed, yet fiscally responsible
    increases in the Administration's budget proposal for the Minerals
    Management Services (MMS), the Bureau of Land Management's Energy and
    Mineral Management program and the Smithsonian Institution. AGI also
    supports new funding for fixed costs and a few high priority programs
    within the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The high priority
    programs include a new Integrated Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project,
    the National Streamflow Information Program, the Energy Resources
    Program and some new funding for the Landsat Continuity Mission.
        Regrettably, the Administration also proposes significant cuts to
    the USGS mineral resources and water programs. If the President's
    request were enacted, the USGS would receive a total budget of only
    $945 million, a 2 percent decrease compared to last year's funding,
    while the Mineral Resources Program would receive a $22 million cut,
    leaving the program with only about $30 million in fiscal year 2007 and
    the Water Resources Program would be cut by about $7.4 million. If
    enacted, these reductions would hamper the Survey's ability to carry
    out its important objectives to monitor environmental conditions and
    provide resource assessments for economic development and national
    security. The value of domestically processed nonfuel mineral resources
    is estimated to be about $478 billion and the USGS Mineral Resources
    Program is the only entity, public or private, that provides an
    analysis and assessment of the raw materials and processed minerals
    accessible from domestic and global markets. Specifically, we ask the
    Subcommittee to restore funds to the Mineral Resources Program and the
    Water Resources Program and to support a $1.2 billion overall budget
    for USGS. This budget would allow essential, but consistently under
    funded, programs throughout the agency to fulfill their basic mission
    and such a request is supported by the 69 organizations of the USGS
    Coalition. AGI is a charter member of the USGS Coalition.
        For the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the proposed fiscal
    year 2007 is $7.3 billion, a 5.1 percent decrease from last year with
    significant cuts for state water programs. AGI supports full funding
    for water programs in EPA and USGS, given the importance of clean and
    readily available water for our citizens, industries, local to federal
    government agencies and the environment.
        AGI is a nonprofit federation of 44 geoscientific and professional
    associations that represent more than 100,000 geologists,
    geophysicists, and other earth scientists who work in industry,
    academia and government. The institute serves as a voice for shared
    interests in our profession, plays a major role in strengthening
    geoscience education, and strives to increase public awareness of the
    vital role that the geosciences play in society's use of resources and
    interaction with the environment.

                             U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

        For the fifth year in a row, the USGS faces cuts in the
    Administration's request. AGI thanks the Subcommittee for its record of
    restoring critical funds and recognizing the Survey's essential value
    to the nation. The USGS is a critical federal science agency and it
    should receive increased funding like the proposed increases in the
    President's American Competitiveness Initiative for the National
    Science Foundation and the Office of Science within the Department of
    Energy. The USGS performs complementary research, analysis and
    education and should be part of the President's initiative to advance
    innovation, reduce imported oil dependencies and ensure American
    competitiveness in science and technology.
        Virtually every American citizen and every federal, state, and
    local agency benefits either directly or indirectly from USGS products
    and services. As was made clear by the National Research Council report
    Future Roles and Opportunities for the U.S. Geological Survey, the
    USGS's value to the nation goes well beyond the Department of the
    Interior's stewardship mission for public lands. USGS information and
    expertise address a wide range of important problems facing this
    nation: earthquakes and floods, global environmental change, water
    availability, waste disposal, and availability of energy and mineral
    resources. Some of the most important activities of the Survey serve
    the entire nation. At the same time, AGI recognizes that the Survey
    does have a responsibility to provide scientific support for its sister
    land management agencies at Interior, an important mission that needs
    to be well executed if land management decisions are to be made with
    the best available scientific information. It is imperative that these
    missions be recognized and valued within the Department and by the
    Administration. AGI asks the Subcommittee to continue its efforts to
    help the Administration better understand the Survey's value to the
    nation as a whole
        Mineral Resources Program.--This highly regarded research program
    is the nation's premier credible source for regional, national and
    global mineral resource and mineral environmental assessments,
    statistics and research critical for sound economic, mineral-supply,
    land-use and environmental analysis, planning and decision-making. AGI
    urges the Subcommittee to reject the Administration's requested cuts to
    this program and to fund it at the fiscal year 2005 appropriated level
    of $54 million. The huge cut, leaving the program with less than $30
    million in fiscal year 2007 would decimate the program. It would cost
    about 240 full time positions and would eliminate or reduce global
    mineral resource assessments of mineral commodities, research on
    industrial minerals, research on inorganic toxins, materials flow
    analyses, and the Minerals Resources External Research program. The
    essence of the program would be jeopardized at a time when mineral
    products account for a rapidly growing and valuable commodity of the
    U.S. economy.
        The Mineral Resources Program (MRP) has 6 divisions with offices
    across the United States working on a broad range of initiatives to
    secure the nation's economic base and environmental welfare. Each
    month, the Minerals Information Services of the MRP responds to over
    2,000 telephone inquiries and more than 90,000 email or facsimile
    inquiries from the federal government, state agencies, domestic and
    foreign agencies, foreign governments and the general public. Cutting-
    edge research by MRP scientists investigates the role of microbes in
    the geochemical cycles of arsenic, mercury, lead and zinc to understand
    the transport and accumulation of health-threatening toxins related to
    these elements and to distinguish their natural or anthropogenic
    sources. MRP scientists also investigated and prepared a report on the
    asbestos-bearing debris in the aftermath of the World Trade Center
    disaster. The Global Mineral Resource Assessment Project of the MRP
    provides unbiased and timely information about the current and future
    availability of mineral resources around the world, which is needed to
    understand and anticipate economic, health, environmental and political
    factors that will affect how these resources are used in this
    increasingly interconnected world.
        The data and analyses of the MRP are used by the Department of the
    Interior, Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the
    Department of State, the Federal Reserve, other federal, state and
    local government entities, foreign governments, private companies and
    the general public. Analyses based on the MRP data are essential for
    guiding economic and environmental policy and for providing options for
    land use decisions posed by industry, government and private land
    owners. We urge the Subcommittee to restore the Mineral Resources
    Program to its fiscal year 2005 level of $54 million so that it may
    perform its core missions effectively and efficiently.
        National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program.--AGI is encouraged
    by the Administration's continued requests for small annual increases
    for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (the fiscal year
    2007 request is for $25.4 million) and values Congress' past support
    for much larger increases. This important partnership between the USGS,
    state geological surveys, and universities provides the nation with
    fundamental data for addressing natural hazard mitigation,
    environmental remediation, land-use planning, and resource development.
    The program was authorized (Public Law 106-148) to grow by about 10
    percent to 20 percent per year from a starting level of $28 million in
    1999 to $64 million in 2005. Re-authorization at $64 million per year
    over the next 5 years is currently being considered in Congress. AGI
    strongly supports the increased funding being considered by Congress
    because the program provides a timely basis for assessing water
    availability and quality, risks from hazards and other major land and
    resource-use issues that are of increasing prominence in many states.
        Natural Hazards.--A key role for the USGS is providing the
    research, monitoring, and assessment that are critically needed to
    better prepare for and respond to natural hazards. The tragic
    earthquake/tsunami in the Indian Ocean, hurricanes Katrina and Rita
    striking the Gulf Coast and the massive earthquake in Pakistan, remind
    us of the need for preparation, education, mitigation and rapid
    response to natural hazards. A 2006 National Academies report entitled
    Improved Seismic Monitoring estimates that increased seismic monitoring
    leads to increased future savings from the damaging effects of
    potential earthquakes. Given recent events and this timely report, AGI
    strongly supports the Administration's request for increased funding
    for Earthquake, Volcano and Landslide Hazards and appreciates Congress'
    past support for these programs. With great forethought, the Earthquake
    Hazards Reduction Authorization Act of 1999 called for a significant
    federal investment in expansion and modernization of existing seismic
    networks and for the development of the Advanced National Seismic
    System (ANSS)--a nationwide network of shaking measurement systems
    focused on urban areas. ANSS can provide real-time earthquake
    information to emergency responders as well as building and ground
    shaking data for engineers and scientists seeking to understand
    earthquake processes. ANSS has been allocated about 10 percent of its
    authorized funding level per year, which is not nearly enough to deploy
    the 7,000 instruments called for in the law. Currently, 66 are
    operating and there is much more work that needs congressional support.
    We would like to commend the Subcommittee for your leadership in
    securing previous increases for ANSS and ask for additional increases
    in fiscal year 2007. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
    (NEHRP) was reauthorized in October, 2004 and AGI supports the
    appropriation of full funding for this vital program. We hope that all
    of these under funded systems will receive additional support to meet
    their timely goals of better protection and mitigation of earthquake
    hazards long before we need to react.
        Water Programs.--The president's request calls for the termination
    of the Water Resources Research Institutes. AGI strongly encourages the
    Subcommittee to oppose these reductions and to fully support this
    program at its small, but effective fiscal year 2005 level of $6.4
    million. AGI is pleased that the Administration supports increased
    funding for stream gages and the National Streamflow Information
    program.
        Homeland Security.--Another troubling aspect of the President's
    request is the lack of funding for the USGS activities in support of
    homeland security and the war on terrorism overseas. All four
    disciplines within the Survey have made and continue to make
    significant contributions to these efforts, but the fiscal year 2007
    request does not provide any direct funding. Instead, those costs must
    be absorbed in addition to the proposed cuts. AGI encourages the
    Subcommittee to recognize the Survey's important role in homeland
    security and ensure adequate support for its newfound responsibilities.

                            SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

        The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History plays a dual
    role in communicating the excitement of the geosciences and enhancing
    knowledge through research and preservation of geoscience collections.
    AGI asks the Subcommittee to build up Smithsonian research with steady
    increases that are a tiny fraction of the overall budget, but would
    dramatically improve the facilities and their benefit to the country.
    We support the Administration's request for increased funding for the
    Smithsonian in fiscal year 2007.

                             NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

        The national parks are very important to the geoscience community
    as unique national treasures that showcase the geologic splendor of our
    country and offer unparalleled opportunities for both geoscientific
    research and education of our fellow citizens. The National Park
    Services's Geologic Resources Division was established in 1995 to
    provide park managers with geologic expertise. Working in conjunction
    with USGS and other partners, the division helps ensure that
    geoscientists are becoming part of an integrated approach to science-
    based resource management in parks. AGI would like to see additional
    support for geological staff positions to adequately address the
    treasured geologic resources in the national parks.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
    Subcommittee. If you would like any additional information for the
    record, please contact me at 703-379-2480, ext. 228 voice, 703-379-7563
    fax, rowan@agiweb.org, or 4220 King Street, Alexandria VA 22302-1502.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the American Hiking Society

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, American Hiking
    Society is the only national nonprofit organization that promotes and
    protects foot trails and the hiking experience. With a strong
    membership base of individual hikers and hiking clubs, American Hiking
    represents half a million outdoors people and serves as the voice of
    the American hiker. We appreciate the Subcommittee's past support for
    trails and recreation and urge you to support strong funding that will
    keep our trails open, safe, and enjoyable today and for future
    generations. American Hiking makes the following trail and recreation
    funding recommendations for fiscal year 2007:
    National Park Service
        Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program: $10.1 million
        National Trails System: $10.68 million, plus $1.25 million for GIS
    Network
        Challenge Cost-Share Program: $4.5 million Traditional CCSP (one-
    third of $4.5 million for National Trails System), plus $2.5 million
    for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial
    USDA Forest Service
        Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness: $275 million
        Capital Improvement and Maintenance--Trails: $90 million
    Bureau of Land Management
        Recreation and Wilderness Management: $70 million
        National Landscape Conservation System: $46 million
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
        National Wildlife Refuge System: $417.5 million
    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
        Stateside LWCF: $100 million
        Federal LWCF: $220 million, including $23.7 million for National
    Scenic and Historic Trails, as follows: Appalachian NST: $5.6 million
    (Forest Service); Continental Divide NST: $1.4 million (BLM); Ice Age
    NST: $4 million (NPS); Florida NST: $5 million (Forest Service);
    Pacific Crest NST: $5.25 million (Forest Service), $1.5 million (BLM);
    Overmountain Victory NHT: $195,000 (Forest Service); Oregon NHT: $1
    million (BLM).

             FISCAL YEAR 207 TRAIL & RECREATION FUNDING PRIORITIES

        Our nation's trails provide unparalleled opportunities for hiking
    and other outdoor recreation activities, enjoyment and appreciation of
    natural and cultural resources, healthy physical activities,
    alternatives for transportation, and economic development for local
    communities. Recreation has increased dramatically in importance for
    the American people, yet the federal investment for trails, recreation,
    and land conservation has not increased accordingly. This lag has
    resulted in high maintenance backlogs, deteriorating infrastructure,
    loss of open space, and negative impacts to resources.
    NPS, Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA): $10.1
            million
        The RTCA program is a technical assistance program that implements
    the natural resource conservation and outdoor recreation mission of the
    NPS. RTCA yields enormous conservation and recreation benefits to
    communities by fostering partnerships between federal, state, and local
    interests. The resulting cooperative efforts restore rivers and
    wildlife habitat, develop trail and greenway networks, preserve open
    space, and revitalize communities--all contributing to improved quality
    of life and close-to-home recreation. On average, the program partners
    protect nearly 700 miles of rivers, create more than 1,300 miles of
    trails, and conserve more than 61,000 acres of open space each year.
    RTCA is a very successful and popular program, but its funding has
    remained relatively flat during the last decade and lagged well behind
    the rate of inflation. The program's declining real budget has resulted
    in significant cuts to staff and reduced staff participation in on-the-
    ground projects. RTCA requires at least a $2 million increase to remedy
    the program's continued erosion, compensate for losses due to
    inflation, and enable the program to respond to growing needs and
    opportunities in communities throughout the country.
    NPS, National Trails System: $10.68 million, plus $1.25 million for GIS
            network
        The NPS administers eighteen of the twenty-four National Scenic and
    Historic Trails. For most of these trails, barely one-half of their
    congressionally authorized length and resources are protected and
    available for public use. A minimum of $10.68 million in fiscal year
    2007 is crucial for resource protection, trail maintenance,
    interpretation, and volunteer coordination and support. In addition,
    NPS requires $1.25 million to continue work on a Geographic Information
    System network for the National Trails System. American Hiking thanks
    the Subcommittee for its support of the National Trails System and
    urges you to increase funding to help complete and protect these
    national treasures. American Hiking Society endorses the specific
    funding requests submitted by the Partnership for the National Trails
    System.
    USDA Forest Service, Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness:
            $275 million
        Although recreation makes up the greatest use of National Forest
    System lands and the largest share (60 percent) of the Forest Service's
    contribution to the Gross Domestic Product, recreation remains woefully
    underfunded and understaffed. Only about 10 percent of the Forest
    Service budget is dedicated to recreation. The Forest Service requires
    increased funding for recreation management and wilderness to protect
    critical resources; upgrade recreation facilities; reduce the $200+
    million deferred maintenance backlog; augment on-the-ground recreation
    staff; improve recreation resource analyses and planning; and more
    effectively utilize partnerships and volunteers. The President's fiscal
    year 2007 proposed funding level, excluding any cost of living
    increases or inflationary pressures, would result in a program
    reduction of $14.3 million from fiscal year 2006.
    Forest Service, Capital Improvement and Maintenance--Trails: $90
            million
        The Forest Service manages 133,000 miles of trails and requires
    increased funding to restore and maintain these thousands of trail
    miles; reduce the $99 million trails maintenance backlog and address
    the $99.2 million capital improvement construction needs for trails;
    improve trail infrastructure; prevent and mitigate resource impacts;
    and provide safe, high-quality recreational experiences for millions of
    hikers and other trail enthusiasts. The President's fiscal year 2007
    proposed funding level, excluding any cost of living increases or
    inflationary pressures, would result in a program reduction of $15.6
    million from fiscal year 2006. We request $11.48 million as a separate
    budgetary item in addition to the Administration's request specifically
    for the Continental Divide, Florida, and Pacific Crest National Scenic
    Trails and the Nez Perce National Historic Trail as outlined by the
    Partnership for the National Trails System.
    BLM, Recreation Management: $70 million
        The BLM supports a broad range of recreational opportunities within
    its multiple use mission yet continues to receive very limited funding
    for recreation. BLM is focusing on a comprehensive travel management
    approach to managing roads and trails, providing adequate and
    appropriate public access, and has generated many collaborative
    partnerships for trails. However, the BLM faces daunting challenges
    with a growing deferred maintenance backlog for upkeep of more than
    15,500 miles of trails. BLM is also facing critical inventory, planning
    and management challenges as it manages a staggering network of an
    estimated 600,000 miles of roads, trails, routes and ways available for
    public use--with 80,000 miles maintained and signed. Increased funding
    will support the development of travel management plans, interpretation
    projects, stewardship education, outreach projects, expansion of
    partnerships, and the protection of natural and cultural resources
    impacted by increased recreational use.
    BLM, National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS): $46 million
        Basic Operations and Maintenance, Law Enforcement, Resource
    Monitoring, and Cultural Resource Protection: We urge the subcommittee
    to increase the Administration's fiscal year 2007 budget for the NLCS
    by $11.3 million, for operations and maintenance, to provide a total of
    at least $46 million to conserve the unique National Monuments,
    Conservation Areas, Trails, Rivers, Wilderness, and Wilderness Study
    Areas that comprise the 26 million-acre System. This would restore
    funding levels to those proposed by the President in fiscal year 2006.
    Priority unmet needs include law enforcement, resource monitoring, and
    cultural resource protection. Adequate funding for fiscal year 2007 is
    critical, as the BLM will need to implement numerous Resource
    Management Plans for areas in the System. We also ask the committee to
    support any member requests for additional funding for NLCS units in
    their districts. American Hiking endorses the specific funding requests
    for National Scenic and Historic Trails submitted by the Partnership
    for the National Trails System.
        Crucial Acquisitions.--We urge the committee to add $5.1 million to
    purchase inholdings and lands adjacent to NLCS areas that are
    threatened by development, including Colorado's Canyons of the Ancients
    National Monument and McInnis Canyons NCA, California's Carrizo Plain
    National Monument, the Pacific Crest Trail and Cascade-Siskiyou
    National Monument in Oregon, and the Continental Divide Trail in New
    Mexico.
        Accountability and Transparency.--We urge the committee to promote
    greater transparency through budgeting and reporting. Congress should
    require BLM to provide a cross-cut budget for NLCS that includes
    subactivity accounts, similar to that published in the fiscal year 2002
    DOI budget, which clearly listed funding for specific activities within
    specific NLCS units. The BLM's recent National Scenic and Historic
    Trails Strategy and Work Plan recognized the ``. . . need for a
    subactivity account . . .'' by emphasizing that ``. . . In order to
    ensure adequate funding to properly protect congressionally recognized
    national trail resources and monitor success, this objective eliminates
    conflict of purpose and will provide a mechanism to improve funding and
    identify and track use of designated funds.'' To help Congress and the
    public understand the needs of the NLCS and how funds were spent,
    Congress should require BLM to provide expenditure and accomplishment
    reports on NLCS areas, like Monuments, Conservation Areas and National
    Scenic and Historic Trails, starting with reports for fiscal year 2006.
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS):
            $417.5 million
        The NWRS protects countless species of wildlife, fish, plants, and
    critical habitat, provides recreational opportunities for nearly 40
    million visitors annually, and continues to face significant budget
    shortfalls. The operations and maintenance backlog for the system
    totals about $2.7 billion. Approximately 200 refuges do not have any
    staff. A minimum increase of $16 million above the fiscal year 2006
    appropriation is necessary to prevent ``no net loss'' for the system,
    meet cost of living increases and inflationary pressures, and keep
    refuges from cutting public use programs. The NWRS uses its
    approximately 2,500 miles of land and water trails to deliver its
    congressionally determined six priority wildlife dependent recreation
    activities.
    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF): $100 million Stateside; $220
            million Federal
        The LWCF helps create parks, protect trails and open spaces,
    preserve wilderness and wildlife habitat, and enhance recreational
    opportunities. While LWCF funds have been cut severely, the need for
    open space and recreation has soared. LWCF has helped create parks for
    people to enjoy in 98 percent of counties in America and has provided
    protection for more than five million acres of land and water areas
    across the country. Authorized at $900 million annually, LWCF is one of
    the most important conservation tools ever designed and is critical to
    the future protection of national trails. We strongly oppose the
    Administration's recommendation to terminate the stateside LWCF
    program.
        American Hiking is joined by many Representatives and Senators of
    both parties in strongly opposing the Administration's proposal to
    raise $800 million to help fund rural roads and schools by selling off
    national forests and other public lands, our nation's pride and legacy.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Volunteer contributions are essential to trails and recreation
    programs, and American Hiking and its members and partners contribute
    hundreds of thousands of hours worth millions in labor, to help
    maintain our nation's trails. However, an increase in volunteerism on
    public lands must not be perceived as a panacea to agency budget
    constraints. American Hiking is coordinating more than 100 week-long
    Volunteer Vacation trail maintenance trips in 2006 on our treasured
    national parks, forests, and other public lands. On June 3, 2006,
    American Hiking will coordinate the fourteenth National Trails Day
    (NTD) to raise public awareness and appreciation for trails, with more
    than one thousand NTD events nationwide to celebrate and maintain
    trails. American Hiking Society members and outdoorspeople nationwide
    appreciate the Subcommittee's support for trail and recreation in the
    past and look forward to continued strong support. Thank you for
    considering our request.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the American Hiking Society

        I am writing on behalf of American Hiking Society to urge your
    support for trails, recreation, and land conservation in the fiscal
    year 2007 Interior Appropriations bill. We are very concerned about
    some of the deep cuts for trail and recreation programs proposed in the
    Administration's fiscal year 2007 budget request. Increased funding is
    crucial to keeping our trails open, safe, and enjoyable today and for
    future generations. We respectfully request the following funding
    levels in fiscal year 2007:
      --$10.1 million for the National Park Service's (NPS) Rivers, Trails
            and Conservation Assistance program to help communities manage
            and protect their recreational and natural resources. Ongoing
            funding shortages continue to erode RTCA's real budget and
            reduce essential services of this excellent federal technical
            assistance program.
      --$10.5 million for the 18 national scenic and historic trails
            administered by the NPS; plus $1.25 million for a Geographic
            Information System network for the national trails.
      --$275 million for USDA Forest Service Recreation Management,
            Heritage, and Wilderness, and $90 million for Capital
            Improvement and Maintenance for Trails to protect resources,
            reduce the maintenance backlog, augment on-the-ground
            recreation staff, leverage volunteers, and maintain trails.
            These two programs each face about a $15 million cut in the
            Administration's request, which would adversely affect critical
            trail and recreation needs across the country.
      --$70 million for Bureau of Land Management Recreation and Wilderness
            Management and an $11.3 million increase for the National
            Landscape Conservation System to manage rapidly expanding
            recreational use while protecting natural and cultural
            resources. We urge the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to
            establish high standards for accountability and transparency in
            the BLM's budget.
      --$220 million for the Federal side of the Land and Water
            Conservation Fund (LWCF); $100 million for Stateside LWCF. We
            vigorously oppose the Administration's recommendation to
            terminate the state assistance program, a vital tool that
            provides close-to-home recreational opportunities for all
            Americans.
        In addition, we strongly oppose the Administration's proposal to
    help fund rural roads and schools by selling off national forests and
    other public lands, our nation's pride and legacy.
        American Hiking Society is a national organization that promotes
    and protects foot trails and the hiking experience. Thank you for your
    support and considering this request.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences

        The American Institute of Biological Sciences requests that
    Congress provide the United States Geological Survey (USGS) with $1.2
    billion in fiscal year 2007, with at least $200 million for the
    Biological Resources Discipline.
        The funding we request would restore proposed cuts to important
    science programs, provide a modest but needed inflation adjustment, and
    implement important science and information dissemination initiatives.
    This funding would also help USGS address the cost of maintaining
    research infrastructure.
        The USGS provides independent research, data, and assessments
    needed by public and private sector decision-makers. The Survey's
    unique combination of biological, geographical, geological and
    hydrological research programs enable USGS scientists to utilize
    innovative interdisciplinary research techniques to answer important
    questions.
        USGS scientists do not work in isolation. Through offices located
    in every state and partnerships with more than 2,000 federal, state,
    local, tribal, and private organizations, the USGS has built the
    capacity to leverage additional research expertise. For example,
    through the Cooperative Research Units program USGS scientists are
    stationed on university campuses. This proximity to academic
    researchers brings additional intellectual and technical resources to
    work on the biological, ecological, and natural resource questions USGS
    seeks to answer. The value of Cooperative Research Units extends beyond
    their immediate research productivity, however. Cooperative Research
    Units are a vital component of our nation's education and training
    infrastructure. These research units enable future natural resource
    professionals to gain the skills and experience government agencies
    need. Furthermore, Cooperative Research Units are one of USGS'
    mechanisms for providing data and technical assistance to local, state,
    and national decision-makers.
        Natural resource managers require reliable, relevant, and timely
    information. The Biological Informatics Program develops and applies
    innovative technologies and practices to the management of biological
    data, information, and knowledge. Increased funding for the USGS would
    enable the Biological Informatics Program to continue on-going
    activities and begin to implement initiatives the resource management
    and research communities have identified as priorities. For instance,
    new nodes could be added to the National Biological Information
    Infrastructure program.
        The NatureServe program provides the scientific basis for wise
    natural resources management. Together with its network of sate Natural
    Heritage programs, NatureServe provides valuable information about rare
    species and threatened ecosystems to numerous federal and state
    agencies to help them make informed natural resource management
    decisions. The proposed $1.0 million investment in ensuring the quality
    and consistency of this national data resource is estimated to leverage
    $40 million nationwide, primarily from state and private sources.
        USGS biological research programs gather important data and
    information that academic, private sector, or other government
    scientists do not or cannot collect. For instance, a clear national
    priority is the prevention and mitigation of economic losses from non-
    native species invading new environments. USGS research helps guide our
    understanding of how these invasive species, such as the zebra mussel,
    snakehead fish, and tamarisk, colonize new environments. Decision-
    makers, whether a private land owner or a resource manager working for
    a government agency, utilize USGS science to develop action plans to
    combat invasive species.
        USGS biologists conduct impartial research that makes it possible
    to assess the vitality of waterfowl, songbirds, large mammals,
    terrestrial plants, amphibians, and their habitats. These data
    subsequently inform state and federal agency conservation planning and
    management. As an example, USGS research allows scientists to assess
    the vitality of bird populations, determine habitat requirements, and
    map migration routes. This information is increasingly important to
    public health officials concerned with the potential spread of diseases
    that may be transmitted from wild animals to humans or domesticated
    animals. Indeed, included in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget
    request is $3.2 million for surveillance of migratory waterfowl for
    avian flu.
        The fiscal year 2007 budget request does not fully fund ``fixed''
    cost increases. We encourage the committee to fully fund these
    expenses. Without full funding for these costs, USGS science programs
    would likely be forced to reprogram funds that would otherwise support
    important research.
        An fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $1.2 billion for the USGS and
    at least $200 million for the Biological Resources Discipline would
    enable the USGS to: maintain current research efforts; restore $7.3
    million in proposed terminations of on-going research; provide at least
    a $1.5 million increase to the Cooperative Research Units program;
    provide $1.0 million for the NatureServe program; provide funding for
    fixed cost increases; provide $3.2 million to support surveillance of
    waterfowl for avian flu; support for a new USGS-wide natural hazards
    initiative; and, provide a modest inflation adjustment.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request. If you
    require additional information, please contact Robert Gropp at 202-628-
    1500.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Hydrology; American
    Rivers; American Society of Agronomy; American Water Works Association;
     Association of American State Geologists; Association of Metropolitan
     Water Agencies; Association of State and Interstate Water; Pollution
      Control Administrators; Clean Water Action; Crop Science Society of
     America; The Groundwater Foundation; The H. John Heinz III Center for
     Science, Economic and the Environment; National Association of Clean
    Water Agencies; Natural Resources Defense Council; The National Ground
     Water Association; Sierra Club; Soil Science Society of America; and
                          Water Environment Federation

        We are writing to urge you to provide increased funding for the
    National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) and the Ground-Water
    Resources Program within the budget for the U.S. Geological Survey in
    the fiscal year 2007 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Bill. Specifically, we urge that you provide $70 million
    for the NAWQA program and $8.5 million for the Ground-Water Resources
    Program. These amounts would enable both programs to maintain program
    capabilities while meeting cost increases due to inflation.
        One of the most important challenges we face as a Nation in the
    coming decades is the management of water resources to provide
    sufficient quantities of clean and safe water to meet the needs of our
    growing population, agricultural and industrial demand, and
    environmental and recreational needs. Two programs within the U.S.
    Geological Survey conduct basic scientific research on critical surface
    and ground water resources to assist policy-makers in making informed
    resource allocations decisions.
        NAWQA was established to provide consistent and comparable
    information across the nation on water-quality conditions and ecosystem
    health, and the Ground-Water Resources Program was established to
    assess the availability of ground-water resources at the regional and
    national scale. Both programs are the only non-regulatory federal
    programs that conduct long-term, scientifically-based monitoring of our
    nation's streams and ground water to support sound management and
    policy decisions relating to our water resources.
        While a number of state and federal programs conduct water
    resources monitoring, these two programs are the primary sources for
    long-term, nationwide information on the quality of streams and aquatic
    ecosystems, and the availability of ground water resources.
        The general public as well as local, state, and federal water
    quality officials charged with managing our water resources rely on
    NAWQA and the Ground-Water Resources Program and the information they
    provide.
        For example, a 1993 NAWQA study near Denver uncovered the existence
    of MTBE in ground water which alerted the public and health
    professionals to unintended consequences of a compound designed to
    enable gasoline to burn cleaner. In 2005, NAWQA studies conducted in
    Austin, Texas uncovered a direct link between increased mortality of
    aquatic life and contaminated storm water run-off caused by polycyclic
    aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) found in parking lot and driveway pavement
    sealants. During drought conditions, the Ground-Water Resources Program
    provides real-time ground-water measurements to USGS databases for
    display on the Internet for water managers and the general public.
        In 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report
    examining twenty federal data collection programs that assemble and
    analyze quantitative measures of the nation's environmental conditions
    and trends. The report examined whether funding issues or other factors
    will affect the ability of these programs to continue to generate data
    comparable to data from past years. GAO found that of the twenty
    programs examined, only two programs were in jeopardy of continuing to
    generate quality data, including NAWQA. GAO found that NAWQA's ability
    to continue providing comparable data has been significantly diminished
    due to funding constraints.
        Congress provided slight increases in funding for both these
    programs in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations cycle; however, the
    fiscal year 2007 Budget request proposes a reduction for the Ground-
    Water Resources Program and a slight increase of approximately $300,000
    for NAWQA. If these budget requests were to be accepted, both programs
    will be required to curtail their research programs. Already, static
    funding for NAWQA has required it to reduce the number of water study
    units from sixty to forty-two. And, within these study regions, the
    impacts of the reductions were amplified by a reduction in the number
    of stream networks targeted for continuous monitoring from 492 stream
    sites to just 84.
        Insufficient funding for these two programs is severely hampering
    their ability to fulfill their missions and to effectively assist water
    managers and policy makers at all levels of government. Furthermore,
    there is an opportunity to develop a stronger cooperative program with
    existing state ground water research agencies with additional federal
    funding to these programs. We urge you to support $70 million for NAWQA
    and $8.5 million for the Ground-Water Resources Program in the fiscal
    year 2007 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
    Bill so that critical water monitoring data will continue to be
    available.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences

        The American Institute of Biological Sciences requests that
    Congress provide the United States Geological Survey (USGS) with $1.2
    billion in fiscal year 2007, with at least $200 million for the
    Biological Resources Discipline.
        The funding we request would restore proposed cuts to important
    science programs, provide a modest but needed inflation adjustment, and
    implement important science and information dissemination initiatives.
    This funding would also help USGS address the cost of maintaining
    research infrastructure.
        The USGS provides independent research, data, and assessments
    needed by public and private sector decision-makers. The Survey's
    unique combination of biological, geographical, geological and
    hydrological research programs enable USGS scientists to utilize
    innovative interdisciplinary research techniques to answer important
    questions.
        USGS scientists do not work in isolation. Through offices located
    in every state and partnerships with more than 2,000 federal, state,
    local, tribal, and private organizations, the USGS has built the
    capacity to leverage additional research expertise. For example,
    through the Cooperative Research Units program USGS scientists are
    stationed on university campuses. This proximity to academic
    researchers brings additional intellectual and technical resources to
    work on the biological, ecological, and natural resource questions USGS
    seeks to answer. The value of Cooperative Research Units extends beyond
    their immediate research productivity, however. Cooperative Research
    Units are a vital component of our nation's education and training
    infrastructure. These research units enable future natural resource
    professionals to gain the skills and experience government agencies
    need. Furthermore, Cooperative Research Units are one of USGS'
    mechanisms for providing data and technical assistance to local, state,
    and national decision-makers.
        Natural resource managers require reliable, relevant, and timely
    information. The Biological Informatics Program develops and applies
    innovative technologies and practices to the management of biological
    data, information, and knowledge. Increased funding for the USGS would
    enable the Biological Informatics Program to continue on-going
    activities and begin to implement initiatives the resource management
    and research communities have identified as priorities. For instance,
    new nodes could be added to the National Biological Information
    Infrastructure program.
        The NatureServe program provides the scientific basis for wise
    natural resources management. Together with its network of sate Natural
    Heritage programs, NatureServe provides valuable information about rare
    species and threatened ecosystems to numerous federal and state
    agencies to help them make informed natural resource management
    decisions. The proposed $1.0 million investment in ensuring the quality
    and consistency of this national data resource is estimated to leverage
    $40 million nationwide, primarily from state and private sources.
        USGS biological research programs gather important data and
    information that academic, private sector, or other government
    scientists do not or can not collect. For instance, a clear national
    priority is the prevention and mitigation of economic losses from non-
    native species invading new environments. USGS research helps guide our
    understanding of how these invasive species, such as the zebra mussel,
    snakehead fish, and tamarisk, colonize new environments. Decision-
    makers, whether a private land owner or a resource manager working for
    a government agency, utilize USGS science to develop action plans to
    combat invasive species.
        USGS biologists conduct impartial research that makes it possible
    to assess the vitality of waterfowl, songbirds, large mammals,
    terrestrial plants, amphibians, and their habitats. These data
    subsequently inform state and federal agency conservation planning and
    management. As an example, USGS research allows scientists to assess
    the vitality of bird populations, determine habitat requirements, and
    map migration routes. This information is increasingly important to
    public health officials concerned with the potential spread of diseases
    that may be transmitted from wild animals to humans or domesticated
    animals. Indeed, included in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget
    request is $3.2 million for surveillance of migratory waterfowl for
    avian flu.
        The fiscal year 2007 budget request does not fully fund ``fixed''
    cost increases. We encourage the committee to fully fund these
    expenses. Without full funding for these costs, USGS science programs
    would likely be forced to reprogram funds that would otherwise support
    important research.
        An fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $1.2 billion for the USGS and
    at least $200 million for the Biological Resources Discipline would
    enable the USGS to: maintain current research efforts; restore $7.3
    million in proposed terminations of on-going research; provide at least
    a $1.5 million increase to the Cooperative Research Units program;
    provide $1.0 million for the NatureServe program; provide funding for
    fixed cost increases; provide $3.2 million to support surveillance of
    waterfowl for avian flu; support for a new USGS-wide natural hazards
    initiative; and, provide a modest inflation adjustment.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request. If you
    require additional information, please contact Robert Gropp at 202-628-
    1500.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium

                                REQUEST SUMMARY

        On behalf of the nation's 36 Tribal Colleges and Universities
    (TCUs), which comprise the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
    (AIHEC), thank you for this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2007
    Appropriations recommendations for the 26 colleges funded under the
    Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act (Tribal
    College Act), our two tribally controlled postsecondary vocational
    institutions, the two Bureau of Indian Affairs postsecondary
    institutions, and the Institute of American Indian Arts. The U.S.
    Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, administers all
    these programs, save for the Institute of American Indian Arts, which
    is funded directly by the Interior Department. While AIHEC ultimately
    seeks full funding for all programs authorized under the Tribal College
    Act, we recognize that a focused approach with incremental increases is
    a realistic way to meet that goal. In fiscal year 2007, we seek a total
    of $69.4 million for Tribal College Act programs. Our first priority
    within this request is to increase funding for the day-to-day
    operations of institutions funded under Titles I & II of the Act.
    Specifically, we request $66.9 million; of which, $49.2 million would
    be for Title I grants (funding 25 TCUs) and $17.7 to fund Title II
    (Dine College). This request is an increase of $7 million for Title I
    grants and a $6.3 million increase for Dine College over fiscal year
    2006 levels and a total of $12.7 million over the President's fiscal
    year 2007 budget request for institutional operations funding.
    Additionally, we seek $500,000 for the technical assistance contract
    under section 105 of the Act, the same amount as appropriated in fiscal
    year 2006. These funds will help address continually emerging technical
    assistance needs and to gather and analyze data necessary to comply
    with the Congressional request to provide added information on TCUs.
    Additionally, $2 million is requested for endowments under Title III of
    the Act. Lastly, we support $4.5 million for United Tribes Technical
    College; and $2.5 million for Crownpoint Institute of Technology; the
    latest budget once again recommends eliminating Interior Department
    funding for these two tribally controlled postsecondary vocational
    institutions.
        AIHEC's membership also includes three other TCUs funded under
    separate authorities within Interior Appropriations, namely: Haskell
    Indian Nations University; Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute;
    and The Institute of American Indian Arts. AIHEC supports the
    independently submitted requests for funding the institutional
    operations of these institutions.

                       BACKGROUND AND FUNDING DISPARITIES

        In 1972, six tribally controlled colleges established AIHEC to
    provide a support network for member institutions. Today, AIHEC
    represents 35 Tribal Colleges and Universities in 13 states, created
    specifically to serve the higher education needs of American Indians.
    Annually, they serve approximately 30,000 full- and part-time students
    from over 250 Federally recognized tribes.
        The vast majority of TCUs is accredited by regional accreditation
    agencies and like all institutions of higher education, must undergo
    stringent performance reviews on a periodic basis to retain their
    accreditation status. In addition to college level programming, TCUs
    provide much needed high school completion (GED), basic remediation,
    job training, college preparatory courses, and adult basic education.
    Tribal colleges fulfill additional roles within their respective
    communities functioning as community centers, libraries, tribal
    archives, career and business centers, economic development centers,
    public meeting places, and childcare centers. An underlying goal of
    TCUs is to improve the lives of students through higher education and
    to move American Indians toward self sufficiency.
        Title I of the Tribal College Act authorizes funding for the basic
    institutional operating budget of one qualifying institution per
    Federally recognized tribe based on a full time American Indian student
    enrollment formula. The Tribal College Act was first funded in 1981.
    Today, 25 years later and notwithstanding an increase of $2.5 million
    in fiscal year 2006, these colleges are operating at $4,563 per full-
    time Indian student count (ISC), approximately 75 percent of their
    authorized level of $6,000 per ISC. If the TCUs were to be fully funded
    at $6,000 per ISC today, when you consider inflation, they would not
    even have the same buying power as their initial fiscal year 1981
    appropriations, which was $2,831 per ISC. While the other TCUs funding
    is not enrollment driven and therefore the disparity of funding is not
    as easily illustrated, they too suffer from a lack of adequate
    operating funds. This is not simply a matter of appropriations falling
    short of an authorization; it effectively impedes our institutions from
    having the necessary resources to grow their programs in response to
    the changing needs of their students and the communities they serve.

                                 JUSTIFICATIONS

        (a) Tribal colleges provide critical access to vital postsecondary
    education opportunities.--TCU reservations are located in remote areas,
    and their populations are among the poorest in the nation. On average,
    median household income levels are only about half of the level for the
    U.S. population as a whole. As a result, the cost of attending a
    mainstream institution, which for many reservation communities is
    several hours away, is prohibitively high, especially when tuition,
    travel, housing, textbooks, and other expenses are considered.
        (b) Tribal colleges are producing a new generation of highly
    trained American Indians as teachers, tribal government leaders,
    engineers, nurses, computer programmers, and other much-needed
    professionals.--By teaching the job skills most in demand on their
    reservations, TCUs are laying a solid foundation for tribal economic
    growth, with benefits for surrounding communities. In contrast to the
    high rates of unemployment on reservations, graduates of TCUs are
    employed in ``high need'' occupational areas such as Head Start
    teachers, elementary and secondary school teachers, and nurses/health
    care providers. Just as important, the overwhelming majority of tribal
    college graduates remain in their tribal communities, applying their
    newly acquired skills and knowledge where they are most needed. One-
    half of the faculty and staff of Little Big Horn College in Crow
    Agency, Montana are graduates of the college.
        (c) Tribal colleges meet the strict standards of mainstream
    accreditation boards and offer top quality academic programs.--Several
    TCUs have attained a ten year accreditation term, the longest term
    granted to any higher education institution. The quality of the
    colleges' programs is reflected in the high rates of satisfaction
    reported by their graduates: Over 90 percent of TCU graduates surveyed
    reported being very satisfied or satisfied with courses in their major
    field of study and with overall instruction.
        (d) Tribal college attendance increases educational success and
    serves as highly effective bridges to four year postsecondary
    institutions.--While most TCUs are two year institutions offering
    certificates and associate degrees, their transfer function is
    significant. A survey of TCU graduates conducted by Harder+Company
    Community Research, San Francisco, CA for the American Indian College
    Fund, indicated that more than 80 percent of respondents who attended a
    mainstream college prior to enrolling at a tribal college did not
    finish the degree they were pursuing at the mainstream college. The
    rate of completion markedly improved for those who attended a tribal
    college prior to pursuing a degree at a mainstream institution. After
    completing tribal college coursework, less than half of respondents
    dropped out of mainstream college, and nearly 40 percent went on to
    obtain a bachelor's degree. This suggests TCUs may have a profound
    impact on the persistence of American Indian students in pursuit of
    baccalaureate degrees. The overwhelming majority of respondents felt
    that their tribal college experience had prepared them well for further
    education and noted that it had a very positive impact on their
    personal and professional achievements.

                             SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS

        (a) Enrollment Gains & New TCUs.--Compounding existing funding
    disparities is the fact that although the numbers of TCUs and students
    enrolled in them have dramatically increased since 1981, appropriations
    have increased at a disproportionately low rate. Since they were first
    funded, the number of colleges has quadrupled and Indian student
    enrollments have risen a remarkable 333 percent. In fiscal year 2005,
    two newly established TCUs, Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College (Michigan)
    and Tohono O'odham Community College (Arizona) became eligible to
    receive funds under the Tribal College Act. White Earth Tribal and
    Community College (Minnesota) is expected to become eligible for
    funding in fiscal year 2007. TCUs are in many ways victims of their own
    successes. The dramatic enrollment increases, coupled with a growing
    number of tribally chartered colleges, have forced TCUs to slice an
    already inadequate pie into even smaller pieces. Our fiscal year 2007
    recommendation would fund institutional operations at Title I colleges
    at approximately $5,400 per ISC, which is still short of the original
    funding level as appropriations have not even kept up with inflation.
        (b) The Absence of State Funds for Institutional Operations.--While
    mainstream institutions have enjoyed a foundation of long-term stable
    state support, TCUs must rely on the Federal government for their
    operating funds. Because TCUs are located on Federal trust lands,
    states have no obligation to fund them even for the non-Indian state-
    resident students who account for approximately 20 percent of TCU
    enrollments. Yet, if these same students attended any other public
    institution in the state, the state would contribute basic operating
    funds to the institution.
        (c) Local Tax and Revenue Bases.--TCUs cannot rely on local tax
    base revenue. Although tribes have the sovereign authority to tax, high
    reservation poverty rates, the trust status of reservation lands, and
    the lack of strong reservation economies hinder the creation of a
    reservation tax base. On reservations where tribal colleges are
    located, the unemployment rate can exceed 60 percent. In comparison,
    the national unemployment rate for February 2006 is 4.8 percent.
        (d) Trust Responsibility.--The emergence of tribal colleges is a
    direct result of the special relationship between American Indian
    tribes and the Federal government. TCUs are founded and chartered by
    their respective American Indian tribes, which hold a special legal
    relationship with the Federal government, actualized by more than 400
    treaties, several Supreme Court decisions, prior Congressional action,
    and the ceding of more than one billion acres of land to the Federal
    government. Beyond the trust responsibility, the fact remains that TCUs
    are providing a public service that no other institutions of higher
    education are willing, or able, to provide by helping the Federal
    government fulfill its responsibility to the American people,
    particularly in rural America. Despite the fact that only students that
    are enrolled members of a Federally recognized Indian tribe are counted
    when determining the level of operating funds, TCUs have open
    enrollment policies and do not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.
    They are simply and effectively removing barriers that have long
    prevented equal access to higher education for reservation community
    residents.

              THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

        For the past several years the annual Federal budget has
    recommended deep cuts in TCU operations, in fiscal year 2006 the budget
    recommended an 18 percent cut. The President's fiscal year 2007 budget
    includes $54.3 million for institutional operations of 26 TCUs, which
    indicating a change in this trend. Each year Congress has restored the
    recommended cuts and even included some increase to the TCUs' operating
    grants. Over the past few years several new TCUs have become eligible
    for funding under the Tribal College Act. However, the lack of basic
    operating funds caused financial difficulties that two long standing
    colleges were not able to overcome. Unfortunately, D-Q University in
    California and Si Tanka University in South Dakota, which were
    chartered in 1971 and 1974 respectively, are now closing their doors.
    We are hopeful that Congress will build on the President's fiscal year
    2007 budget recommendation so that tribal colleges might realize a true
    increase in the funding available for basic operations.

           AIHEC'S APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

        We respectfully request a total appropriation of $69.4 million for
    the programs authorized under the Tribal College Act. Our first
    priority within this request is to increase funding for the day-to-day
    operations of institutions funded under Titles I & II of the Act.
    Specifically, we request $66.9 million; of which, $49.2 million would
    be for Title I grants (funding 25 TCUs) and $17.7 to fund Title II
    (Dine College). This request is an increase of $7 million for Title I
    grants and a $6.3 million increase for Dine College over fiscal year
    2006 levels and a total of $12.7 million over the President's fiscal
    year 2007 budget request for institutional operations funding.
    Additionally, we seek $500,000 for the technical assistance contract
    under Sec. 105 of the Act, equal to the fiscal year 2006 appropriation
    and the President's request. These funds will help address ever
    emerging technical assistance needs and to fund data collection and
    analysis necessary to comply with the Congressional requests for
    additional information on TCU funding and operations. Additionally, we
    request $2 million for Title III of the Act, which helps our
    institutions to build endowments. The President's budget request
    eliminates this program.
        For our two tribally controlled vocational institutions, we support
    $4.5 million for United Tribes Technical College; and $2.5 million for
    Crownpoint Institute of Technology to restore and expand the funding
    for these programs that the fiscal year 2007 President's budget
    recommends eliminating.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Tribal colleges provide higher education to thousands of American
    Indians who might otherwise not have access to such opportunities. The
    modest Federal investment in the Tribal Colleges and Universities has
    paid great dividends in terms of employment, education, and economic
    development. Continuation of this investment makes sound moral and
    fiscal sense. We very much need your help to sustain and grow our
    programs and achieve our missions.
        Thank you for your past and continued support of the nation's
    Tribal Colleges and Universities and your consideration of our fiscal
    year 2007 appropriations recommendations.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Association to Preserve Cape Cod

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of
    the Association to Preserve Cape Cod, the region's leading
    environmental advocacy and stewardship organization with more than
    5,500 members, I write to strongly support an appropriation of $6.1
    million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Cape Cod
    National Seashore in Massachusetts. This funding would be used to
    acquire the 57-acre North of Highland Campground, which is a family-run
    campground within the Seashore's boundary in the town of Truro.
        The Cape Cod National Seashore is clearly the crown jewel of this
    peninsula's natural resources. The beautiful beaches, dunes,
    marshlands, and kettle hole ponds make the Cape Cod National Seashore
    one of the most heavily visited parks in the National Park system.
    Biking and hiking trails and surfing, swimming and fishing
    opportunities attract those seeking active recreation as well as those
    looking for serenity and scenic vistas.
        The family that owns this land, which as been operated as a
    campground since 1954, wishes the land to continue to be used as a
    campground, providing affordable recreation for the general public at
    this very popular destination. For the family, the Seashore and the
    public, this outcome is by far superior to the land being sold and
    developed as residences. The family is working closely with the
    National Seashore to that end.
        I thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of the
    appropriation of $6.1 million in the fiscal year 2007 from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund for the Cape Cod National Seashore.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Air Pollution Control District

        We respectfully request $220.3 million in fiscal year 2007 for the
    State and Local Air Quality Management Program--which is the amount
    appropriated in fiscal year 2006. The President's fiscal year 2007
    budget reduces funding for this important program by $35.1 million.
        Established by the Clean Air Act, the State and Local Air Quality
    Management Program provides federal financial assistance in the form of
    grants to the 50 states, 4 territories, and approximately 60 local
    agencies to operate their air pollution control programs. The grants
    provide the resources to states and localities to perform basic air
    pollution control activities like monitoring air quality, developing
    and planning control options, permitting and inspecting sources,
    enforcing laws and regulations, and educating the public.
        In particular, this grant funding helps support state and local air
    quality management efforts to implement the National Ambient Air
    Quality Standards. As you may know, the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) has designated 495 counties across the nation as in nonattainment
    for the particulate matter and ozone air quality standards. Under the
    Clean Air Act, states must submit State Implementation Plans by 2007
    and 2008 detailing how these areas will meet the standards by specified
    deadlines. Additionally, EPA has promulgated numerous other regulations
    that impose additional duties on state and local officials.
        The President's fiscal year 2007 budget includes $185.2 million for
    the state and local grant program--which is a reduction of 16 percent
    or $35.1 million from the fiscal year 2006 appropriated level. This
    entails reductions of $15.6 million from the Section 105 air grants
    program and $2.5 million from regional planning organizations.
    Additionally, funding for the fine particulate monitoring program is
    cut by $17 million, with the remainder shifted from Section 103
    authority to Section 105. This shift will require states and localities
    to provide matching funds.
        Thank you for your consideration of this matter. We urge you to
    restore the funding for this important program to $220.3 million for
    fiscal year 2007 and not shift funds for monitoring from Section 103
    authority to Section 105. Funding for this vital program should not be
    decreased at a time when the workload required of states and localities
    is increasing.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc.

        The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc. (APIA) submits the
    following request with regard to the fiscal year 2007 Indian Health
    Service budget:
      --$1.14 million increase over fiscal year 2006 for phase two of
            staffing for our new health center in St. Paul. This is
            $265,000 more than the Administration's requested $875,000
            increase.
      --$1 million for the construction shortfall for the staff quarters
            for the new St. Paul Health Center
      --We support the recommendations of the Alaska Native Health Board on
            matters including increased funding for built-in costs, for
            contract support, medevac and patient travel, village-built
            clinics and for construction of the hospitals in Barrow and
            Nome which are at the top of the IHS priority construction
            list.
        St. Paul Health Center Staffing. We thank Congress for providing
    funding for the construction of the new health center at St. Paul, one
    of the most remote and needy locations in the IHS health system. The
    Center opened on January 13, 2006. In fiscal year 2006 Congress
    provided $260,000 for the first phase of staffing for our new health
    center. The President's fiscal year 2007 budget would build the
    $260,000 from fiscal year 2006 into the base budget and provide an
    increase of $875,000 for a total of $1.13 million. This is $265,000
    short of the needed $1.4 million. Thus we request a total increase over
    fiscal year 2006 of $1.14 million.
        Staffing Package:
        Fiscal year 2006 staffing package--$260,000 (built into base
    budget)
        Fiscal year 2007 Admin proposal--$875,000 increase over fiscal year
    2006
        APIA Need--$1,140,000 increase over fiscal year 2006

                       TOTAL TWO-YEAR PHASE-IN OF STAFFING
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Year                                Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2006 appropriation..........................        $260,000
    Fiscal year 2007 APIA Request...........................       1,140,000
                                                             ---------------
          Total.............................................       1,400,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        While we appreciate the Administration's effort to calculate our
    funding package need, it falls short by not accounting for the extreme
    remoteness of our site and the ensuing lack of access to available
    support services and facilities.
        St. Paul Island is located, as this committee knows, in the Bering
    Sea and it is almost 1000 air miles away from our nearest referral
    center in Anchorage. It is also the only Health Center in the most
    dangerous fisheries area in the country. APIA must serve a huge influx
    of seasonal fisheries workers and our staff must be of a caliber to
    handle major disasters with no ready assistance. Our population
    balloons to over 2000 during the fishing seasons. Due to the dangerous
    nature of fishing in the Bering Sea, many of our cases are of an
    emergency nature--for instance, we have provided emergency response
    services for shipwrecks, explosions, and fishing-related injuries. In
    addition to the large numbers of persons--Native and non-Native--who
    fish in our waters, we also attend to emergency health needs of the
    many people who visit our area for bird watching. We are, in fact,
    ``the only act in town'' when it comes to health care, and thus we need
    to be as self-sufficient as possible in the provision of health care.
    That is why our new Health Center will include x-ray capability, a
    holding bed area, and 24 hours per day call-back for emergencies.
        As you would imagine, the cost of medical staff is very high in the
    Aleutian Pribilof Islands. While last year's Physician Assistants
    received an annual salary of $85,000, the cost this year is $120,000
    plus housing. In addition, the cost of traveling to and from our
    communities has increased in some cases 140 percent. A ticket to St.
    Paul is $1,000. Home heating fuel has risen to over $800/month and
    electricity is $400/month.
        Extreme weather conditions and the cost of travel further play an
    adverse role in getting field services out to St. Paul. Visits by
    physicians are minimal and often times postponed or shortened due to
    weather conditions. St. Paul has the highest recorded per capita rate
    of Type 2 Diabetes in the United States. This situation has become
    critical as the rate continues to increase. Approximately 60 percent of
    the population is in need of mental health assistance, with
    anticipation that this will increase as the fishing industry continues
    to decline. Having an adequate staffing package will allow us to
    address these disease burdens.
        A total staffing package of $1.4 million is more realistic to meet
    our unique needs that are not easily quantified by a universal formula
    devised for other IHS sites that have far better access to support
    centers.
        St. Paul Health Center Quarters Shortfall.--We also ask for $1
    million to meet the shortfall in quarters construction funds for the
    St. Paul Health Center. Without the additional $1 million we will be
    forced to eliminate one single and one double housing unit which were
    in our approved construction plan. In the context of St. Paul Island,
    this is very significant.
        It is extremely difficult to find housing for staff on the Island.
    Island land is, as you can imagine, extremely scarce and can only be
    leased, making it impossible for anyone to acquire bank financing for
    loans on existing homes (should a rare one become available). Our own
    Health Administrator, who is from St. Paul, has had to live off-island
    waiting for housing to become available. We must have this additional
    funding so that our attempts to recruit and retain medical staff for
    the new St. Paul Health Center are not thwarted by the lack of adequate
    housing.
        History.--While well known to our Congressional delegation, we
    would like to bring to the Subcommittee's attention a little sense of
    the history of the Aleut people--a history likened to that of
    colonialism and of being treated like the enemy during World War II.
    Much of what has happened to the Aleut people has been driven by the
    desire of private industry and governments for the riches of the Bering
    Sea seal trade and of the coerced labor of highly skilled Aleut
    fishermen.
        Russian fur traders first started coming to the Pribilof Islands
    during the mid 1700s. They used Aleut fishermen as slave labor,
    mistreated Aleut women, and indiscriminately plundered the seal
    population. Rival traders took an estimated 240,000 seals in 1868
    alone. In the first 30 years of Russian contact, the Aleut population
    declined from an estimated 12,000 to about 1,900. Aleuts were relocated
    by the Russians from hundreds of villages into just 27 villages.
    (Source: A Century of Servitude by Dorothy M. Jones, B.A.)
        Alaska was purchased by the United States from Russia in 1867 for
    $7.2 million--the transaction referred to as Seward's Folly. The cost
    was more than paid for by the profits to the government from the
    Pribilof fur trade--with the labor done by Aleuts. In 1870, the U.S.
    Government established the Pribilofs as a government reservation and
    signed a 20-year contract with the Alaska Commercial Company granting
    it exclusive property right to seals in exchange for rent and
    royalties. The law also required conservation measures, much needed
    after the years of Russian exploitation. The Pribilof Islands were
    managed by the United States Treasury Department. Treasury officials
    had a great deal of influence over the daily lives of Aleuts but were
    given little direction on how to go about their jobs. The results
    ranged from neglect to egregious violation of individual rights.
        A most painful experience for us was the evacuation during World
    War II of Aleuts from the Pribilofs to various locations in
    southeastern Alaska. Aleuts endured the evacuation from 1942 to 1945.
    This was allegedly done for the safety of the Aleuts, but in fact
    Aleuts were treated like they were the enemy. People were given two
    days notice to leave and then were never told their destination--most
    ended up 1,500 miles away in various southeast Alaska locations. It is
    a little known fact that some people were also evacuated to Japan.
    Aleuts were put in extremely crowded unheated abandoned buildings, many
    families in one area separated only by blankets hung from the ceiling.
    Sanitation conditions were horrible--in one case there was one outhouse
    for over 200 persons. There was little clean water. Naturally there was
    much sickness. The U.S. Government realized that they needed the labor
    of the Aleut fisherman for sealing operations and they were taken back
    to the Pribilofs on a seasonal basis to obtain the fur and seal oil
    needed by the military--their wives and children left behind in the
    horrendous relocation camps.
        In the end, 10 percent of the Aleuts who were evacuated from St.
    Paul, St. George, Unalaska, Atka, Akutan, Nikolski, Biorka, Kashega,
    and Makushin died in the relocation camps. Of the 42 persons evacuated
    from Attu to Japan, 22, or nearly 50 percent, died. When people were
    allowed to return to their home villages, many found that their homes
    had been destroyed, their possessions taken, and their churches
    stripped of religious icons--by the U.S. military.
        Despite this history, the Aleut are a proud people and are up to
    the challenge of providing quality health care to our people despite
    the many geographical and environmental challenges of living in an
    isolated frontier community. The efforts to build a new health center
    on St. Paul Island started over 20 years ago. Now that the dream is a
    reality, it would be devastating to the many who worked hard to make
    this happen to have the Center fall short of desperately needed housing
    and staff.
        Thank you for your consideration of the needs of the Aleutian
    Pribilof Islands Association.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association

        The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national
    service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal
    and other state and locally owned utilities throughout the United
    States (all but Hawaii). Collectively, public power utilities deliver
    electricity to one of every seven electric consumers (approximately 43
    million people), serving some of the Nation's largest cities. However,
    the vast majority of APPA's members serve communities with populations
    of 10,000 people or less.
        We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement outlining
    our fiscal year 2007 funding priorities within the jurisdiction of the
    Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

             ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: ENERGY STAR PROGRAMS

        APPA is disappointed in the Administration's request of $45.7
    million for fiscal year 2007 for EPA's Energy Star Programs as it
    represents a reduction in their request of approximately $5 million
    from fiscal year 2006 as well as a reduction in the congressional
    allocation of $49.5 million for fiscal year 2007. We urge the
    Subcommittee to allocate at least the fiscal year 2006 amount for
    Energy Star.
        Energy Star is a voluntary partnership program pairing EPA with
    businesses and consumers nationwide to enhance investment in
    underutilized technologies and practices that increase energy
    efficiency while at the same time reducing emissions of criteria
    pollutants and greenhouse gases. In particular, APPA member systems
    across the country have been active participants in a subset of the
    Energy Star program called ``Green Lights.'' The Green Lights program
    encourages the use of energy efficient lighting to reduce energy costs,
    increase productivity, promote customer retention and protect the
    environment.
        According to the EPA, Energy Star is saving businesses,
    organizations, and consumers more than $9 billion a year, and has been
    instrumental in the more widespread use technological innovations like
    LED traffic lights, efficient fluorescent lighting, power management
    systems for office equipment, and low standby energy use.

       ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: LANDFILL METHANE OUTREACH PROGRAM

        APPA is also disappointed in the Administration's request of $1.9
    million for fiscal year 2007 for the Landfill Methane Outreach Program
    at EPA. We would urge the Subcommittee to again consider an allocation
    for this program over and above the Administration's request.
        The Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) helps to partner
    utilities, energy organizations, states, tribes, the landfill gas
    industry and trade associations to promote the recovery and use of
    landfill gas as an energy source. According to the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA), LMOP has more than 490 Partners that have
    signed voluntary agreements to work with EPA to develop cost-effective
    landfill-gas-to-energy (LFG) projects. There are approximately 395
    operational LFG energy projects in the United States with approximately
    140 projects currently under construction or exploring development
    options and opportunities. LMOP has also developed detailed profiles
    for over 1,300 candidate landfills.
        Landfill gas is created when organic waste in a landfill
    decomposes. This gas consists of about 50 percent methane and about 50
    percent carbon dioxide. Landfill gas can be captured, converted, and
    used as an energy source rather than being released into the atmosphere
    as a potent greenhouse gas. Converting landfill gas to energy offsets
    the need for non-renewable resources such as coal and oil, and thereby
    helps to diversify utilities' fuel portfolios and to reduce emissions
    of air pollutants from conventional fuel sources.
        In 2005, all operational LFG energy projects in the United States
    prevented the release of 19 MMTCE (million metric tons of carbon
    equivalent). This reduction is the carbon equivalent of removing the
    emissions from 13.3 million vehicles on the road or planting 19 million
    acres of forest for one year. This reduction also has the same
    environmental benefit as preventing the use of 162 million barrels of
    oil or offsetting the use of 341,000 railcars of coal.
        As units of local and state governments, APPA's member utilities
    are uniquely poised to embark on landfill-gas to energy projects. EPA's
    LMOP facilitates this process by providing technical support and access
    to invaluable partnerships to our members and the communities they
    serve.

                        COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

        APPA is disappointed with the Administration's request of $2.7
    million for fiscal year 2007 for the White House's Council on
    Environmental Quality (CEQ), and urges the Subcommittee to consider
    allocating at least $3.2 million for this office. Public power
    utilities have experienced a general lack of consistency in federal
    government regulation, particularly involving environmental issues.
    While additional layers of government should be avoided, a central
    overseer can perform a valuable function in preventing duplicative,
    unnecessary and inconsistent regulation. CEQ is responsible for
    ensuring that federal agencies perform their tasks in an efficient and
    coordinated manner.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to present testimony to this most important committee. I
    serve as Executive Director for the Little Rock Port Authority and as
    Arkansas Chairman for the Interstate Committee. Other committee members
    representing Arkansas, in whose behalf this statement is made, are:
        Mr. Scott McGeorge, President, Pine Bluff Sand and Gravel Company,
    Pine Bluff
        Mr. N.M. ``Buck'' Shell, CEO, Five Rivers Distribution in Van Buren
    and Fort Smith
        Mr. Jack Long, General Manager, Logistic Services, Inc., Port of
    Little Rock
        Mr. Jeff Pipkin, President & CEO of the Russellville Area Chamber
    of Commerce and Director of the Arkansas Valley Alliance for Economic
    Development
        We call to your attention four projects on the McClellan-Kerr
    Arkansas River Navigation System (the ``System'') that are especially
    important to navigation and the economy of this multi-state area:
    Arkansas River 12-Foot Channel, Little Rock Port, Backlog of Channel
    and Structure Maintenance, and the Arkansas-White Rivers Cut-Off Study.

                        ARKANSAS RIVER'S 12-FOOT CHANNEL

        Mr. Chairman, Public Law 108-137 authorized a 12-foot channel on
    the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. The Corps is now
    obligated to operate and maintain the system as a 12-foot channel. Over
    90 percent of the system currently is adequate for a 12-foot channel.
    Deepening the remainder of the channel to 12 feet will allow carriers
    to place 43 percent more cargo on each barge which will reduce the
    amount of fuel consumed and emissions released. Other environmental
    benefits include the creation of new aquatic habitat through new dike
    construction and the construction of least tern islands through
    beneficial use of dredged material.
      --Therefore, we request $40,000,000 to continue the work towards
            achieving the 12-foot navigation channel as noted in Public Law
            108-137. Corps of Engineers capability levels on this project
            are currently $20,000,000 in both the Tulsa and Little Rock
            Districts. The goal of completing this project in four years at
            the capability levels of the Corps will increase the cost
            competitiveness of this low cost-environment friendly
            transportation method and help us combat the loss of industry
            and jobs to overseas.

                                LITTLE ROCK PORT

        We recognize the significant reduction in new work and understand
    the need to combat the Global War on Terrorism. We also recognize the
    need to look for economic advantages where the needs of the government
    cross with the good of public entities to serve both needs. We believe
    a prime example of this effort would be to utilize Section 107 of the
    River and Harbors Act of 1960 (Public Law 86-645) in the Continuing
    Authorities Program which would allow the disposal of dredge disposal
    material to be utilized by the Little Rock Port for beneficial fill
    material.
      --Therefore, $7.6 million is requested for this project. This project
            will compliment the goal of Homeland Security by providing a
            safe, mid-America environment for shipping while complimenting
            other Federal investments, including the 12-foot channel
            project'' by providing completion of a major economic
            development engine.

                    BACKLOG OF CHANNEL STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE

        We request $10 million Operation and Maintenance Budget which is
    urgently needed for critical repairs to damaged and deteriorated dikes
    and revetments to maintain channel alignment and provide original
    channel configuration while reducing the need for dredging.
        More than a decade of neglect to our navigation structures while
    funding the construction of Montgomery Point Lock & Dam has created a
    critical backlog of channel structure work that threatens the viability
    of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.

                       ARKANSAS-WHITE RIVERS CUTOFF STUDY

        A cutoff is developing between the Arkansas and White Rivers which,
    if not corrected, could have dramatic adverse effects on the navigation
    system as well as significant bottomland hardwoods and pristine
    environment that provides unique wildlife habitat in southeast
    Arkansas.
        Unless corrected, it is inevitable that a major cutoff will occur
    negatively impacting navigation on the river, significantly increasing
    siltation and dredging requirements and, at worst, cutting off the
    lower end of the Navigation System from the Mississippi River.
      --We request, for the benefit of the entire system, $300,000 to
            protect the Navigation System from incurring significant
            increases in dredging, hazardous navigation conditions, and to
            preclude a devastating loss of habitat in bottom land hardwoods
            in the Big Island region between the Arkansas River, the White
            River and the Mississippi River. This pristine habitat is being
            threatened from the meandering of these rivers while also
            adversely impacting the Navigation System. The funds are
            greatly needed to complete the study and do the required
            environmental documentation.
        In addition to these three vital requests, we urge you to continue
    to support funding for the construction, and operation and maintenance
    of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System which provides
    low-cost and dependable transportation for farm products, construction
    aggregates, raw materials and finished products important to our
    nation's economic recovery.
        It is also most important that you continue construction authority
    of the McClellan-Kerr Project until remaining channel stabilization
    problems identified by the Little Rock District Corps of Engineers have
    been resolved. The Corps needs to develop a permanent solution to the
    threat of cutoffs developing in the lower reaches of the navigation
    system and to use environmentally sustainable methods under the
    existing construction authority.
        Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the work of this essential committee
    and thank you for your efforts that contribute so much to the social
    and economic well-being of the United States of America.
        We fully endorse the statement presented to you today by the
    Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee and urge you
    to favorably consider these requests that are so important to the
    economic recovery of our region and nation.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Association of Research Libraries and the
                  Council on Library and Information Resources

        This statement is submitted on behalf of the Association of
    Research Libraries (ARL) and the Council on Library and Information
    Resources (CLIR). ARL and CLIR are writing in support of the fiscal
    year 2007 budget request of $140.955 million for the National Endowment
    for the Humanities (NEH) and, in particular, the $17.988 million budget
    request for the Preservation and Access Division, whose work is
    critical to preserving our American heritage. ARL and CLIR respectfully
    urge that Congress provide an addition $15 million or a total of $156
    million for NEH in fiscal year 2007.
        NEH plays a vital role in preserving our historic and cultural
    legacy, improving education at all levels, and helping Americans better
    understand the life of their Nation. The Preservation and Access
    Division of NEH was created to help advance knowledge and understanding
    of the humanities in America. Through its grant programs, the Division
    supports projects that preserve and increase the availability of
    resources, such as books, journals, newspapers, photographs, and films
    that are crucial for research, education, and public programming in the
    humanities.
        NEH funding is absolutely critical to ongoing programs of interest
    to the library community: the Brittle Books Program, the U.S. Newspaper
    Program, and Preservation Education and Training. Without Congressional
    support for NEH, fragile material in libraries and repositories in
    universities, colleges, and communities across the country would be in
    danger of permanent loss.
        We applaud NEH's quick response in assisting cultural institutions
    following the devastation caused by Katrina. NEH provided $30,000 to
    state humanities councils in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama and
    generously channeled $1 million in emergency grants to libraries,
    museums, historical societies and cultural institutions. More recently,
    NEH announced that it would dedicate an additional $250,000 to
    hurricane relief for affected humanities-related institutions.
        ARL and CLIR also encourage funding for the Administration's
    request of $15.239 million for the We the People initiative. This
    initiative further enhances NEH's core functions in critical areas,
    including Preservation and Access. The initiative, created in response
    to the lack of basic historical knowledge among many Americans, is
    designed to enhance the teaching, research, and understanding of
    American history and culture. Of particular interest to the research
    library community is one of the initiative's key programs, the National
    Digital Newspaper Program (NDNP). This program will convert microfilm
    of historical newspapers published between 1836 and 1922 into digital
    files and mount them on a national database that will be freely
    accessible to all Americans via the Internet. This effort is a
    partnership between NEH, which funds the digitization projects, and the
    Library of Congress, which mounts and maintains the resources. We
    strongly encourage you to support this initiative.
        Although microfilming serves as a great tool for preserving
    America's books and newspapers, ARL and CLIR strongly support the
    efforts of NEH to complement its preservation program with grants for
    the digitization of library materials. Digital technology provides new
    opportunities to extend the reach of humanities resources into every
    classroom, library, and home. To that end, many repositories of
    specialized and rare materials are digitizing their holdings to provide
    students, educators, and scholars easy access to them. Moreover,
    libraries and other humanities organizations are providing online
    access to an ever-increasing body of knowledge created in ``born
    digital'' journals, books, and databases.
        NEH also provides critical assistance to our Nation's libraries,
    archives, historical societies, and other repositories for preservation
    education and training. Grants in this area help support U.S. graduate
    programs in art and material culture conservation; preservation
    workshops, surveys, and information services to hundreds of cultural
    institutions; and targeted workshops for staff who manage digital
    imaging and preservation microfilming projects.
        Last year, the NEH and the National Science Foundation (NSF) formed
    a partnership to develop and advance knowledge of endangered languages.
    The initiative, ``Documenting Endangered Languages,'' records,
    documents and archives information on 3,000 languages that are near
    extinction. ARL and CLIR strongly support this important multiyear,
    cooperative initiative.
        Information, education, and knowledge are the pillars of our
    country's domestic progress and international leadership in the 21st
    century. The existence and support of humanities is vital to ensure a
    successful democracy by means of reflection, participation, and
    communication. The Nation must preserve the historical record
    accumulated by past generations to ensure the success of future
    generations.
        We very much appreciate the Subcommittee's continuing support of
    NEH and its programs.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Americans for Responsible Recreational Access

        Americans for Responsible Recreational Access is a group committed
    to fostering responsible recreational practices on public lands. We are
    writing to you today to express our grave concerns about the
    Administration's budget proposal for the U.S. Forest Service,
    especially those portions dealing with the recreation and trail
    programs.
        The President's budget proposal calls for reducing the Recreation,
    Wilderness and Heritage program by 4 percent, $10 million less than the
    Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2006. The Trails program is slated
    for an even larger cut of 19.4 percent, $14.5 million less than fiscal
    year 2006 funding.
        We understand that the Federal budget is under severe strain. And
    we certainly don't envy the task you have before you in deciding which
    programs should ultimately receive lesser support in the coming fiscal
    year. We hope that as you balance competing interests, you will take a
    close look at the Forest Service budget, especially those areas dealing
    with recreation.
        More than ever, greater numbers of Americans are visiting our
    national forests for recreational activities. The Forest Service tracks
    the number of visitors to its facilities and its own statistics show
    that in 2004 alone, there were more than 205 million visits to the
    National Forests. Since then, we know that this figure has grown and
    will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. This is not the time
    to be cutting funds for trail maintenance and rehabilitation work.
        We think a strong case could be made that these programs merit an
    increase in funding especially for trail maintenance and
    rehabilitation. But we understand that such a wish is highly unlikely
    during these difficult fiscal times. Therefore, our hope is that your
    committee will fund these programs in fiscal year 2007 at the current
    level found in fiscal year 2006.
        In the coming days, we will be visiting members of your committee
    to make the case that facilitating recreation in our National Forests
    is an important mission of the U.S. Forest Service, and that the
    Recreation and Trail programs merit, at a minimum, funding at the 2006
    level. We stand ready to assist your committee with any background
    information you desire that supports funding the trails and recreation
    programs at their existing levels.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country's oldest national
    civil engineering organization. It represents 137,000 civil engineers
    in private practice, government, industry and academia who are
    dedicated to the advancement of the science and profession of civil
    engineering. ASCE is a non-profit educational and professional society
    organized under Part 1.501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) recommends an annual
    appropriation of $1.5 billion from the federal general fund for the
    Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (CWSRF) program and $1 billion
    for the Safe Drinking Water SRF (DWSRF) in fiscal year 2007. The need
    is justified; the nation's wastewater treatment infrastructure and
    drinking water systems received a grade of D- from ASCE on our 2005
    Report Card for America's Infrastructure released on March 2005.

                      THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

        ASCE also recommends that Congress approve at least $1.2 billion in
    new budget authority for the U.S. Geological Survey in fiscal year
    2007, including $85.8 million for the National Earthquake Hazards
    Reduction Program. This level would enable the USGS to meet new
    challenges while continuing to provide data for land-use management,
    sustainable natural resource development, economic growth, and enhanced
    security from natural and manmade hazards. More investment is needed to
    strengthen USGS partnerships, improve monitoring networks, produce
    high-quality digital geospatial data and deliver the best possible
    science to address societally important problems.

                     WATER INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT NEEDED

        For fiscal year 2007, we support annual appropriations of $1.5
    billion from the federal general fund for the Clean Water State
    Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program.
        For fiscal year 2007, ASCE supports a minimum appropriation of $1
    billion from the federal general fund for the Safe Drinking Water State
    Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program.
        The federal government has directly invested more than $70 billion
    in the construction of publicly owned sewage treatment works (POTWs)
    and their related facilities since passage of the Clean Water Act in
    1972. Nevertheless, the physical condition of many of the nation's
    16,000 wastewater treatment systems is poor due to a lack of investment
    in plant, equipment, and other capital improvements over the years.
        Numerous wastewater systems have reached the end of their useful
    design life. Older systems are plagued by chronic overflows during
    major rain storms and heavy snowmelt and, intentionally or not, are
    bringing about the discharge of raw sewage into U.S. surface waters.
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated in August 2004
    that the volume of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) discharged
    nationwide is 850 billion gallons a year. Sanitary sewer overflows
    (SSOs), caused by blocked or broken pipes, trigger the release of as
    much as 10 billion gallons of raw sewage yearly, according to the EPA.
        Federal funding under the CWSRF program has been steadily eroding.
    Congress appropriated between $1.2 billion and $1.35 billion from 1995
    to 2004. But in fiscal year 2005 Congress cut wastewater SRF funding
    for the first time in eight years, reducing the total investment to
    $1.1 billion, and the total was further redueced in fiscal year 2006 to
    $887 million. The Bush administration has proposed further cuts for
    fiscal year 2007, with a budget submittal calling for an appropriation
    of only $688 million, a reduction of nearly 29 percent from the fiscal
    year 2006 enacted level.
        Funding needs remain very high: the U.S. must invest an additional
    $181 billion for all types of sewage treatment projects eligible for
    funding under the Act, according to the most recent Needs Survey
    estimate by the EPA and the states, completed in August 2003.
        In September 2002, EPA released a detailed Gap Analysis, which
    assessed the difference between current spending for wastewater
    infrastructure and total funding needs. The EPA Gap Analysis estimated
    that, over the next two decades, the United States needs to spend
    nearly $390 billion to replace existing wastewater infrastructure
    systems and to build new ones. (The total includes money for some
    projects not currently eligible for federal funds, such as system
    replacement, which are not reflected in the EPA-state Needs Survey).
        The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its own gap analysis
    in 2002 in which it determined that the gap for wastewater ranges,
    depending on various financial and accounting variables, from $23
    billion to $37 billion annually.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ None of the estimates cited includes the costs of operation and
    maintenance (O&M), costs that are borne entirely by the local utilities
    and are not eligible for federal funding. The 2002 Gap Analysis, for
    example, put the total O&M costs at $161 billion for the 20-year study
    period.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --ASCE supports enactment of the Clean Water Trust Act of 2005,\3\
            which would establish a federal water infrastructure trust fund
            act that would provide a reliable source of federal assistance
            for the construction and repair of POTWs to reduce the enormous
            funding ``gap.'' The bill also would authorize Congress to
            appropriate $37.5 billion over five years for wastewater and
            drinking water systems.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ H.R. 4560, 109th Cong. (2005).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --We support the establishment of a federal capital budget to create
            a mechanism to help reduce the constant conflict between short-
            term and long-term needs. The current federal budget process
            does not differentiate between expenditures for current
            consumption and long-term investment. This causes major
            inefficiencies in the planning, design and construction process
            for long-term investments. A capital budget system would help
            increase public awareness of the problems and needs facing this
            country's physical infrastructure and help Congress focus on
            programs devoted to long-term growth and productivity.
        In addition, the nation's 54,000 drinking water systems face
    staggering public investment needs over the next 20 years. Although
    America spends billions on infrastructure each year, drinking water
    faces an annual shortfall of at least $11 billion to replace aging
    facilities that are near the end of their useful life and to comply
    with existing and future federal water regulations. The shortfall does
    not account for any growth in the demand for drinking water over the
    next 20 years.
        In 2001, the EPA released a national survey of drinking water
    infrastructure needs. The survey results concluded that approximately
    $151 billion would be needed over 20 years to repair, replace, and
    upgrade the nation's 55,000 community drinking water systems to protect
    public health.
        A year later, the agency published The Clean Water and Drinking
    Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis, which identified potential funding
    gaps between projected needs and spending from 2000 through 2019. This
    analysis estimated a potential 20-year funding gap for drinking water
    capital, and operations and maintenance, ranging from $45 billion to
    $263 billion, depending on spending levels. Capital needs alone were
    pegged at $161 billion, a $10 billion increase from the 2001
    estimate.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are paid for by the local
    water utilities, not the federal government.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The CBO concluded in 2003 that ``current funding from all levels of
    government and current revenues generated from ratepayers will not be
    sufficient to meet the nation's future demand for water
    infrastructure.'' The CBO estimated the nation's needs for drinking
    water investments at between $10 billion and $20 billion over the next
    20 years.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ The CBO approximation does not include the $178 billion to $331
    billion in anticipated pipe replacement costs over the same 20-year
    period.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Federal assistance has not kept pace with demand. Since fiscal year
    1997, Congress has appropriated only between $700 million and $850
    million annually for the Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Loan
    Fund (SRF) program, enacted in 1987. The enacted funding level for
    fiscal year 2006 was $838 million, less than 10 percent of the total
    national requirements. The Bush Administration has proposed an
    appropriation of $842 million for fiscal year 2007.
      --ASCE supports the establishment of a federal capital budget to
            create a mechanism to help reduce the constant conflict between
            short-term and long-term needs. The current federal budget
            process does not differentiate between expenditures for current
            consumption and long-term investment. This causes major
            inefficiencies in the planning, design and construction process
            for long-term investments. A capital budget system would help
            Congress to focus on programs devoted to long-term growth and
            productivity.

                                 USGS PROGRAMS

        ASCE requests that Congress increase the fiscal year 2007 budget of
    the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to $1.2 billion. We support full
    funding for the agency's vital streamgaging program.
        The fiscal year 2007 budget request would cut funding for the USGS
    by $20.6 million (2.1 percent) to $944.8 million.
        The USGS plays a critical role in protecting the public from
    natural hazards such as floods and earthquakes, in assessing water
    quality, in providing emergency responders with geospatial data to
    improve homeland security, in analyzing the strategic and economic
    implications of mineral supply and demand, and in providing the science
    needed to manage our natural resources and combat invasive species that
    can threaten agriculture and public health. The USGS is working in
    every state and has nearly 400 offices across the country. To aid in
    its interdisciplinary investigations, the USGS works with more than
    2,000 federal, state, local, tribal and private organizations.
        During the past 10 years, total federal spending for non-defense
    research and development has risen by 64 percent from $45 billion to
    $74 billion in constant dollars. By contrast, funding for the USGS has
    been essentailly flat. Even this flat funding for the USGS reflects
    congressional restoration of proposed budget cuts.

                 NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM

        ASCE strongly supports the president's fiscal year 2007 request of
    $51.5 million for the Earthquake Hazards Office and $5.7 million for
    the multi-hazards initiative; these are a positive indication of the
    Administration's support in this important area. ASCE remains concerned
    about the continued under funding of Advanced National Seismic System
    (ANSS), as the $8 million requested for fiscal year 2007 is well under
    the authorized level of $36 million.
        ASCE urges Congress to build on the president's support and
    appropriate the fully authorized funding level of $85.8 million,
    including $36 million for ANSS, for the National Earthquake Hazards
    Reduction Program (NEHRP) functions at the U.S. Geological Survey.
        The USGS has the responsibility to monitor earthquakes, assess the
    seismic hazard for the Nation and research the basic earth science
    processes controlling earthquake occurrence and effect. The Advanced
    National Seismic Research and Monitoring System (ANSS), authorized by
    Congress in 2000, is intended to expand the current monitoring system
    and provide the needed information to maximize our understanding of how
    specific buildings performed during earthquakes. Strong motion
    information is critical to making the next quantum leap in
    understanding how to economically arrest the growth of earthquake risk.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Association of State Drinking Water
                             Administrators (ASDWA)

        ASDWA respectfully requests that, for fiscal year 2007, the
    Subcommittee appropriate funding for three state drinking water
    programs at levels commensurate with Federal expectations for
    performance and at levels that continue to ensure appropriate public
    health protection. Specifically, ASDWA requests an appropriation of
    $112 million for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program;
    $850 million for the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF)
    program; and $6 million for state drinking water program security
    initiatives.
        ASDWA represents the state drinking water programs in each of the
    fifty states and territories in their efforts to ensure the provision
    of safe drinking water to more than 275 million consumers nationwide.
    ASDWA's primary mission is the protection of public health through the
    effective management of state drinking water programs that implement
    the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
        States Need Increased Federal Support to Maintain Public Health
    Protection.--State drinking water programs strive to meet their public
    health protection goals through two principal funding programs--the
    Public Water System Supervision Program and the Drinking Water State
    Revolving Loan Fund Program. These two programs--with their attendant
    state match requirements--provide the means for states to work with
    drinking water systems to ensure that American citizens can turn on
    their taps with confidence that the water is safe to drink and that the
    supply is adequate. In recent years, state drinking water programs have
    accepted additional responsibilities to work with all public water
    systems to ensure that critical drinking water infrastructure is
    protected and that plans are in place to respond to disasters both
    natural and manmade.

                          HOW STATES USE FEDERAL FUNDS

        The PWSS Program.--To meet the requirements of the SDWA, states
    have accepted primary enforcement authority for oversight of ongoing
    regulatory compliance and technical assistance efforts for 160,000
    public water systems to ensure that potential health-based violations
    do not occur or are remedied in a timely manner. Going beyond these
    longstanding core responsibilities, since 1996, state drinking water
    programs have participated in the development and implementation of
    more than 20 new Federal regulations and strategic initiatives designed
    to enhance the protection of public health. States are also
    implementing an array of proactive initiatives to protect public health
    from ``source to tap''--including source water assessments and
    controls; technical assistance with water treatment and distribution;
    and enhancement of overall water system capacity. State activities go
    far beyond simply ensuring compliance at the tap.
        The DWSRF Program.--In less than 10 years, states have leveraged
    funding for the DWSRF program into more than $9 billion in loans to
    thousands of communities as a means to help them improve the quality or
    quantity of the water they drink. State drinking water programs have
    also used DWSRF funds to support the technical assistance and training
    needs of small drinking water systems and to help them obtain the
    technical, managerial, and financial proficiency that enables them to
    meet the requirements of the SDWA.
        State Drinking Water Security Responsibilities.--Since 2001, and
    more critically since last summer's experience of Hurricanes Katrina
    and Rita, states have taken extraordinary measures to meet the security
    and emergency response-related needs of the drinking water community.
    State drinking water programs have endeavored to respond to the
    significant number of requests for assistance, training, information,
    and financial support from the systems under their purview. States have
    also been instrumental in providing support and assistance to systems
    in assessing whether a contamination event has occurred and, if so,
    evaluating the magnitude of the public health implications. States have
    devised training and technical assistance programs, initiated new
    communications structures, and begun the work of integrating the
    concepts of enhanced security concerns throughout all aspects of the
    drinking water program.

                   WHY INCREASED FUNDING IS CRITICALLY NEEDED

        States must accomplish all of the above-described activities and
    take on new responsibilities while responding to escalating pressures
    to further cut their budgets, streamline their workforces, and operate
    with less state-provided financial support. State drinking water
    programs have always been expected to do more with less and states have
    always responded with commitment and ingenuity. However, state drinking
    water programs are now in crisis. Congress and the Executive Branch,
    through EPA, have implemented national program guidance calling for
    both states and water systems to continually improve their contaminant
    rule compliance rates. However, many states are now experiencing
    declining compliance rates in the face of declining or stagnant
    financial resources. For every decrease in available Federal dollars,
    the likelihood of a contamination event that puts public health at risk
    increases.
        Although the 1996 SDWA Amendments authorized the PWSS Program at
    $100 million per year, appropriated amounts have only recently reached
    that originally-authorized level. This level of funding, 10 years after
    enactment, is now woefully inadequate for the enormity of the task
    faced by state drinking water programs.
        Of the $1.1 billion in PWSS grants that states could have received
    since 1996, actual appropriations have only been $851.7 million through
    fiscal year 2005 and the additional $98.3 million appropriated for
    state programs in fiscal year 2006 is still a tentative figure,
    according to the EPA website, due to the potential for additional
    rescissions. Such chronic underfunding of the program has consequences.
    It is estimated that one-third of the states may not be able to conduct
    timely implementation of major provisions of the newer regulations,
    leaving the work undone or forcing U.S. EPA to undertake rule
    implementation tasks that they may not have the resources or expertise
    to perform. This could create a significant implementation crisis in
    several regions of the country and ultimately delay implementation of
    several critically needed public health protections.
        Similarly, for the DWSRF, the authorized level of $1 billion per
    year has never been appropriated. States have received less than 80
    percent of the $11 billion authorized for the DWSRF program since 1996.
    This underfunding, coupled with the decline in the spending power of
    these dollars due to inflation and cost of living increases, has
    severely hampered state drinking water programs' ability to fulfill
    their mission and provide critically needed support to drinking water
    systems.

          FISCAL YEAR 2007 REQUEST LEVELS AND SDWA PROGRAM OBLIGATIONS

        The PWSS Program.--This year, the State PWSS program request level
    in the Administration's budget is $99.1 million. This reflects an
    alarming downward trend from prior year Administration requests of
    $105.1 million and the enacted budget high point of $101.9 million
    appropriated just three years ago--in fiscal year 2004. State drinking
    water programs are hard pressed to understand a justification for the
    decreased funding since this is the year when they must begin
    implementation of the new arsenic regulations and the M/DBP Rule
    cluster--two very sophisticated and complex initiatives. States want to
    offer the flexibilities allowed under these and other rules; however,
    fewer dollars mean less opportunities to work one-on-one with systems
    to meet their needs. States, this year, are also expecting to see new
    regulatory requirements relating to ground water protection and
    revisions to the existing lead and copper rule. Looking ahead, states
    expect that new rules relating to MTBE, perchlorate, and NDMA will be
    forthcoming. A new Radon Rule will also likely soon be developed along
    with revisions to the Total Coliform Rule and possibly, a new
    distribution system rule. The number of regulations requiring state
    implementation and oversight as well as performance expectations
    continue to grow while, at the same time, Federal funding support
    necessary to maintain compliance levels and meet expectations is in
    decline.
        ASDWA, therefore, respectfully requests that the fiscal year 2007
    funding for the PWSS program be appropriated at $112 million. This
    figure represents a baseline of $101.9 million as appropriated in
    fiscal year 2004 plus an additional 3 percent increase over the past
    two fiscal years and into fiscal year 2007 to adjust for inflation.
        The DWSRF Program.--The fiscal year 2007 DWSRF program request in
    the President's budget reflects a nearly $9 million decrease from the
    amount requested in the three previous years. The primary purpose of
    the DWSRF is to improve public health protection by facilitating water
    system compliance with national primary drinking water regulations
    through the provision of loans to improve drinking water
    infrastructure. EPA's most recent National Drinking Water
    Infrastructure Needs Survey (2003) indicated that water system needs
    total $276.8 billion over the next 20 years to comply with SDWA
    mandates. This represents a significant jump from the earlier survey
    (1999) findings of a total 20 year need of $150.9 billion.
    ``Immediate'' water infrastructure needs totaled $165 billion in the
    2003 survey as compared to $102.5 billion identified in 1999. Despite
    these documented needs, the maximum amount requested by the
    Administration for the DWSRF has been $850 million and Congress has
    appropriated less than those requested levels. (the anticipated post-
    rescission appropriation for fiscal year 2006 is $832.2 million).
    Without reasonable increases--or at least maintenance of previous
    funding levels, the DWSRF will never be able to meet the SDWA
    compliance and public health protection goals for which it was
    designed.
        ASDWA, therefore, respectfully requests that the fiscal year 2007
    funding for the DWSRF program be appropriated at authorized level of $1
    billion or at least $850 million. $850 million represents a maintenance
    baseline consistent with previous year funding request levels.
        Security Responsibilities.--The fiscal year 2007 budget request
    includes $4.9 million for state drinking water programs to continue to
    expand their security activities, particularly for small and medium
    systems. While states are appreciative of the funding, once again it is
    difficult to understand why the request level is decreased from
    previous years. Given the realities exemplified by Hurricane Katrina,
    state drinking water programs are working more closely than ever with
    their water utilities to evaluate, assist, and support drinking water
    systems' preparedness and response capabilities. In addition to
    providing technical assistance, training, and support as mandated by
    the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, in recent years, states have been
    directed to focus their efforts toward smaller water systems not
    covered by the Act. These systems are much less likely to have the
    organizational or financial wherewithal to better secure either their
    physical or cyber infrastructures and rely on the states to help them
    meet their needs and identify potential funding sources (DWSRF). There
    is no dedicated fund to support or assist these smaller systems.
        ASDWA, therefore, respectfully requests that the fiscal year 2007
    funding for the state security initiatives program be appropriated at
    $6 million. This figure represents a maintenance baseline consistent
    with previous year funding request levels adjusted for the eroding
    effects of inflation since the originally appropriated level of $5
    million in fiscal year 2002.

                                   CONCLUSION

        In conclusion, ASDWA respectfully recommends that both state and
    Federal fiscal year 2007 budget needs for the provision of safe
    drinking water be adequately funded by Congress. The Subcommittee can
    meet those needs through relatively modest increases in funding over
    the Administration's requested fiscal year 2007 budget or by a
    ``budget-neutral'' reallocation of funding within the overall budget of
    the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ASDWA calls the
    Subcommittee's attention to an alternative state-recommended fiscal
    year 2007 budget developed by the Environmental Council of the States
    (ECOS) as a constructive starting point for these discussions.
        A strong drinking water program supported by the Federal-state
    partnership will ensure that the quality of drinking water in this
    country will not deteriorate and, in fact, will continue to improve--so
    that the public can be assured that a glass of water is safe to drink
    no matter where they travel or live. States are willing and committed
    partners. Additional Federal financial assistance is needed, however,
    to meet ongoing and ever growing regulatory and security needs. In
    1996, Congress provided the authority to ensure that the burden would
    not go unsupported. In 2006, ASDWA asks that the promise of that
    support be realized.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Alliance to Save Energy

                                  INTRODUCTION

        The Alliance to Save Energy, a bipartisan, nonprofit coalition of
    more than 100 business, government, environmental, and consumer
    leaders, appreciates this opportunity to submit written testimony in
    support of a $10 million increase for the Environmental Protection
    Agency's (EPA) Energy Star Program in fiscal year 2007 compared to the
    fiscal year 2006 appropriated level. The Alliance's mission is to
    promote energy efficiency worldwide to achieve a healthier economy, a
    cleaner environment, and greater energy security. The Alliance, founded
    in 1977 by Senators Charles Percy and Hubert Humphrey, currently enjoys
    the leadership of Senator Mark Pryor as Chairman; Washington Gas
    Chairman and CEO James DeGraffenreidt, Jr. as Co-Chairman; and
    Representatives Ralph Hall, Zach Wamp and Ed Markey and Senators
    Bingaman, Collins and Jeffords as its Vice-Chairs. The American Council
    for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) also supports the
    recommendations in this testimony.
        The Energy Star program is one of the most successful efforts to
    promote marketplace solutions for greater energy efficiency. The
    program works with thousands of business partners to make it easy for
    consumers to find and buy many energy-efficient products, buildings,
    and services by awarding the well-known Energy Star label and by
    providing other consumer information. The Energy Star program is an
    entirely voluntary program that reduces energy demand, lowers energy
    bills, and helps avoid pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
        Increased investment by the federal government in the Energy Star
    program will translate to increased energy savings by consumers and
    businesses across the country. The EPA estimates that every federal
    dollar spent on the Energy Star program results in an average savings
    of $75 or more in consumer energy bills; the reduction of about 3.7
    tons of carbon dioxide emissions; an investment of $15 in private
    sector capital; and the contribution of over $60 to the economy.
        In 2005 alone, Energy Star helped Americans save 28,000 Megawatts
    of peak power, enough to avoid the need for more than 50 new power
    plants. This savings is a significant amount of energy--150 billion
    kWh--representing 4 percent of total 2005 electricity demand. Working
    together with Energy Star, Americans prevented the emission of 35
    million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, which is equivalent to
    removing 23 million cars from the road. And Americans, with the help of
    Energy Star, saved $12 billion on their energy bills. As these
    statistics exemplify, the Energy Star program is helping millions of
    Americans get the energy they need, while saving money and avoiding
    pollution.

            ENERGY EFFICIENCY IS AMERICA'S GREATEST ENERGY RESOURCE

        Energy efficiency is the nation's greatest energy resource--we now
    save more energy each year from energy efficiency than we get from any
    single energy source, including oil, natural gas, coal, or nuclear
    power. The Alliance to Save Energy estimates that if we tried to run
    today's economy without the energy-efficiency improvements that have
    taken place since 1973, we would need 43 percent more energy supplies
    than we use now (43 quadrillion Btu). What's more, increasing America's
    energy efficiency is the quickest, cleanest, and cheapest way of
    meeting our energy needs. Without these enormous savings, our
    difficulties in meeting energy demand would be far, far worse than they
    are today.

                  HOW ENERGY STAR CAPITALIZES ON THIS RESOURCE

        EPA's Energy Star program has proven to be an extremely effective
    way for this nation to capitalize on the potential of energy efficiency
    as a resource. Energy Star's voluntary partnership program--which
    includes Energy Star Buildings, Energy Star Homes, Energy Star Small
    Businesses, and Energy Star Labeled Products--works by removing
    marketplace barriers to existing and emerging technologies, providing
    information on technology opportunities, generating awareness of
    energy-efficient products and services, and educating consumers about
    life-cycle energy savings.
        Energy efficiency is an investment. There is often a modest
    additional cost for purchasing more efficient, smarter technologies,
    but that additional cost and more is paid back to the consumer through
    lower energy bills. Energy Star helps consumers understand and realize
    these benefits. The label represents the ``good housekeeping seal of
    approval.'' The program sets rigorous guidelines representing high
    energy-efficiency and product quality goals that products, buildings,
    or services must meet in order to qualify for the Energy Star label.
        In 2003 the Alliance to Save Energy undertook an extensive public
    opinion survey and found that the name recognition of the Energy Star
    program is very high--86 percent among U.S. homeowners. Approximately
    one-third of U.S. consumers report using the Energy Star label as an
    information tool for making purchase decisions; and an even higher
    number report using Energy Star as an information tool to help them
    save energy. Most consumers who are aware of the Energy Star label
    correctly understand that products bearing the Energy Star label use
    less energy and can save them money on energy bills.

                       ABOUT THE ENERGY STAR PARTNERSHIPS

        Energy Star works through voluntary partnerships, and these have
    grown since the early 1990s to include thousands of businesses. These
    partnerships demonstrate that energy efficiency delivers ``pollution
    prevention at a profit.'' And the Energy Star program testifies to the
    important environmental achievements that can be made through
    cooperative partnerships between government and businesses.
        Energy Star serves broad constituencies in every state in the
    country. Energy Star currently has more than 8,000 partners who are
    committed to improving the energy efficiency of our homes, businesses
    and products. Among those partners are over 1,500 manufacturing
    partners who make and market over 35,000 different models of Energy
    Star qualifying products, and 800 retail partners representing over
    21,000 storefronts, as well as building owners and operators,
    utilities, state and local governments, and nonprofit organizations.
    Energy Star counts more than 2,500 builder partners and partners who
    supply products and services for energy-efficient home construction.
    More than 500,000 families now live in Energy Star Homes (40 percent
    more than last year)--locking in financial savings for homeowners of
    more than $110 million annually. In fact, nearly 10 percent of all
    homes built in 2005 earned the Energy Star label.
        As you may know, 2006 marks the sixth year that the Alliance has
    asked Energy Star company partners to join us in our request for a
    significant increase in funding for the program. The response in the
    past has been remarkable. Joining us in our request this year are 391
    companies and Energy Star partners and another 75 individuals.
        much has been accomplished, but huge potential remains untapped
        Although the Energy Star program has made a significant
    contribution to reducing consumer energy use, a wide array of
    important, additional opportunities to use the program to promote
    energy efficiency remain untapped. Energy Star is a success, poised to
    provide more savings and enhanced environmental protection as soon as
    the government is ready and able to invest more.
        In 2001, the President's National Energy Plan recommended that the
    Energy Star program be expanded to label more products, appliances,
    buildings, and services. Time and again, the President and the EPA
    Administrator have noted that voluntary measures are vital to
    addressing climate change and have held up Energy Star as an exemplary
    program. Yet funding for the program has declined. The fiscal year 2007
    proposed budget for Energy Star, $45.7 million, is down 9 percent from
    this year and, after inflation, is down one-fifth from fiscal year
    2002. In addition, internal funding cuts at EPA have plagued the
    program over the past several years. Even with tight budgets, the
    number of products and manufacturers in the labeling program has
    greatly expanded, and the number of partners in the Buildings, Homes,
    and Small Business programs has soared.
        But more funds are needed. Considering the sky-high energy prices
    around the country and the concerns about electricity reliability and
    pollution abatement, the Alliance believes that funding for the Energy
    Star program should be increased by at least $10 million over last
    year's appropriated level for fiscal year 2007, and should be doubled
    over the next five years. This would enable the Energy Star program to
    label additional products, update its criteria, increase consumer
    education campaigns, and--especially important--address energy-
    efficient home improvements nationwide.
        By building on the Energy Star name, we can save much more energy
    and break through additional market barriers, building homeowner trust
    in energy audit programs and whole-home retrofits, including
    insulation, duct sealing, and home envelope sealing. In addition to
    labeling products and buildings, Energy Star has begun a successful
    effort working with state and local organizations to help homeowners
    audit and upgrade the efficiency of their homes. Home Performance with
    Energy Star is growing as state and utilities look for opportunities to
    save energy and reduce peak load. More than 17,000 homes in California,
    Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York,
    Texas, and Wisconsin have been improved through this program. But much
    more needs to be done to implement similar programs across the country.
    With additional funding, the Energy Star program could develop a
    supportive infrastructure for contractors around the country, share
    information with interested state organizations, and develop marketing
    efforts in up to 10 metropolitan areas per year.

                                RECOMMENDATIONS

        EPA's Energy Star program has clearly demonstrated its importance
    in helping the United States to capitalize on its greatest energy
    ``resource''--energy efficiency. The program is delivering real
    progress toward meeting our country's environmental and energy security
    goals, while at the same time putting more money in consumers' pockets
    through reduced energy bills. More investment by the federal government
    is needed to expand the impact of this voluntary partnership between
    the government and industry.
        The Alliance to Save Energy recommends the subcommittee take the
    following actions to best leverage the proven results that stem from
    EPA's Energy Star program:
      --First, we ask that the House, Senate, and conference reports again
            specify the exact level of federal funding that is appropriated
            for the Energy Star program as in the fiscal year 2006 reports.
            Such direction to EPA is needed to assure that funding intended
            by Congress for the program is used by the agency for that
            purpose. Unfortunately, EPA has a history of imposing internal
            cuts in the program, especially in years when Congress has not
            specified Energy Star funding.
      --Second, we recommend that Congress increase funding of the Energy
            Star program by $10 million over the fiscal year 2006
            appropriated level, to $60.0 million, in order to expand the
            number of products, programs, and partners involved in the
            current program. This should be a first step to doubling the
            $50 million budget for the Energy Star program within five
            years. In particular, the added funds will allow expansion of
            the new Energy Star ``Home Performance'' component nationwide.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The Energy Star program proves that we can protect the environment
    while simultaneously saving consumers money on their energy bills and
    enhancing the economy. Energy Star provides the catalyst for many
    businesses, state and local governments, and consumers to invest in
    energy efficiency, which in turn yields multiple private and public
    benefits. It does this by providing access to information, improving
    brand recognition, and providing positive publicity.
        While there are many demands on the country's financial resources,
    Energy Star has proven tremendously cost-effective, and it returns
    important benefits to the nation. Every added federal dollar invested
    in Energy Star in fiscal year 2007 will return a significant and cost-
    effective yield in pollution reduction, economic stimulation, energy
    security, and consumer savings.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology

        The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) appreciates the
    opportunity to submit testimony on the fiscal year 2007 appropriation
    for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The ASM is the largest
    single life science organization in the world, comprised of more than
    43,000 members. ASM members are involved in research to improve human
    health and the environment and work in academic, industrial, medical,
    and governmental institutions worldwide. The ASM's mission is to
    enhance the science of microbiology, to gain a better understanding of
    life processes, and to promote the application of this knowledge for
    improved health, and for economic and environmental well-being.
        The EPA's mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the
    environment. The ASM believes that sound public policy for
    environmental protection depends on adequately funded intramural and
    extramural research programs based on scientific peer review to assure
    that support is awarded for both quality and relevant research. At
    laboratories located throughout the nation, the EPA works to assess
    environmental conditions and to identify, understand, and solve current
    and future environmental problems; integrate the work of scientific
    partners such as nations, private sector organizations, academia and
    other agencies; and provide leadership in addressing emerging
    environmental issues and in advancing the science and technology of
    risk assessment and risk management. It is essential that the EPA
    science and technology programs are adequately supported.
        The fiscal year 2007 request for the EPA's science and technology
    funding is $788 million, 8 percent above fiscal year 2006. Science and
    technology programs are important to addressing complex environmental
    problems, and the ASM urges Congress to support the Administration's
    overall request to increase funding for the EPA's science and
    technology programs by $58.5 million. The EPA depends on excellent
    research programs to evaluate risk, develop and defend protective
    standards, anticipate future health and environmental threats, and to
    identify solutions to environmental problems.

                              WATERBORNE PATHOGENS

        Although the American public enjoys safe drinking water, waterborne
    disease outbreaks caused by pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and parasites
    continue to be reported. Surface water and groundwater sources can be
    contaminated with many different types of chemical substances and
    microorganisms. Furthermore, the disinfection process itself creates a
    number of potentially toxic chemical byproducts. The EPA conducts the
    necessary research to provide a strong scientific foundation for
    standards that limit the public's exposure to drinking water
    contaminants and disinfection byproducts. This research supports major
    regulatory activities including the Microbial/Disinfection Byproduct
    Rules, and future decisions on unregulated pathogens and chemicals.
        The EPA has drinking water regulations for more than 90
    contaminants. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) includes a process for
    identifying new contaminants, which are reported in a Contaminant
    Candidate List (CCL). The first CCL was published in March 1998. The
    EPA uses this list of unregulated contaminants to prioritize research
    and data collection efforts to help determine whether a specific
    contaminant should be regulated.
        In addition to releasing the most recent CCL in February 2005, the
    EPA provided an update on its work to improve the CCL process for the
    future that is based, in part, on recommendations from the National
    Research Council and the National Drinking Water Advisory Council.
    Goals for the future include:
      --evaluate a wider range of information;
      --screen contaminants more systematically; and
      --develop a more comprehensive CCL by expanding the number of
            contaminants being reviewed for inclusion on the next CCL.
        The EPA is currently working on the third CCL and anticipates its
    draft release in 2006. The increasing numbers of contaminants and
    candidate contaminants that must be monitored and regulated require
    adequate funding. Research focuses on filling data gaps, developing
    analytical methods for measuring the occurrence of chemical and
    microbial contaminants on the CCL and developing and evaluating cost-
    effective treatment technologies for removing pathogens from water
    supplies, while at the same time minimizing microbial/disinfection by-
    product formation.
        Under the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act
    of 2000 (BEACH Act), the EPA protects the quality of the nation's
    coastal and Great Lakes region recreational water. Swimming in some
    recreational waters can pose a risk of illness as a result of exposure
    to microbial pathogens. The EPA's safety improvement strategy includes
    the general reduction of pathogen levels in recreational waters by:
      --reducing pollution from Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs);
      --addressing major sources discharging pathogens under the permit
            program; and
      --improving management of septic systems.
        The EPA is conducting research on waterborne pathogens, arsenic,
    disinfection byproducts, and other chemical contaminants to protect the
    nation. The ASM supports the Administration's request to increase
    Drinking Water and Water Quality research by $9.8 million in fiscal
    year 2007.

                               INDOOR AIR QUALITY

        Every breath we take, indoors and out, we inhale not just life-
    sustaining oxygen but dust and smoke, chemicals, microorganisms, and
    particles and pollutants that float on the air. The average human
    inhales approximately 10 cubic meters of air daily. Because most people
    spend about 22 hours each day indoors, poor indoor air quality (IAQ)
    affects both public health and national productivity. At present, a
    shortage of IAQ research leaves much unknown about cause-and-effect
    specifics, but there is little doubt that contaminated buildings are
    attracting more attention as occupants develop often vague symptoms
    followed by remediation, litigation, and other costly outcomes.
        Although IAQ issues are often viewed as a problem of modern
    buildings, connections made between air and disease date to ancient
    times. Long before the germ theory of disease and its indictment of
    pathogenic microorganisms, humans associated foul miasmas like ``sewer
    gas'' with infectious diseases such as malaria. Initially, prevention
    of disease transmission by infectious pathogens became the principal
    concern of early public health advocates. Today we understand that
    airborne non-pathogenic organisms, fragments of microbial cells, and
    by-products of microbial metabolism also cause problems. The ASM
    believes that more research is needed in this area for the safety and
    protection of human health and urges Congress not to support the
    Administration's request for a $6.4 million reduction in fiscal year
    2007 for Air Quality research at the EPA.

                             COMPUTATION TOXICOLOGY

        The EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) has initiated a
    research program on Computational Toxicology to better understand the
    relationships between sources of environmental pollutant exposure and
    adverse outcomes. Computational toxicology integrates computing and
    information technology with the technologies of molecular biology and
    chemistry and is used to improve the EPA's prioritization of data
    requirements and risk assessments for toxic chemicals. Strategic
    objectives of this program are to: (1) improve understanding of the
    linkages in the continuum between the source of a chemical in the
    environment and adverse outcomes, (2) provide predictive models for
    screening and testing and (3) improve quantitative risk assessment.
        The ASM supports the Administration's request to increase research
    funding for this program by $2.7 million in fiscal year 2007. Part of
    this increase will support a biologically based system to reduce the
    uncertainty in the prioritization and categorization of chemicals, and
    develop computational models of biological processes relevant to the
    induction of toxicity for high priority environmental contaminants. As
    a result, the Agency would be less reliant on default assumptions of
    risk assessments and able to accurately characterize the uncertainty
    associated with risk predictions.

                              STAR GRANTS PROGRAM

        The EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) manages the STAR
    grants program, which is a competitive, peer-reviewed, extramural
    research grants program intended to increase access to the nation's
    best scientists and engineers in academic and other nonprofit research
    institutions. Research sponsored by the STAR program allows the EPA to
    fill information gaps that are not addressed completely by its
    intramural research programs, and to respond to new and emerging issues
    that the agency's laboratories are not able to address.
        The EPA fiscal year 2007 budget requests $65 million for the STAR
    grants program, a 5 percent reduction from the fiscal year 2006 level,
    and 36 percent below the peak funding level of $102 million in fiscal
    year 2002. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has urged the
    continuation of and investment in the STAR program. In 2003, the NAS
    released a report titled, The Measure of STAR: Review of the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency's Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
    Research Grants Program, which argues that the STAR grants are a
    critical means for the agency to access scientific expertise that it
    does not have in-house, and to respond quickly to emerging issues.
        Since its inception in 1995, the STAR research projects have
    resulted in articles in highly respected, peer-reviewed journals, and
    have already helped to improve our understanding of the causes,
    exposures and effects of environmental pollution and microorganisms in
    the environment. The ASM urges Congress to increase funding for the
    STAR grants program to the fiscal year 2002 level of $102 million. The
    STAR program focuses on critical research areas, including the health
    effects of particulate matter, drinking water, water quality, global
    change, ecosystem assessment and restoration, human health risk
    assessment, endocrine disrupting chemicals, pollution prevention and
    new technologies, children's health, and socio-economic research.

                            STAR FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM

        As part of its STAR program, the EPA offers Graduate Fellowships
    for master's and doctoral level students in environmentally related
    fields of study. The STAR fellowship program was initiated in 1995.
    Approximately 1,100 STAR fellowships have been awarded since the
    inception of the program. The purpose of the fellowship program is to
    encourage promising students to obtain advanced degrees and pursue
    careers in an environmental field. This goal is consistent with the
    immediate and long-term mission of the EPA, to protect public health
    and the environment.
        The EPA budget requests a $3.4 million reduction to the STAR
    Fellowship Program in fiscal year 2007, or 37 percent below the fiscal
    year 2006 level. This reduction will affect approximately 37 graduate
    students pursuing degrees related to environmental sciences. The ASM
    urges Congress to restore funding for the STAR Fellowship Program. The
    STAR fellowship program has proven to be beneficial to both the public
    and private sectors by providing a steady stream of well-trained
    environmental specialists to meet environmental challenges in our
    society. It has also provided new environmental research in physical,
    biological, health sciences, and social sciences and engineering.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Well-funded research is needed to address emerging issues affecting
    the environment and human health. For the EPA to fulfill its mission to
    protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment, the ASM
    urges Congress to support the Administration's overall request for
    increased funding for the EPA's science and technology programs in
    fiscal year 2007.
        The ASM appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony
    and would be pleased to assist the Subcommittee as it considers its
    appropriation for the EPA for fiscal year 2007.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Symphony Orchestra League

        On behalf of America's orchestras, the American Symphony Orchestra
    League urges the subcommittee to approve fiscal year 2007 funding for
    the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at a level of $170 million.
    Congressional support for the NEA has strengthened in recent years,
    evidenced by meaningful incremental funding increases. Still, the NEA
    has never fully recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in fiscal year
    1996. The current fiscal year 2006 level of funding for the NEA--$124.4
    million--is well below the 1992 appropriation of $176 million.
        An increased appropriation would expand the NEA's ability to serve
    the American public through grants supporting and promoting the
    creation, preservation, and presentation of the arts in America through
    the NEA's core programs--Access to Artistic Excellence, Challenge
    America: Reaching Every Community, Learning in the Arts for Children
    and Youth, and Federal/State partnerships--and through important
    national initiatives.
        Founded in 1942, the American Symphony Orchestra League is the
    national service organization for nearly 1,000 symphony, chamber,
    youth, and collegiate orchestras, with budgets ranging from less than
    $50,000 to more than $50 million. Together with the NEA, we share a
    common goal of strengthening orchestras as organizations and promoting
    the value of the music they perform.
        As the NEA marks its 40th year, it is important to recognize the
    irreplaceable contributions federal funding makes to the creative
    capacity of the United States. The grants awarded to orchestras by the
    NEA, and support provided to orchestras through NEA funds administered
    by state arts agencies, provide critical support for projects that
    increase access to music in communities nationwide.
        A few quick facts about the state of American orchestras:
        Across America, there are 1,800 adult and youth orchestras.--
    Supported by a network of musicians, volunteers, administrators, and
    community leaders, America's adult, youth, and college orchestras exist
    in every state and territory, in cities and rural areas alike. They
    engage more than 150,000 instrumentalists, employ (with and without
    pay) more than 8,000 administrative staff, and attract more than
    475,000 volunteers and trustees.
        During the last decade, America's orchestras performed for more
    people than ever before.--American orchestras have never been in
    greater demand. In the course of a season, orchestras perform nearly
    36,000 concerts to total audiences nearing 28 million. Current
    attendance at concerts is higher than a decade ago.
        Orchestras remain artistically rich, economically challenged--and
    amazingly resilient.--Though their structure is delicately balanced,
    the economic performance of America's orchestras continues to improve.
    Three of the communities that lost orchestras during the recession of
    2002 through 2005 have already revived their orchestras or started new
    ones. Musicians and civic leaders value live symphony music so much
    that they do whatever it takes to ensure the presence of an orchestra
    in their community.
        Orchestras are an important part of the community fabric.--The
    resolve of American orchestras to reach all segments of their
    communities is strong. In the 2003-04 season, America's orchestras
    performed more than 36,000 concerts, including twice as many education
    concerts as a decade ago. Orchestras are working to increase the
    representation of their diverse communities both on stage and in the
    audience, and composer residencies are on the rise. Orchestras are
    essential and active partners in increasing access to music, improving
    the quality of life in their communities by collaborating with school
    systems and other local partners to deliver a wide array of
    performances and programs.

          NEA GRANTS UNIQUELY SUPPORT THE CREATION, PRESENTATION, AND
                            PRESERVATION OF THE ARTS

        In the most recently completed grant year, fiscal year 2005, the
    NEA's Grants to Organizations included 118 grants to orchestras and the
    communities they serve, supporting arts education for children and
    adults, expanding public access to performances, preserving great
    classical works, and fostering the creative endeavors of contemporary
    classical musicians, composers, and conductors.
        The NEA is a critical component in the network of public, private,
    corporate, and philanthropic support that makes the work of America's
    orchestras possible. Orchestras and the communities they serve benefit
    from NEA support through direct grants to organizations and
    distribution of NEA funds through state arts agencies. Concert income
    accounts for only 37 percent of orchestra revenue. The remaining
    support for orchestras is generated by a delicate balance of private
    and public support. For many orchestras, the benefit of an NEA grant
    goes far beyond the dollar-value of the award and serves to multiply
    private support by attracting additional sponsorship and recognition.
      --In fiscal year 2005, the Juneau Symphony received an NEA grant,
            funding a tour to Wrangell, Alaska through Alaska's Inside
            Passage. This is the first NEA grant the orchestra has
            received. Support from the NEA enabled the orchestra to bring
            live symphonic music to underserved communities and helped
            attract new funding sources from area businesses.
      --The Orchestra of Southern Utah received its first NEA grant to
            support the Spanish Trail Festival, a celebration of the
            Hispanic, Paiute, and Pioneer heritage of the area through
            music and native dance. The NEA grant enabled the orchestra to
            commission an original composition by Marshall McDonald, a
            nationally prominent guest artist, pianist and composer, and
            helped procure a $5,000 grant from the George S. and Dolores
            Dore Eccles Foundation.
      --NEA funding for the New Mexico Symphony Orchestra supported a
            state-wide tour to small, rural, and underserved communities in
            New Mexico, serving approximately 5,000 new audience members
            and reaching over 42,000 children through educational programs
            in partnership with local school systems and community centers.
           nea funding helps orchestras connect to their communities
        The NEA motto, ``A Great Nation Deserves Great Art'' aptly
    reinforces the key focus of the agency. While the vast majority of NEA
    funds are allocated to arts institutions, the NEA exists to serve the
    American people. Projects supported by the NEA must demonstrate
    artistic excellence and a strong capacity to reach new audiences.
    Audiences across the country are currently experiencing an NEA-funded
    project that exhibits the hallmarks of the agency: reaching new
    audiences, attracting additional financial support, and providing
    access to the arts to communities nationwide.
        An NEA grant to the Glens Falls (N.Y.) Symphony Orchestra supports
    the ``Ford Made in America'' project, a collaborative commissioning,
    performance, and outreach project that involves 65 smaller-budget
    orchestras, including at least one from each of the 50 states. In
    addition to support from the NEA, the Ford Motor Company Fund
    contributed major funding, becoming the title sponsor, and the program
    is a partnership of the American Symphony Orchestra League and Meet the
    Composer. The largest consortium commission ever planned by American
    orchestras, Ford Made in America gives ensembles in smaller communities
    the capacity to premiere a new work by Joan Tower, an established
    American composer of national repute.
        For orchestras with smaller budgets, commissioning and presenting a
    major new work by a nationally recognized composer can be difficult,
    due to budget constraints and limited staff resources. The
    collaborative nature of the Ford Made in America project provides the
    65 participating orchestras the opportunity to achieve together what no
    one of them could afford to do on their own. On the local level, Ford
    Made in America has opened up new potential funding streams for
    participating orchestras. Communities in all participating orchestras
    are enjoying the ``buzz'' that comes with being connected with the
    greater symphony community and garnering national attention by being
    part of an exciting new project.
        Joan Tower's composition titled ``Made in America'' received its
    world premiere by the Glens Falls Symphony Orchestra in October 2005,
    and will be performed in May 2006 by the Missoula Symphony Orchestra.
    The subsequent performances will take place through March 2007, making
    ``Made in America'' the most-performed work by a living American
    composer. The Ford Made in America project is more than just a
    performance of one piece, however. Each participating orchestra has
    been equipped with a ``tool kit'' which provides talking points for
    local fund raising, marketing materials, and education lesson plans
    that serve as the basis for developing distinctive community-based
    programs.
        The Ford Made in America project exemplifies the vitality of
    America's orchestras and composers, a spirit of partnership, and a
    commitment to creativity and communities. It also demonstrates the
    capacity of the NEA to identify and support efforts that encourage
    creative collaboration and build the artistic strengths of local
    communities.
        The Endowment's unique ability to provide a national forum to
    promote excellence, both through high standards for artistic products
    and the highest expectation of accessibility, remains one of the
    strongest arguments for a federal role in support of the arts. We ask
    you to support creativity and access to the arts by approving an
    increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Association of State and Territorial Solid
         Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO); National Association of
    Convenience Stores (NAGS); National Association of Truck Stop Operators
     (NATSO); National Ground Water Association (NGWA); Natural Resources
      Defense Council (NRDC); Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI); Sierra
      Club; and the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America
                                    (SIGMA)

        As you prepare to develop fiscal year 2007 appropriations
    legislation, the undersigned organizations request that you increase
    substantially the level of appropriations from the Federal Leaking
    Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund to fund fully the Federal
    underground storage tank (UST) program. Such an increase in fiscal year
    2007 appropriations will: (1) provide important assistance to the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and States in preventing
    petroleum releases from regulated USTs; (2) enable EPA and States to
    undertake remediation work at UST sites where a responsible party can
    not be found; (3) provide Federal and State UST officials with adequate
    resources to ,enforce Federal and State UST laws; and, (4) enhance the
    protection of human health and the environment.
        The Federal LUST Trust Fund provides money to States and EPA to
    operate their UST programs and to assist States in remediating releases
    when a responsible party cannot be found. In the years since its
    inception, this Fund has amassed a balance of $2.349 billion as of
    September 30, 2005. A preliminary analysis by the Treasury Department
    reports that in fiscal year 2005 the Fund received an additional $190.8
    million from the Federal LUST tax and $77.7 million from interest on
    the balance in the Fund. Yet, for the last several years Administration
    budget requests and congressional appropriations from the Fund have
    been less than the interest earned--$69.4 million in fiscal year 2005.
        These minimal annual appropriations levels have persisted for
    years, causing the balance in the Fund to rise to a point that it could
    now fund annual appropriations at current levels for the next 30
    years--without an additional dollar in income! Clearly, the LUST Trust
    Fund is being used as a Federal deficit reduction device rather than
    for the important purpose originally envisioned by Congress--protection
    of the environment. This situation must change. We have asked the
    Administration to increase its budget request for the program, and we
    are asking you to increase congressional appropriations.
        The Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained several reforms to the
    Federal UST program that expand the permitted uses of Federal LUST
    Trust Fund dollars and place substantial new responsibilities on the
    EPA and State UST agencies. The legislation authorized significant
    increases in appropriations from the Fund to assure that EPA has the
    financial resources to implement these reforms, to assure that the new
    regulatory provisions do not represent an unreasonable burden on the
    States, and to allow EPA and States to expand their response to UST
    petroleum releases, including those containing MTBE. If the
    Administration and Congress do not break with tradition and appropriate
    significantly higher amounts from the Fund in the coming years, EPA and
    the States will be unable to implement these important reforms.
        The President's proposed budget includes an additional $26 million
    in State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) dedicated to help States
    implement these important reforms, yet requests only $73 million from
    the LUST Trust Fund for overall program operations. While the
    additional STAG funds will be of great assistance to the States, they
    are insufficient to fully implement the reforms of the Energy Policy
    Act without a substantial increase in appropriations from the LUST
    Trust Fund as authorized in the Energy Policy Act.
        We understand that the Administration and Congress currently are
    facing a difficult budget situation and there are many demands on
    Federal funds. However, the Federal LUST Trust Fund must cease to be
    used as a deficit reduction tool in the budget process and its massive
    resources must be employed to fulfill Congress' intent--prevention of
    UST releases, remediation of UST releases, and enforcement of Federal
    and state UST laws.
        As you consider fiscal year 2007 spending priorities, we urge you
    to ensure this important environmental program is adequately funded and
    that the resources collected to protect the environment, prevent UST
    releases and enforce Federal and State UST laws are used to do just
    that.
        Thank you for your support for the Federal UST program and please
    let us know how we may be of assistance to you and your staffs in this
    effort.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I am
    writing in behalf of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy to present this
    testimony in support of three Land and Water Conservation Fund
    appropriations totaling $5.6 million and two Forest Legacy
    appropriations totaling $3.22 million. These projects are in Tennessee,
    Virginia, Connecticut, Vermont and Maine and if funded will lead to
    acquisitions that significantly benefit the Appalachian National Scenic
    Trail (A.T.), America's favorite long-distance hiking trail and a unit
    of the National Park System.
        The Appalachian Trail Conservancy is a volunteer-based, private
    nonprofit organization dedicated to the conservation of the 2,175-mile
    Appalachian National Scenic Trail, a 250,000-acre greenway extending
    from Maine to Georgia. Our mission is to ensure that future generations
    will enjoy the clean air and water, scenic vistas, wildlife and
    opportunities for simple recreation and renewal along the entire Trail
    corridor. Our 37,000 members come from all 50 states and last year our
    5,000 affiliated volunteers contributed more than 195,000 hours toward
    managing and maintaining the Trail and its associated facilities and
    resources.
        Cherokee National Forest ($3 million LWCF).--We are requesting $3
    million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Cherokee
    National Forest in Tennessee. This funding will support the acquisition
    of four tracts--three of them directly benefiting the Appalachian
    Trail. The most spectacular of them is the Hump Mountain tract (470
    acres for $1.175 million). This in-holding consists of vacant land,
    both open and wooded, and lies on the upper slopes of Hump Mountain and
    includes the headwaters and upper watershed of Shell Creek. This tract
    is situated in the immediate view shed of the A.T. which traverses
    along the crest of Hump Mountain at elevations exceeding 5,000 feet.
    This section of the A.T. is characterized by high altitude grassy balds
    situated along the Tennessee/North Carolina state line. Views from and
    to the property are outstanding. Currently, this tract is being
    subdivided and advertised for sale on the Internet; however, no lots
    have been sold and the landowner has indicated he would consider
    selling the tract as a whole. The Southern Appalachian Highlands
    Conservancy (SAHC), Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC), The Nature
    Conservancy (TNC) and local hiking clubs are working in cooperation
    with the Forest Service to prevent development of this tract and bring
    this tract under Forest Service ownership.
        Also in the Cherokee National Forest is the Shook Branch relocation
    tract (20 acres for $50,000). The present location of the A.T. in the
    Shook Branch area includes approximately a one-quarter-mile walk on a
    paved county road that not only diminishes A.T. values, but also
    creates a safety concern of mixing pedestrians with vehicular traffic.
    The original Trail route planned for this area has met with an
    unwilling seller. The Forest Service, in cooperation with ATC and local
    hiking clubs, has determined a better and more scenic route for the
    Appalachian Trail that can be accomplished without utilizing eminent
    domain. Two properties on the new proposed route were recently acquired
    from willing sellers and only this tract remains to complete this A.T.
    relocation.
        The final A.T. parcel in the Cherokee National Forest is the Pond
    Mountain Wilderness tract: (11 acres for $27,500). This tract is within
    1,500 feet of the Appalachian Trail and is adjacent to the federal Pond
    Mountain Wilderness area. Acquisition will allow the Forest Service to
    provide parking for foot travel access into National Forest System
    lands and will enhance several outdoor activities such as hunting,
    camping, hiking and other backcountry recreational experiences.
        George Washington and Jefferson National Forest ($1.25 million
    LWCF).--This appropriation will enable acquisition of a combination of
    fee-simple interests as well as conservation easements along a proposed
    seven-mile relocation of the Appalachian Trail adjacent to the New
    River in Giles County in Southwest Virginia. For nearly 30 years the
    final alignment of the A.T. in this area has remained unresolved due to
    challenges with trail design, land ownership, and hiker-safety issues.
    The current footpath location is on private property owned by Celanese
    Acetate, LLC and is open only at the discretion of the landowner. The
    current route parallels U.S. 460, passes by a large chemical plant,
    provides minimal recreational or scenic values, and poses a barrier to
    certain Celanese land uses. The largest portion of the requested
    funding will be to purchase fee interest in approximately 400 acres
    from Celanese. Seven scenic easements will be acquired from additional
    landowners amounting to approximately an additional 25 acres.
        Through the collaborative efforts of the USDA Forest Service and
    the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, in negotiation with the managers of
    the Celanese Acetate, LLC Chemical Plant and the local community and
    government, a new alternative route was identified on the Celanese
    property that provides a scenic and safe route from the New River to
    the summit of Peters Mountain. The new route alleviates impacts to
    adjacent private landowners. This is a route that is receiving wide
    public support. The completed trail will provide the local community
    with an outstanding recreational opportunity, as this area of
    Southwestern Virginia seeks to capitalize on outdoor recreation dollars
    for economic growth.
        The proposed new route crosses the New River and U.S. 460 and
    immediately enters the woods. The terrain and topography will shield
    the Trail from the audible and visual impacts of the chemical plant and
    the highway. The trail will follow the New River for one mile before
    ascending a ridgeline onto Hemlock Ridge through terrain that provides
    a more remote experience and minimizes conflicts with Celanese
    operations. As it continues and ascends Peters Mountain, it affords
    spectacular vistas of the surrounding terrain.
        Skiff Mountain Forest Legacy ($1.22 million Legacy).-- This Forest
    Legacy funding will allow the State of Connecticut to acquire an
    easement on 510 acres of working forest in the towns of Kent and Sharon
    in the northwest corner. The Skiff Mountain project is being
    spearheaded by the Trust for Public Land and the State of Connecticut
    and if funded will implement the second and final phase of this
    project. Given the level of development and the relative lack of open
    space in a small urban state like Connecticut this presents a unique
    opportunity to conserve a large piece of working forest. These lands
    contain the headwaters of several tributary streams to the Housatonic
    River and also harbor important wildlife habitat. Of importance to the
    Appalachian Trail, these parcels provide significant viewshed
    protection and buffer the Trail from development. These lands also
    contain the upstream area for several brooks that are used as water
    sources by hikers. Keeping these lands from being developed will
    sustain the rural economy by providing a long term source of forest
    products in a region that frequently is seeing large parcels subdivided
    for second home development.
        Broad Brook Property--Green Mountain National Forest ($1.1 million
    LWCF).--The Broad Brook Property is an important addition to the Green
    Mountain National Forest along the Massachusetts border. Available for
    acquisition in fiscal year 2007 are the final 970 acres of the 3,921-
    acre Broad Brook watershed property. For many years, the city of North
    Adams, Massachusetts, which owns this parcel, used the Broad Brook
    watershed as a source of drinking water for city residents. However,
    several years ago the city ceased depending on Broad Brook for its
    water and is now interested in selling the property. The State of
    Vermont has mapped this parcel as being entirely within black bear
    production habitat capable of supporting high densities of cub
    producing females. On the property there can be found a large and
    healthy population of the state threatened Large Whorled Pogonia
    (Isotria verticillata), and close to 7 miles of pristine headwaters
    streams. A portion of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, which in
    this part of Vermont coincides with the Long Trail, passes across the
    Broad Brook property. The current A.T. protection is a narrow easement
    and this acquisition would bring the level of A.T. protection up to an
    adequate standard. Putting the trail in the midst of a larger protected
    landscape is the surest way to retain the wild and scenic experience
    that hikers currently enjoy elsewhere in southern Vermont.
        Grafton Notch Forest Legacy: Maine ($2 million Legacy).--The
    Grafton Notch parcel is part of the Mahoosuc Range, an important
    mountain landscape that is seeing intense development pressure around
    the resort community of Bethel, Maine. This project is ranked #1 on the
    President's Forest Legacy list and the funding would provide an
    opportunity for the State of Maine to acquire a 3,688-acre parcel. This
    parcel contains spectacular views both to and from the Appalachian
    Trail. It also contains a section of the Grafton Loop Trail, a side
    trail to the Appalachian Trail. This new trail is designed to take
    pressure off of the heavily visited section of the A.T. in the Mahoosuc
    Range. The Grafton Notch parcel is surrounded on three sides by state
    land and is part of an important mountain ecosystem that is one of only
    three places in Maine where peaks rise above 4,000 feet. If it is not
    purchased by the state, the parcel is vulnerable to development since
    it is in the same valley as the Sunday River Ski Area, a destination
    resort that has been spawning very large subdivisions at a rate that
    has caused concern in the local community.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of Land and Water Conservation Fund and Forest
    Legacy appropriations.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of Audubon Connecticut

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of
    the Audubon Connecticut, I appreciate the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of a $2 million appropriation from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund for land acquisition within the Salmon River
    Division of the Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge in
    Connecticut, as part of an overall $4 million request for funding for
    refuge projects in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and New
    Hampshire.
        Audubon Connecticut, the state organization of the National Audubon
    Society with more than 10,000 members statewide, works to further the
    protection of birds, other wildlife and their habitats using education,
    science and conservation, and legislative advocacy for the benefit of
    humanity and the earth's biological diversity.
        In 1991, the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge
    (NFWR) Act directed USFWS to study the entire Connecticut River
    watershed, from Vermont and New Hampshire, through Massachusetts to
    Connecticut, and create a national fish and wildlife refuge. The Conte
    NFWR is no ordinary refuge. The Connecticut River watershed, 7.2
    million acres in four states, is larger and more populous than areas
    usually considered for a refuge. The purposes of the Conte Refuge are
    also much broader, it is one of the few fish and wildlife refuges, and
    protecting natural diversity is a new scientific and social challenge.
    There are several announced, identified and potential IBAs within the
    boundaries of the Refuge. The two current acquisition opportunities are
    located at the Salmon River Division in Connecticut and the Fort River
    Division in Massachusetts.
        The northern third of the watershed located in Vermont and New
    Hampshire is part of the ``Northern Forest'' which is largely privately
    owned industrial forest stretching from the Adirondacks to the coast of
    Maine. Large blocks of this land have been sold in unprecedented
    quantities recently as the timber industry relocates some of its
    financial assets. Important bottomland forest, flood plain wetlands,
    and a variety of grassland areas are generally located along the middle
    third of the Connecticut River in western Massachusetts and northern
    Connecticut. The mouth of the river, located in southern Connecticut,
    contains internationally significant fresh, brackish and saltwater
    tidally influenced wetlands. The Refuge emphasizes protecting Federal
    trust species--migratory birds, migratory fish, federally endangered or
    threatened species, and rare and exemplary natural communities.
        Forty-eight ``Special Focus Areas'' encompassing roughly 180,000
    acres have been identified within the watershed. These areas contribute
    substantially or in unique ways to supporting natural diversity in the
    watershed. There are two recognized IBAs and seven identified IBAs
    within the Refuge Special Focus areas in Connecticut; there are 14 in
    Massachusetts, four in Vermont, and one in New Hampshire.
        In Connecticut, the Salmon River is recognized by U.S. Fish &
    Wildlife Service (USFWS) as a high-priority Special Focus Area. Salmon
    River Division is comprised of a range of important natural features,
    including free-flowing rivers, thriving freshwater tidal marshes,
    forested watersheds, floodplain forests, and rare plants and animals.
        The Elm Camp Johnson property proposed for acquisition in 2007
    would be the first acquisition in this division and is a keystone
    property containing these features:
      --3,360 feet of frontage on Pine Brook, a high-quality stream that
            provides remarkable cold-water fish habitat
      --1,440 feet on the west bank of the Salmon River, site of extensive
            state and federal efforts to restore anadromous fish runs,
            including the Atlantic salmon
      --Pine Brook is the only major Salmon tributary free of artificial
            barriers to migratory fish
        I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $4
    million for the Silvio O. Conte NWR in fiscal year 2007 in the Interior
    and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, allocated to projects in the
    four states included in the Refuge, with $2 million for the Elm Camp
    Johnson parcel in Connecticut, and an additional $2 million for land
    acquisition projects in Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire in the
    Fort River Division, Pondicherry, and Mohawk River Divisions.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of Audubon Connecticut

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of
    Audubon Connecticut, I appreciate the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of a $1 million appropriation from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund for land acquisition within the Stewart B.
    McKinney National Wildlife Refuge.
        Audubon Connecticut, the state organization of the National Audubon
    Society with more than 10,000 members statewide, works to further the
    protection of birds, other wildlife and their habitats using education,
    science and conservation, and legislative advocacy for the benefit of
    humanity and the earth's biological diversity.
        The Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge, named to honor
    the late U.S. congressman who was instrumental in its creation, was
    established to protect migratory bird habitat considered important to
    wading and shorebird species including heron, egrets, terns, plovers
    and oystercatchers among others. Stewart B. McKinney NWR is currently
    comprised of eight units stretching along 60 miles of Connecticut's
    coastline. In addition to the increase in habitat protection over the
    years, the refuge now provides opportunities for scientific research,
    environmental education, and fish and wildlife-oriented recreation.
    Located in the Atlantic Flyway, the refuge provides important resting,
    feeding, and nesting habitat for many species of wading birds,
    shorebirds, songbirds and terns, including the endangered roseate tern.
    Adjacent waters serve as wintering habitat for brant, scoters, American
    black duck and other waterfowl. Overall, the refuge encompasses over
    800 acres of barrier beach, tidal wetland and fragile island habitats.
        Available for refuge acquisition in fiscal year 2007 is the 22-acre
    Menunketesuck Salt Meadow Marsh in Westbrook, Connecticut. The property
    is comprised of pristine coastal tidal marsh, a forested upland,
    scrubland, and a rock outcropping that towers above 1,000 feet of
    frontage along the gentle Menunketesuck River as it winds its way to
    Long Island Sound. As a migratory stopover for neo-tropical migrant
    land birds, this riparian area is the top priority for acquisition for
    the refuge. It has been identified as an Important Bird Area by Audubon
    Connecticut because of its high value avian habitat.
        Acquisition of the marsh property will enhance the resources of the
    current Salt Meadow Unit of the refuge, as it contains part of the
    least developed upland borders of any remaining tidal marsh in all of
    Connecticut. As much of the state's coastline has been built upon, it
    is rare to find such a large undeveloped marsh area in Connecticut.
    Under imminent threat of development into condominiums, this parcel
    must be acquired by the Refuge if it is to continue to serve as an
    island of forested habitat land on an otherwise highly developed
    coastline.
        In order to acquire the Menunketesuck Salt Meadow Marsh property,
    an appropriation of $1 million is needed from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2007. This priority acquisition will
    increase wildlife habitat protection at the Stewart B. McKinney NWR and
    ensure the public continued opportunities for recreation and
    environmental education along Connecticut's coastline.
        I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $1
    million for the Stewart B. McKinney NWR in the fiscal year 2007
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Arizona Wilderness Coalition

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $5.5 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    for purchase of the Packard Ranch for the Coconino National Forest in
    Arizona.
        The canyons, deserts, and forests of the Coconino National Forest
    are a tremendous natural resource for residents and visitors in central
    Arizona. Millions of visitors are drawn annually to the forest to camp,
    fish, picnic, ride horses, and enjoy winter sports.
        This year, the Forest Service has the opportunity to acquire the
    139-acre Packard Ranch property. Located upstream from the towns of
    Clarkdale and Cottonwood, the riparian areas along the Verde River and
    Sycamore Creek on the property provide critical habitat for threatened
    and endangered species including bald eagles, razorback suckers, and
    spikedace. The parcel is adjacent to the Sycamore Creek Wilderness, an
    area that protects the scenic red rock Sycamore Canyon.
        Packard Ranch includes an important trailhead providing access to
    the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness. Both the Parson's and Packard hiking
    trails are entered exclusively from this property. Although the public
    has traditionally been permitted to use this trailhead, there is no
    permanent guarantee of access.
        Properties with riparian frontage in Arizona are at a premium for
    development, and without permanent protection, it is predictable that
    Packard Ranch would be developed. If this were to happen, the character
    of the landscape could change dramatically, and the public could lose
    access to the trails and wilderness area.
        With its strategic location within the Coconino National Forest,
    the acquisition of the Packard Ranch property in fiscal year 2007 will
    protect vital habitat, ensure continued public access to trails, and
    preserve the unique scenic vistas of Sycamore Canyon. Acquiring this
    property from the currently willing seller should be provided the
    highest level of priority. An appropriation of $5.5 million is needed
    from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to ensure that this land will
    be protected in perpetuity.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of the acquisition of Packard Ranch for the
    Coconino National Forest.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of American Rivers, Association of State and
     Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, Interstate Council
      on Water Policy, Association of American State Geologists, Western
     States Water Council, American Institute of Hydrology, Environmental
       Defense, American Society of Civil Engineers, Water Environmental
       Federation, Federation of Flyfishers, American Canoe Association,
    Association of State Flood Plain Managers, Trout Unlimited, Association
     of State Dam Safety Officials, National Water Resources Association,
     the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies,
    American Whitewater, and International Association of Fish and Wildlife
                                    Agencies

        We seek your help to increase funding in the federal fiscal year
    2007 budget sufficient to restore the U.S. Geological Survey's
    Cooperative Water Program (CWP) and National Streamflow Information
    Program (NSIP) to at least fiscal year 2003 levels of capability.
    Restoring this capacity requires an appropriation of at least $74
    million for the CWP (rather than the $62.171 million in the President's
    request) and $16.764 million for the NSIP (as requested by the
    President).
        Many of our members are active, financial partners in the
    Cooperative Water Program. All of us rely on the streamflow data
    collected and disseminated by these two important programs.
        Together, these two programs comprise a critical national system of
    water resource monitoring. The USGS operates and maintains these
    networks with extensive cooperation from state agencies, interstate
    organizations, tribal and local governments and many non-governmental
    organizations.
        The Nation's need for accurate streamflow data continues to
    increase along with our population. This information is used by
    federal, state, tribal, and local government agencies, by public
    utilities, private businesses, non-profit organizations and
    individuals, on a regular basis to forecast flooding and drought
    events, to plan and protect water supplies for agricultural, municipal,
    and industrial uses, to design bridges, manage hydropower production,
    schedule recreation activities, evaluate dam safety and to integrate
    ecological protection of wetlands, fish and wildlife management and for
    endangered species conservation with our other priorities.
        Although these data collection and science programs benefit so many
    interests, their funding has been allowed to erode to the point that
    the quantity and quality of the basic data are threatened, with
    significant adverse consequences to a growing and diverse number of
    decision makers and stakeholders. Years of inadequate federal funding
    threatens the availability of critical data regarding stream flows,
    lake levels, groundwater levels and water quality, which are the basis
    for many essential public and private decisions. The President's
    request for the CWP will continue a pattern of steady erosion of
    federal support and the elimination or obsolescence of many long-term
    gages, undermining our planning, design, forecasting and emergency
    warning capabilities.
        In 1998, Congress' concern about streamgaging led the USGS to
    create the National Streamflow Information Program. Unlike the
    Cooperative Water Program (which is funded in large part by non-federal
    Cooperators), Congress determined that the NSIP should be funded
    entirely with federal appropriations. In November 2004, the National
    Research Council's Committee on Water Resources Research completed its
    assessment of the USGS plans for the NSIP: ``Overall, the Committee
    concludes that the National Streamflow Information Program is a sound,
    well-conceived program that meets the nation's needs for streamflow
    measurement, interpretation, and information delivery.''
        The NSIP has been severely under funded and we urge your support
    for the President's request to increase its appropriation to $16.764
    million for fiscal year 2007 in order to restore program capability to
    its fiscal year 2003 level. The NSIP is currently able to fund less
    than 15 percent of the gages listed in the plan approved by the
    National Research Council. In future years, another $100 million will
    be needed to reactivate and add streamgages, upgrade the system, and
    realize the full vision of the NSIP. A fully funded NSIP averts the
    loss of long-term gages that are critical for analysis of trends,
    floods, and water supply. A strong federal investment in the NSIP is
    needed to reverse the current trend of annually shutting down
    streamgages that provide the basis for flood warnings and info for
    water resource management.
        The President's request for the Cooperative Water Program in fiscal
    year 2007 ($62.171 million) represents a cut of $2 million and will
    exacerbate the decline in CWP capability. For over 100 years, the CWP
    has been maintained as a federal/non-federal partnership, funded
    through 50/50 percent cost-share agreements. Today, roughly 70 percent
    of the funding is from non-USGS sources.
        For fiscal year 2007, we ask that you appropriate at least $74
    million for the Cooperative Water Program to restore its ability to its
    fiscal year 2003 level, as we urged in our August 12, 2005 letter to
    Interior Secretary Norton and OMB Associate Director Anderson. This
    amount is still well below the $138 million contributed by Cooperators
    annually since fiscal year 2004. We will continue asking Interior, OMB
    and the President to increase their annual requests to match the
    Cooperators' level of support over the next few years. In the meantime,
    we seek your help.
        Our recent experience with the prediction of catastrophic storms
    and the design of adequate safeguards proves that timely and accurate
    information needed for water resources management has never been more
    important.
        We urge you to give a higher priority to these vital programs in
    fiscal year 2007 and then increase future appropriations until the
    Cooperators' matching contributions are fully met and the nation's
    water monitoring system is fully stabilized. In this regard, the
    funding levels we are requesting should be viewed as the minimum needed
    to maintain existing capabilities, while even greater funding would
    hasten the restoration and completion of a National Streamgaging System
    that we depend on in making water supply and emergency management
    decisions.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Awwa Research Foundation (AwwaRF)

        Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of
    AwwaRF. We request the consideration of the Subcommittee for $5 million
    in funding from the EPA Science and Technology account of your fiscal
    year 2007 bill.
        Providing safe, secure, and affordable drinking water to the
    American public is a national priority and compliance with federally
    mandated drinking water regulations is an essential part of this
    process. AwwaRF, acting in its capacity as the research arm of the
    North American water supply community, supplies much of the sound
    science and knowledge that utilities depend upon to meet EPA
    regulations. We believe that the Foundation offers a successful model
    for how to fund this crucial research in today's challenging budgetary
    climate.
        AwwaRF generates $12 million each year in cash from our nearly
    1,000 participating utilities in the research subscription program.
    This funding is produced when utilities invest $2.10 per million
    gallons of delivered water out of their rate base with the Foundation.
    We generate a further $13 million each year through research
    partnerships and researcher in-kind contributions. Very simply, when
    the Congress provides $5 million in EPA Science and Technology funding
    for AwwaRF, it is instantly matched by $12 million from the
    subscription program. When partnerships and in-kind are factored in,
    every $1 in Congressional funding is matched by $5 from AwwaRF and the
    water supply community. We are proud of our demonstrated ability, year
    after year, to turn $5 million in Congressional funding into a $30
    million drinking water research program. This achievement is made
    possible by the funds generated by local utility customers through
    their water bill and by the investment of the Congress.
        Over the past 20 years, this approach has produced an AwwaRF
    investment in drinking water research of over $370 million, including
    $53 million in Congressional funding. This translates into 710
    completed and 323 ongoing projects. These projects have been conducted
    by researchers in leading universities, water utilities, and consulting
    engineering firms from throughout the world. The results are providing
    answers and tools for a host of challenges to the delivery of safe
    drinking water including improved methods for removing arsenic and
    perchlorate from water, desalinating brackish groundwater and ocean
    water, and protecting against waterborne pathogens such as
    cryptosporidium, to name only a few. The breadth of AwwaRF supported
    and managed research is so broad that it impacts water agencies in
    every region of the country and of every size from rural water systems
    to the largest cities.
        We appreciate the consideration of the Interior Appropriations
    Committee, including your $1 million in fiscal year 2006 funding. This
    however represents an 80 percent decrease from the $5 million in
    funding that was provided to AwwaRF from fiscal year 2002 through
    fiscal year 2005. The Foundation makes no claim whatsoever to assured
    funding each year from the Congress. We instead base our requests upon
    our proven track-record of delivering relevant and highly creditable
    drinking water research to the water supply and regulatory communities.
    The $5 million in EPA funding provided by the Congress had been
    leveraged into a $30 million a year ongoing research program. This will
    be impossible to sustain given the $4 million cut in fiscal year 2006
    funding and despite the fact that water utilities have continued their
    investment in the research subscription program at the same $12 million
    annual level. If these reductions continue in fiscal year 2007, AwwaRF
    will be obliged to shrink its staff and to further cut back on drinking
    water research, including our ability to create research partnerships
    to further leverage our funding.
        Although AwwaRF's $30 million annual program is largely directed
    towards providing water utilities with the tools they need to comply
    with federal regulations, 80 percent or $25 million of this amount is
    paid for with local dollars. We trust that very few requests come
    before the Committee where such a modest funding request affects as
    many people as AwwaRF and its drinking water research program. We
    further trust that few requests feature a local match of five to one.
    If Congress withdraws its support of AwwaRF and drinking water
    research, we do not believe that federal regulations or the challenges
    they entail will go away as well. We therefore respectfully submit that
    it is good policy for the Congress to continue to help water utilities
    to secure the research they need by continuing the AwwaRF/Congressional
    research partnership at its current 80/20 match.
        We note that the Administration has requested a $4 million increase
    in fiscal year 2007 drinking water research located in the EPA S&T
    account. We respectfully request that the Committee re-invest this $4
    million with AwwaRF, along with the $1 million in fiscal year 2006
    funding that you provided. This would create the $5 million in funding
    that we are seeking and, more importantly, it would provide for the
    continued operation of AwwaRF and the research subscription program at
    its current level. This means that water utilities will continue to
    have the knowledge and the tools they need to deliver safe drinking
    water to the American public.
        Thank you again for your past support and for your consideration of
    our fiscal year 2007 request.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Bethel Area Chamber of Commerce, Bethel,
                                     Maine

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to present testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $2 million from the Forest Legacy Program for the
    Grafton Notch property in Maine. Grafton Notch is Maine's highest
    priority Forest Legacy project.
        The 3,688-acre Grafton Notch property offers plentiful
    opportunities for recreation, sustainable forestry, and protection of
    diverse forest and riparian habitats. It is surrounded on three sides
    by Maine public reserve lands and Grafton Notch State Park, a very
    popular tourist destination, and is adjacent to Mahoosuc Notch, one of
    the most rugged sections of the federally protected Appalachian
    National Scenic Trail. The parcel is also in the viewshed from the
    Trail, both from Mahoosuc Notch and from the Baldpate Mountain section.
    Given its location, the property is a prime site for public
    recreational use, and upon purchase by the state, would be added to the
    27,253-acre Mahoosuc Unit.
        A snowmobile trail that provides a critical link to a Maine-New
    Hampshire trail network runs through the property along the Bear River.
    In addition, this property's public protection is critical to the
    completion of the 42-mile Grafton Loop Trail, a newly-constructed AT
    spur that runs from East Baldpate Mountain across several peaks before
    ascending the southeast slopes of Old Speck and reconnecting to the AT.
    Protection of the Grafton Notch property would ensure that these
    recreational opportunities will continue to be available to the public
    and will also help alleviate overcrowding by providing significant
    backcountry recreation alternatives.
        The Grafton Notch property contains the southeast slopes of Old
    Speck Mountain and the northwest slopes of Sunday River Whitecap. There
    are numerous waterfalls on the site as well as several tributaries that
    drain into the Bear River and the Sunday River, both of which
    contribute to the Androscoggin River.
        The mountainous terrain supports a variety of plant communities in
    the transition between forested slopes and alpine summits. Up to 80
    percent of the property is available as a timber resource and will be
    managed by the state using sustainable harvesting procedures.
        With its proximity to scenic, natural, and recreational resources,
    the forested resources found on the Grafton Notch property are
    seriously threatened with fragmentation. The property is only 10 miles
    from the Sunday River Ski Area, Maine's largest ski resort, and is
    immediately adjacent to Route 26, which leads into the growing town of
    Bethel. A second-home subdivision was recently approved across Route 26
    on the slopes of Puzzle Mountain, and in nearby Andover, a 5,500-acre
    timber lot was carved into 500 acre homesites.
        With an appropriation of $2 million from the Forest Legacy Program
    in fiscal year 2007, the Grafton Notch property would be permanently
    protected, ensuring a host of public benefits for future generations.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present testimony
    in support of the Grafton Notch Forest Legacy project.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Black Bear Conservation Committee

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate
    the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $1.75 million
    appropriation to the Fish and Wildlife Service from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF) for the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge.
        The Black Bear Conservation Committee (BBCC) is a regional non-
    profit conservation organization whose mission is to restore the
    federally listed Louisiana black bear to suitable habitat in its
    historic range in Louisiana, Mississippi, southern Arkansas, and east
    Texas. The recovery efforts associated with the Louisiana bear are
    considered to be as progressive as any restoration effort in the nation
    because of the broad base of support from landowners, timber companies,
    agricultural interests and other stakeholders in the region. Habitat
    restoration and protection are key components to the success of the
    recovery objective.
        The Tensas River NWR has an immediate opportunity to further its
    black bear recovery program and ensure the permanent protection of
    critical bottomland hardwood forestlands by completing the final phase
    of the 11,033-acre Chicago Mill tract. At present, the Tensas NWR
    exists as two separate units. With the acquisition of the Chicago Mill
    property, these two units will be bridged, thus providing a protected
    wildlife corridor for the refuge species, most notably the Louisiana
    black bear. Located in Madison Parish, near the town of Tallulah, this
    property was initially used for forestry purposes and then primarily as
    an agricultural tract for many years. Conservation offers the US Fish
    and Wildlife Service an outstanding opportunity to create additional
    habitat by restoring bottomland hardwoods to the site.
        The Chicago Mill acquisition is both innovative and highly
    leveraged, using almost $4 million of private carbon sequestration
    funds to offset what otherwise would be costs incurred by the USFWS.
    Thus far, over 8,200 acres have been conserved, using previously
    Congressionally appropriated funds, an allocation from the Migratory
    Bird Conservation Fund, and carbon sequestration funds from the Entergy
    Corporation. To further the recovery efforts for the Louisiana black
    bear, over one-half million trees have already been replanted on over
    1,900 acres of these lands. Additionally, Entergy Corporation has
    donated substantial management funding to the refuge as part of the
    this conservation deal.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 is the final of four
    phases of the Chicago Mill acquisition. An appropriation of $1.75
    million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2007
    is needed to purchase the final 2,723 acres of the Chicago Mill tract.
    This funding will provide connectivity among refuge-protected habitat
    lands, safeguard important wildlife habitat, and allow restoration
    activities to proceed at the Tensas River NWR.
        I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $1.75
    million for the Tensas River NWR in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and
    Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
        Thank you for your attention to this request.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Biomass Energy Research Association

        This testimony pertains to the Biomass Energy Research
    Association's (BERA) recommendations for fiscal year 2007 in support of
    appropriations for the USDA's Forest Service (USDAFS) to support
    bioenergy-related R&D under the President's Healthy Forest Initiative
    and through the USDAFS Forest Products Laboratory. Both activities are
    conducted under the auspices of the Natural Resources and Environment
    program of the U.S.D.A. BERA recommends that $56,000,000 be
    appropriated for these efforts in fiscal year 2007. A separate
    statement has been prepared for submission on other biomass energy RD&D
    performed by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) under the Energy and Water
    Development Bill. Specific line items for the USDAFS budget are as
    follows:
      --$35,000,000 under the President's Healthy Forest Initiative for the
            reduction of hazardous fuels via removal of forest thinnings,
            waste and underbrush.
      --$5,000,000 to continue the Biobased Products and Bioenergy Research
            (BPBR) program of the USDAFS Forest Products Laboratory.
      --$1,000,000 to collect and consolidate the results of two decades of
            R&D conducted at the DOE on utilization of forestry energy
            sources.
      --$5,000,000 to develop and implement an integrated R&D plan for
            forestry-derived bioenergy.
      --$10,000,000 for industry cost-shared energy plantation
            demonstration projects

                                   BACKGROUND

        On behalf of BERA's members, we would like to thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, for the opportunity to present the recommendations of BERA's
    Board of Directors for the high-priority programs that we strongly urge
    be continued or started. BERA is a non-profit association based in the
    Washington, DC area. It was founded in 1982 by researchers and private
    organizations conducting biomass research. Our objectives are to
    promote education and research on the economic production of energy and
    fuels from freshly harvested and waste biomass, and to serve as a
    source of information on biomass RD&D policies and programs. BERA does
    not solicit or accept federal funding for its efforts.
        There is a growing realization in our country that we need to
    diversify our energy resources and reduce reliance on foreign oil.
    Economic growth is fueling increasing energy demand and placing
    considerable pressure on our already burdened energy supplies and
    environment. The import of oil and other fuels into the United States
    is growing steadily and shows no sign of abating. Industry and
    consumers both are being faced with rapidly rising costs for petroleum
    and natural gas, which are vital to our economy. A diversified energy
    supply will be critical to meeting the energy challenges of the future
    and maintaining a healthy economy with a competitive edge in global
    markets. The recently announced Biofuels Initiative at the DOE provides
    funding to support the use of cellulosic biomass as a feedstock for
    ethanol, including wood and forestry resources, with the potential to
    replace as much as 30 percent of domestic gasoline demand in 2030. We
    support this Initiative and believe it will help to accelerate the use
    of this important energy resource.
        Forest biomass energy plantations that provide feedstocks for
    forest biorefineries producing paper products as well as fuels and
    biopower could make an important contribution to our energy supply
    while providing a boost for rural economies and reducing wildland
    forest fires. In addition, wood can be used instead of petroleum and
    natural gas to produce many high-value products such as plastics and
    chemicals. However, targeted research is needed to make this a reality.

                BERA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USDA FOREST SERVICE R&D

        The Bioenergy/Bioproducts Initiative, which was created as a result
    of ``The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000,'' and Title IX
    of the Farm Bill, sought to triple U.S. usage of bioenergy and biobased
    products. A strategic plan was developed to reach this goal by the
    multi-agency Biomass Research and Development Board (BRDB) co-chaired
    by the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Agriculture. To meet
    goals for bioenergy and biobased products, substantial increases in
    biomass energy and fuel consumption are clearly needed. BERA's
    recommendations support several key areas that will contribute to the
    goals of sustainable forestry as well as the creation of viable
    renewable resources as part of a diversified energy supply. Specific
    programs are recommended as follows.

    Recommendation 1: Support the President's Healthy Forest Initiative:
            Reduction in Hazardous Fuels via Forest Waste Recovery for Fuel
            and Feedstocks
        Large, repetitive, wide-spread losses have occurred in the Nation's
    forests over the last several years because of wild fires. Such fires
    are supported by the accumulation of dense undergrowth and brush
    coupled with poor forest management practices, insect infestation and
    disease that increase the number of dead trees, and other factors. As a
    result, loss and injury to fire fighters and others, large property,
    financial, and esthetic losses, and environmental harm have occurred in
    commercial as well as private and federally owned forests. BERA
    believes that this problem can be optimally addressed by conducting a
    targeted RD&D program to develop economic, practical methods for
    collection and removal of forest wastes, underbrush, and small-diameter
    tree thinnings, for the purpose of using them as energy resources.
    Forest wastes could be combined with large-scale forest biomass energy
    plantations to provide fuel and feedstocks for forest biorefineries
    producing fuels and high-valued products. Funding should be provided to
    start an RD&D program in this area as soon as possible. This is
    essential to the long-term sustainability of the forest and biomass
    energy industries in North America and to help reduce and displace
    fossil fuel consumption.

    Recommendation 2: Continue to Conduct Wood-based Feedstock Research at
            the USDAFS Forest Products Laboratory
        Critical research to develop, plant, grow, and manage energy crops,
    particularly forest biomass, for conversion to cost-competitive energy
    and fuels, was once conducted by the DOE but has since been terminated.
    DOE's position is that other agencies (USDA) are better suited to
    handle this research. While DOE's feedstock production program has made
    significant research contributions over the last 25 years, BERA
    strongly endorses the idea that the USDA should assume responsibility
    for this program. The USDA has a long history in biomass production and
    is recognized worldwide for its accomplishments in developing advanced
    agricultural and forest biomass production methods. According to a
    recent study (Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts
    Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply,
    DOE/USDA April 2005), woody feedstocks can make a substantial
    contribution (368 million dry tons per year) and are an essential
    component of a large-scale industry producing affordable biomass
    energy, fuels, and chemicals. BERA strongly recommends that RD&D on
    woody biomass production for dedicated energy and feedstock uses be
    continued by the USDAFS Forest Products Laboratory Biobased Products
    and Bioenergy Program(BPBR) under the Interior and Related Agencies
    Bill. This program is developing new and more economical technologies
    for the production, management, harvest, and utilization of woody
    materials for energy and high-value products. The research is a natural
    complement to the forest waste recovery R&D that BERA recommends be
    added to its overall program.

    Recommendation 3: Collect/Consolidate DOE's Research and Field Results
        DOE has conducted an extensive forest biomass production program
    from the 1970's up to 1992. This research included laboratory and field
    projects performed by academe, national laboratories, research
    institutes, and the private sector. The program emphasized the
    development and selection of special species, hybrids, and clones of
    trees, and advanced growth, management, and harvesting procedures for
    dedicated energy crops. Research on short-rotation tree growth and the
    screening of tree species in small-scale test plots was carried out in
    several areas of the country. Depending on the geographic location,
    woody species recommended as energy feedstocks from the test-plot
    results included hybrid poplars, willow, eucalyptus, black locust, and
    others. In collaboration with DOE, BERA recommends that the results of
    these efforts be collected and consolidated with those of the USDAFS
    efforts on woody biomass production. A plan should also be developed
    for preserving the large amount of improved woody crop clonal materials
    produced both by the USDAFS and the university collaborators of DOE.

    Recommendation 4: Develop an Optimized RD&D Plan
        BERA recommends that the USDAFS produce a 10-year, strategic RD&D
    plan that continues the research necessary to obtain the data and
    information needed for optimization of methods for recovering and
    removing waste biomass and small-diameter thinnings from forests and
    the testing of their efficacy on preventing forest fires, to design
    forest plantations for different regions of North America, including
    environmental impacts, and to integrate fire prevention methods with
    forest biomass production. The management, growth, harvesting, storage,
    and transport to hypothetical processing plants of both the waste and
    virgin biomass should be included in this work. The resulting system
    designs should lead to industry cost-shared field projects to
    demonstrate medium-scale, sustainable, forest biomass production and
    the removal of residuals in several geographic locations.
        Considerable progress has been made on the efficient production of
    short-rotation woody crop and multi-crop systems. In addition, research
    on tissue culture techniques and the application of genetic engineering
    methods to low-cost energy crop production have shown promise. This
    research should continue to be an important part of the R&D plan going
    forward.

    Recommendation 5: Support Industry Cost-shared Plantation Projects
        BERA recommends that industry cost-shared, scale-up projects of at
    least 1,000 acres in size be installed and operated in different
    regions of the country as a forerunner to commercial energy plantations
    in which dedicated energy crops are grown and harvested for use as
    biomass resources. The results of this work will provide sufficient
    operating and capital cost data to afford second generation economic
    data for larger modular systems and to perfect the design of
    sustainable energy plantations. The scale-up projects should be
    strategically located and should utilize the advanced woody biomass
    production methods developed in the research programs. Successful
    completion of this work will help biomass energy attain its potential
    by providing the data and information needed to implement the design,
    construction, and operation of practical forest biomass production
    methods for sustainable energy plantations that can supply low-cost
    feedstock for conversion to heat, steam, electric power, liquid and
    gaseous fuels, and chemicals.
        During the first year of this program, fiscal year 2007, site
    studies can be completed to facilitate the selection of specific areas
    that are deemed suitable for energy plantation construction, and that
    installation on at least one site can be started. DOE should be
    involved in this program where appropriate so that their work on
    biomass infrastructure can be applied, such as the design and operation
    of integrated biomass production and conversion systems.

                                  CONCLUSIONS

        Expansion of the USDAFS programs as recommended by BERA enables a
    considerably higher probability of significantly increasing the
    contribution of biomass to primary U.S. energy demand by displacing
    more fossil fuel usage and eliminating a national fire hazard. The key
    to this eventuality is the deployment of technologies for producing and
    recovering low-cost virgin and waste forest biomass for conversion to
    cost-competitive supplies of energy, fuels, and chemicals. Forest
    biomass is the Nation's and the world's largest reserve of renewable
    carbon resources. Without the availability of economically competitive
    forest biomass feedstocks, the probability of tripling biomass energy
    consumption in the United States is doubtful. Ultimately, this RD&D
    program is expected to lead to commercial, sustainable energy
    plantations that are integrated with biorefineries supplied with
    forest-based fuels and feedstocks.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the BlueRibbon Coalition

        The BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC) is a nationwide organization
    representing 600,000 motorized recreationists, equestrians, mountain
    bike enthusiasts and resource users. We work with land managers to
    provide recreation opportunities, conserve resources, and promote
    cooperation with other public land users.
        I am writing you to encourage you to sustain current funding levels
    for the Recreation and Trails programs within the USDA Forest Service
    (USES) budget.
        The Administration's proposed fiscal year 2007 budget recommends a
    decrease of $10.4 million to the Recreation program and a $14.5 million
    reduction to the Trails program as compared to the fiscal year 2006
    enacted budget. The cuts proposed by the President would make it very
    difficult for the USFS to serve the recreational needs of the over 200
    million people who annually visit our National Forests.
        Recreational use of USFS lands continues to grow and we believe
    that the vital role played by the USFS needs to be recognized. It is
    crucial that its funding be protected instead of facing steep cuts that
    will hamper its ability to provide adequate opportunities for those who
    wish to recreate on our National Forests.
        The proposed cuts come at a critical time for the USFS. On November
    9, 2005 the USFS finalized a rulemaking process that requires each
    National Forest or ranger district to designate which roads, trails and
    areas are open for motorized vehicle use. This will be a massive
    undertaking that will require individual forests and districts to
    undergo an extensive process of route identification, evaluation,
    designation and mapping.
        BRC agrees with Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth's affirmation
    that ``OHVs are growing in popularity and they are a legitimate use of
    national forest land.'' As such it is imperative that adequate funding
    be provided to the USFS to ensure that the effective management of OHV
    use can be accomplished by the implementation of the new rule. Without
    the necessary funding, the Forest Service will be unable to either
    adequately manage or provide adequate opportunity for all National
    Forest system users.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Coalition

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of
    the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Coalition, I appreciate the opportunity
    to present this testimony in support of a $3 million appropriation from
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund for critical land protection
    efforts along the Bonneville Shoreline Trail in Utah.
        The Bonneville Shoreline Trail Coalition (Coalition) is an
    organization of entities, both citizen and governmental, representing
    the communities in Utah involved in promoting, planning and building
    the Bonneville Shoreline Trail (BST). The vision of the BST is a non-
    motorized trail that serves as an interface between the urban area and
    public lands along the Wasatch Front and will provide trail users with
    a recreational experience at a distance from motorized activities that
    is both safe and aesthetically pleasing. The Coalition was formed on an
    ad hoc basis in 2001 and formalized and incorporated in 2003.
        The Bonneville Shoreline Trail concept was originated in 1990 as a
    proposed 90 mile trail for non-motorized use that would span the
    foothills of the four counties of the central Wasatch Front. Trail
    planning has now expanded to encompass more than 280 miles from the
    Idaho border through Cache, Box Elder, Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and
    Utah Counties. Additional planning has been proceeding to continue the
    BST westward through Camp Williams and the Kennecott Land development,
    around the Oquirrh Mountains and into the Tooele valley. This multi-use
    non-motorized trail system will enhance access to open space and public
    lands, and provide a connection to a variety of other trails and
    recreational areas. The Coalition's private and governmental entities
    representing the Wasatch Front communities and many dedicated
    volunteers are working to make the trail a reality
        The ideal alignment of the trail is on or near the foothills bench
    formed by the shoreline of ancient Lake Bonneville. While it is
    recognized such an alignment is not possible throughout the entire
    length of the trail, planners are urged to vigorously seek a route as
    near to the Bonneville Shoreline as possible in order to achieve the
    following objectives:
      --To provide access to the canyons, streams, mountains and other
            features in our Wasatch foothills by locating the trail high
            enough on the slope to provide ready access to public lands.
      --To provide a place where walkers, runners, bicyclists and horse
            users can experience their recreational pursuits at a distance
            from automobiles that is both safe and aesthetically pleasing.
            (On some sections of the trail, it may not be appropriate to
            include all uses--pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian--but
            planners are urged to accommodate as broad a range of non-
            motorized users as possible.)
      --To provide citizens an opportunity for quiet and scenic
            recreational use that is nearby, yet apart from the developed
            urban area of the Wasatch Front.
      --To provide rapid deployment of fire fighting resources to the
            urban/foothills interface while at the same time serving as a
            buffer between the developed urban area and the more natural
            environment of the foothills.
      --To contribute to the preservation of aesthetic, wildlife, historic
            and educational values of the foothills.
        The major challenges in creating the Bonneville Shoreline Trail lie
    principally in obtaining the necessary property acquisitions, rights-
    of-way, easements and permissions. The efforts to actually build trail
    are typically of secondary difficulty and rely principally on volunteer
    labor. The major costs of developing the BST will be associated with
    the acquisition of property for the trail.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 are two critical
    properties along the BST that are high priorities for protection by the
    U.S. Forest Service. Both properties are extremely important summer and
    winter range habitat for deer and elk. They serve as important buffers
    for fire protection for the rapidly developing area along the Wasatch
    Front and also provide watershed protection for neighboring areas.
        The 1,700-acre Draper (Bear Canyon) property is located on the
    eastern boundaries of the cities of Sandy and Draper along the BST, and
    both cities are very supportive of this land acquisition. Conveyance of
    the Bear Canyon property to the Forest Service will allow the forest to
    reduce management costs by consolidating public lands. The property to
    be acquired is adjacent to both the Lone Peak Wilderness and the 1,000-
    acre Corner Canyon property that was acquired for $13 million by Draper
    City in late 2005 for permanent open space protection and recreation.
    The combination of the Draper's protection of Corner Canyon and the
    planned Forest Service acquisition of Bear Canyon represents an
    important federal and local conservation partnership in southern Salt
    Lake County. In fiscal year 2006, $1.5 million was appropriated to
    acquire 900 acres. This year, an additional $1.5 million through the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund is needed to complete this project and
    protect the remaining 800 acres. Major stretches of the BST are planned
    across this property and its acquisition would be important for the
    continuity of this portion of the trail.
        The second property available for protection this year is the 300-
    acre North Ogden property in Weber County. The North Ogden program is a
    partnership effort to provide a new stretch of the BST along the
    northern boundaries of North Ogden and Pleasant View, within the
    boundaries of the national forest. In 2005, a five-mile stretch of BST
    along North Ogden and Pleasant View was secured through a trail
    easement on an existing utility corridor granted to the nonprofit Weber
    Pathways. The property available for protection this year is critical
    to the North Ogden program because it will bring Forest Service
    ownership down to this stretch of the BST and add critical trail access
    to the citizens in this area of the state. Protection of this property
    will also protect beautiful views of the foothills of the Wasatch Front
    and Ben Lomond Peak, one of Weber County's most important landmarks,
    while conserving important wildlife habitat and winter range along this
    rapid growth area. This property is also valued at $1.5 million.
        In fiscal year 2007, a total of $3 million is needed to acquire
    these two BST properties that are critically important to furthering
    the goals of the trail. If not protected, this area will be developed
    over time. Public access to this portion of the BST could be lost
    forever, and adjacent forest and wilderness lands would also be put at
    risk.
        I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $3
    million for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail in the fiscal year 2007
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
        Thank you for your attention to this request.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Pueblo Board of Water Works

        We are requesting your support for the following appropriations in
    fiscal year 2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper
    Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River
    Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as recommended in the
    President's budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Ecological
    Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element;
    $697,000 within the $5,631,000 item entitled ``General Program
    Activities'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS
    to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado River
    Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
        2. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
    Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
    support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
    in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $211,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year
    2007 to meet FWS' Region 2 expenses managing and implementing the San
    Juan Recovery Program.
        We thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee's
    assistance for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement

        The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement consists of the
    following organizations: American Birding Association; American
    Fisheries Society; American Sportfishing Association Assateague Coastal
    Trust; Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation; Defenders of Wildlife;
    Ducks Unlimited; International Association of Fish and Wildlife
    Agencies; Izaak Walton League of America; National Association of
    Service and Conservation Corps; National Audubon Society; National
    Rifle Association of America; National Wildlife Federation; National
    Wildlife Refuge Association; Safari Club International; The Wilderness
    Society; The Wildlife Society; Trout Unlimited; U.S. Sportsmen's
    Alliance; Wildlife Forever; and the Wildlife Management Institute.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
    opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2007 (fiscal year
    2007) Interior Appropriations bill. Over the last several years, the
    Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), a broad coalition
    of 21 diverse wildlife, sporting, conservation, and scientific
    organizations, has worked cooperatively with Congress and the
    Administration to highlight the needs of the National Wildlife Refuge
    System and secure strong investments in this remarkable network of
    lands and waters. We are grateful for the budget increases that
    Congress provided the Refuge System leading up to its 100th
    anniversary, and we again seek your support as Congress considers
    fiscal year 2007 and beyond. We urge the Subcommittee to provide $415
    million for the operations and maintenance (O&M) budget of the National
    Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (FWS), in the fiscal year 2007 budget.
        CARE, representing a national constituency numbering more than 5
    million Americans, recognizes the value of a healthy Refuge System to
    both the wildlife and habitats refuges were established to protect and
    the 40 million visitors that frequent these special places each year.
    The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement was formed in 1995 as a
    loose coalition of diverse organizations concerned about the ability of
    our national wildlife refuges to fulfill their missions. We have
    determined that it will be necessary to increase the annual Refuge
    System budget to $700 million simply to meet the System's top tier
    needs.
        Each year, 40 million Americans from coast to coast visit national
    wildlife refuges to experience the best of our great nation's natural
    resources. During its first 100 years, the Refuge System has been
    instrumental in restoring vital North American wildlife populations;
    providing diverse recreational opportunities to fish, hunt, birdwatch,
    view and photograph wildlife; and educating the public about the
    wonders of the natural world. In addition, national wildlife refuges
    stimulate local economic growth, fostering nearly $1.4 billion in
    recreation-based economic activity and generating nearly 24,000 jobs
    and $453.9 million in employment income. While all of these activities
    are significant, the Refuge System's potential continues to be largely
    unrealized.
        The mission of CARE has been to address the backlog in operations
    and maintenance needs within the Refuge System budget, needs that now
    total $2.7 billion. Unfortunately, recent funding cuts in the refuge
    budget have adversely affected the Refuge System by exacerbating the
    already burdensome O&M backlog.
        President Bush's fiscal year 2007 request of $381.7 million is
    approximately $11 million less than the administration's fiscal year
    2006 request and $763,000 less than the actual fiscal year 2006 funding
    level (after Congressional rescissions and agency reprogramming). A $16
    million increase in Refuge System O&M funding would be a ``no-net-
    loss'' budget for the Refuge System to keep pace with inflation and
    other uncontrollable costs when taking into account cost-of-living,
    energy, and sustaining levels of visitor services and wildlife
    management requirements.
        We respectfully request that you fund the National Wildlife Refuge
    System at $415 million, which would equal the fiscal year 2004 Refuge
    System budget ($406.5 million) when adjusted for inflation. This level
    of funding would ensure a ``no-net-loss'' budget which would allow the
    Refuge System to avoid layoffs and reductions in services, maintain
    protections for wildlife and habitat, prevent backsliding on gains
    already made, and provide for addressing the backlog in coming years.
        We extend our appreciation to the Subcommittee for its ongoing
    commitment to our National Wildlife Refuge System.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Center for Advanced Separation Technologies

        The Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST) is a
    consortium of the seven universities listed above. It was formed in
    2001 to develop advanced technologies that can be used to efficiently
    produce cleaner fuels in an environmentally acceptable manner and to
    study the basic sciences and engineering involved. The new technologies
    developed as a result of CAST research and the highly skilled personnel
    trained during the course of its activities will help the United States
    meet the challenges of energy independence. These missions are
    consistent with President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative,
    announced in his 2006 State of the Union Address. The President's new
    program includes doubling R&D commitments to basic research, supporting
    universities for world-class education and research opportunities, and
    training a work force with skills that can be used to better compete in
    the 21st century.

                                  ORGANIZATION

        The Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST) was formed
    initially between Virginia Tech and West Virginia University with the
    objective of developing advanced solid-solid and solid-liquid
    separation technologies that can help the U.S. coal industry produce
    cleaner solid fuels. In 2002, five other universities listed above
    joined the consortium to develop crosscutting technologies that can
    also be used in the U.S. minerals resources industry. As a result, the
    scope of CAST research was expanded to studies of chemical/biological
    separations and environmental control.
        As a consortium, the Center can take advantage of the diverse
    expertise available in the member universities and address the
    interests of the different geographical regions of the country. Working
    together as a consortium is consistent with the recommendations of a
    recent National Research Council (NRC) report on the U.S. Department of
    Energy's fossil energy research, which states that ``consortia are a
    preferred way of leveraging expertise and technical inputs to the
    mining sector, and recommends that DOE should support ``academia, which
    helps to train technical people for the industry.''

                             PROGRESS AND NEXT STEP

        At present, a total of 45 research projects are being carried out
    at the seven CAST member universities. Of these, 12 projects are in
    solid-solid separation, 5 in solid-liquid separation, 12 in chemical/
    biological separation, 7 in modeling and control, and 6 in
    environmental control. The project selection was made by an industry
    panel according to the priorities set forth in the CAST Technology
    Roadmap developed in 2002 by industry representatives. Research results
    have been presented at two workshops, the first in Charleston, WV,
    November 19-21, 2003, and the second in Blacksburg, VA, July 26-27,
    2005. Both meetings enjoyed strong participation from industry. The
    third workshop will be held in July 2007 in Blacksburg.
        CAST research has been focused on removing impurities (e.g., ash,
    sulfur, mercury and other toxic elements) from coal. Various solid-
    solid and solid-liquid separation technologies are used to remove these
    impurities. In general, the efficiency of separation diminishes sharply
    with decreasing particle size. As a result, coal companies discard coal
    fines to impoundments. In the United States, approximately 70 to 90
    million tons of coal fines are being discarded annually according to a
    National Research Council report. The report was issued as a result of
    a congressional directive to investigate a major failure of a fine coal
    impoundment in Kentucky in October, 2000, which caused 300 million
    gallons of coal sludge to flood an active mine and neighboring creeks
    and rivers. There are more than 713 active water and slurry
    impoundments in the eastern United States, many of which are rated
    ``high risk.'' The report suggested a study to identify appropriate
    technologies that can eliminate the need for slurry impoundments.
        CAST has been developing advanced separation technologies that can
    help U.S. coal companies recover fine coal rather than discard it to
    impoundments. One company, Beard Technologies, Inc., is currently
    building a plant designed to recover fine coal from a large impoundment
    in Pineville, WV, using the technologies developed by CAST. The plant
    will be the first to recover practically all of the coal from a waste
    impoundment without the benefit of a tax credit. If the project is
    successful, it is anticipated that many other companies will follow
    suit. The enabling technology used in the Pineville recovery plant is
    the use of chemical additives that can remove moisture from fine coal
    during vacuum filtration. CAST is developing several other dewatering
    technologies, which include hyperbaric centrifuge, hyperbaric
    horizontal belt filter (HHBF), and a flocculant injection system. In a
    recent pilot-scale test conducted with the hyperbaric centrifuge, it
    was possible to reduce the moisture of a fine coal (smaller than 0.15
    mm) to below 10 percent by weight without using chemical additives. The
    technology has been licensed to Decanter Machine Company, Johnson City,
    TN, which plans to construct a prototype unit for onsite testing.
    Development of the HHBF technology is also making progress.
    Construction of a pilot-scale test unit has been completed, and is
    ready for a trial. This new dewatering technology is also designed to
    reduce fine coal moisture to less than 10 percent. The flocculant
    injection system is already in use by many coal companies to minimize
    the loss of fine coal associated with the use of screen-bowl
    centrifuges, which represent the most widely used conventional
    dewatering technology in the U.S. coal industry. In addition, Arch Coal
    Company is seriously considering installation of a deep-cone thickener,
    as a result of the work conducted at CAST, to obviate the need to build
    a fine coal impoundment.
        Despite the importance of fine coal cleaning, the bulk of the coal
    being cleaned today is coarse coal, most of which is being cleaned of
    impurities using density-based separation methods. Therefore, there is
    an interest in determining separation efficiencies using density
    tracers. Typically, plastic blocks of known densities are added to a
    feed stream, collected manually from product streams, and counted to
    determine the efficiency of separation--a process which is cumbersome
    and entails inaccuracies. Therefore, a new method has been developed in
    which each tracer is tagged with a transponder so that the destination
    of each tracer can be monitored electronically. The new technique has
    been tested successfully in several plants and is ready for commercial
    deployment. Precision Testing Laboratory, Beckley, WV, plans to market
    the new technology. Its use can help coal companies maximize the
    efficiency of cleaning coarse coal.
        Much of the basic scientific principles and technologies involved
    in coal cleaning also apply to processing ores. Therefore, CAST has
    been developing crosscutting technologies that can be used in both coal
    and minerals industries. As an example, a joint Krebs Engineers-CAST
    research resulted in the development of a novel hydrocyclone that can
    efficiently remove clay (slimes) from coal. The same technology can
    also be used in processing many industrial minerals. For instance,
    removal of clay minerals is an a priori requirement in processing the
    potash (KCl) ores in New Mexico. Laboratory experiments showed that
    more efficient desliming can increase potash recovery by 4 to 6 percent
    downstream. Implementation of these new technologies being developed at
    CAST will help the industry remain competitive against foreign
    producers and retain high-paying jobs in the country.
        The United States is the second largest copper producer in the
    world. However, much of the ores being mined are low grade, which makes
    it difficult for U.S. companies to compete internationally.
    Traditionally, copper is extracted from an ore through a series of
    processes, including grinding, flotation, smelting, and refining, which
    are energy intensive and hence costly. CAST is currently developing new
    technologies to facilitate the application of alternative leaching/
    impurity removal/electrowinning processes that can replace the costlier
    steps of grinding, flotation, smelting, and refining. The alternative
    processes should require substantially lower capital costs and reduce
    energy consumption by 50 percent.
        The mining industry has been extracting gold using cyanide, which
    is toxic. Therefore, CAST has been developing an environmentally benign
    extraction method using alkaline sulfide. Bench-scale continuous tests
    conducted using this new lixiviant showed that the extraction
    efficiency is as good as those obtained using cyanide.
        In addition to the more practical projects described above, CAST
    has also conducted fundamental research. As an example, a mathematical
    model has been developed to describe the flotation process, which is
    the most widely used and versatile solid-solid separation process used
    in both the coal and minerals industries. The model is based on first
    principles so that it has predictive and diagnostic capabilities. In
    another project, a computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulation
    technique has been used to design optimal flotation machines. This
    project is co-funded by Dorr-Oliver EIMCO, Utah. In addition, the
    surface forces acting between two microscopic surfaces immersed in
    water have been measured using the atomic force microscope (AFM) and
    the surface force apparatus (SFA). The results show that strong
    attractive forces are present between hydrophobic surfaces, the origin
    of which is not yet known. The newly discovered surface forces, which
    are referred to as `hydrophobic force' play an important role in the
    separation of hydrophobic energy `minerals' such as coal, oil, bitumen,
    and kerogen from hydrophilic waste minerals such as clay, silica and
    others.

                         FUNDING REQUEST AND RATIONALE

        The United States is by far the largest mining country in the
    western world, followed by South Africa and Australia. In 2004, the
    U.S. mining industry produced $63.9 billion of raw materials, including
    $19.9 billion of coal and $44 billion of minerals. Australia is a
    smaller mining country but has five centers of excellence in advanced
    separations as applied to coal and minerals processing. Last year,
    Australia established the Mineral Science Research Institute, a
    consortium of four mining schools, with a funding of $22.6 million for
    the initial five-year period. In the United States, CAST is the only
    federally funded consortium serving the mining industry. According to a
    Congressional testimony by K. Mark Le Vier, President of the Mining and
    Metallurgical Society of America, 50 percent or more of the faculty in
    the U.S. mining schools will retire in the next five years. Continued
    funding of the CAST program is critical for producing a trained
    workforce for the industry.
        CAST has been developing a broad range of advanced separation
    technologies. Although it is a relatively new research center, some of
    the projects have yielded technologies that are already in use in
    industry. Many other promising research projects are on-going and
    require continued support. Working as a consortium is an effective way
    of exchanging ideas and utilizing diverse expertise required to solve
    major problems. Continued funding will allow CAST to develop advanced
    technologies that can be used to produce cleaner coal in an
    environmentally acceptable manner. Furthermore, the advanced
    technologies can be used not only to clean up the troublesome waste
    impoundments that have been created in the past but also to eliminate
    the need to create them in the first place.
        For fiscal year 2007, CAST is requesting $3 million to (i) develop
    crosscutting separation technologies, (ii) better understand the basic
    sciences involved, and (iii) produce highly-skilled engineers and
    scientists. Although the aim of the proposed research is to benefit the
    U.S. mining industry, its results should also help the President's
    initiatives to develop a hydrogen economy and to produce biofuels more
    efficiently (e.g., separating ethanol from water without distillation).
    Further, the results can be used to develop technologies for extracting
    kerogen from oil shale, of which the United States has 72 percent (1.2
    trillion barrel equivalent of oil) of the world's reserves. A steady
    supply of fuels and strategic minerals is critical for the continued
    growth of the economy and for national security.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Central
                    California Ozone Study (CCOS) Coalition

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
    California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
    (CCOS) Coalition, we are pleased to submit this statement for the
    record in support of our fiscal year 2007 funding request of $400,000
    from the Environmental Protection Agency for CCOS. These funds are
    necessary for the State of California to address the very significant
    challenges it faces to comply with new national ambient air quality
    standards for ozone and fine particulate matter. The study design
    incorporates recent technical recommendations from the National Academy
    of Sciences (NAS) on how to most effectively comply with federal Clean
    Air Act requirements.
        First, we want to thank you for your past assistance in obtaining
    federal funding for the Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) and
    California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study
    (CRPAQS). Your support of these studies has been instrumental in
    improving the scientific understanding of the nature and cause of ozone
    and particulate matter air pollution in Central California and the
    nation. Information gained from these two studies is forming the basis
    for the 8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and regional haze State
    Implementation Plans (SIPs) that are due in 2007 (ozone) and 2008
    (particulate matter/haze). As with California's previous SIPs, the
    2007-2008 SIPs will need to be updated and refined due to the
    scientific complexity of our air pollution problem. Our request this
    year would fund the completion of CCOS to address important questions
    that won't be answered with results from previously funded research
    projects.
        To date, our understanding of air pollution and the technical basis
    for SIPs has largely been founded on pollutant-specific studies, like
    CCOS. These studies are conducted over a single season or single year
    and have relied on modeling and analysis of selected days with high
    concentrations. Future SIPs will be more complex than they were in the
    past. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is now recommending a
    weight-of-evidence approach that will involve utilizing more broad-
    based, integrated methods, such as data analysis in combination with
    seasonal and annual photochemical modeling, to assess compliance with
    federal Clean Air Act requirements. This will involve the analysis of a
    larger number of days and possibly an entire season. In addition,
    because ozone and particulate matter are formed from some of the same
    emissions precursors, there is a need to address both pollutants in
    combination, which CCOS will do.
        Consistent with the new NAS recommendations, the CCOS study
    includes corroborative analyses with the extensive data provided by
    past studies, advances the state-of-science in air quality modeling,
    and addresses the integration of ozone and particulate pollution
    studies. In addition, the study will incorporate further refinements to
    emission inventories, address the development of observation-based
    analyses with sound theoretical bases, and includes the following four
    general components:
        Performing SIP modeling analyses--2005-2011
        Conducting weight-of-evidence data analyses--2006-2008
        Making emission inventory improvements--2006-2010
        Performing seasonal and annual modeling--2008-2011
        CCOS is directed by Policy and Technical Committees consisting of
    representatives from Federal, State, and local governments, as well as
    private industry. These committees, which managed the San Joaquin
    Valley Ozone Study and are currently managing the California Regional
    Particulate Air Quality Study, are landmark examples of collaborative
    environmental management. The proven methods and established teamwork
    provide a solid foundation for CCOS.
        For fiscal year 2007, our Coalition is seeking funding of $400,000
    from the EPA through Clean Air funds.--The requested funds would be
    used in conjunction with other funding to conduct weight-of-evidence
    data analyses, which will help address future SIP needs as well as the
    new NAS recommendations. This funding will also allow for computational
    improvements and air quality modeling validation studies that are
    associated with multi-pollutant air pollution assessments for extended
    periods (e.g. seasonal or annual). These are necessary to ensure that
    models are representing the results for the right reasons. The U.S. EPA
    has a direct stake in, and will benefit from, the CCOS program. This
    program will further the development of corroborative analysis methods
    and improve the fundamental science upon which to base future SIPs in
    California and nationwide.
        California should not bear the entire cost of the study for several
    reasons. There is a national need to address issues regarding air
    quality modeling, especially for long-term multi-pollutant scenarios.
    The study itself is very cost-effective since it builds on other
    successful efforts including the 1990 San Joaquin Valley Ozone Study
    and the current California Regional Particulate Matter Air Quality
    Study. Use of models for future ozone SIPs (and updating existing SIPs)
    is a national issue. The federal government should fund continuing
    efforts to improve the performance of models used in SIPs. Much of the
    information generated by CCOS will further the fundamental science of
    air quality modeling which makes it valuable from a national
    perspective.
        Thank you very much for your consideration of our request.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Conservation Commission, Westbrook, CT

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of
    the Conservation Commission, Westbrook Connecticut, I appreciate the
    opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $1 million
    appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for land
    acquisition within the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge.
    The Conservation Commission has, by Town ordinance, the responsibility
    for developing criteria for prioritizing open space protection and
    acquisition. The 22-acre Menunketesuck Salt Meadow Marsh meets the four
    top criteria: (1) protection of water resources including coastal zone
    resources; (2) protection of unique and sensitive habitats; (3)
    significantly contributes to the viability of adjacent protected open
    space; and (4) is under threat of development. The Commission has also
    has the responsibility for recommending acquisition of priority lands
    to the Town of Westbrook, or to private, State or Federal agencies,
    when appropriate. Acquisition and protection of the 22-acre
    Menunketesuck Salt Meadow Marsh within the Stewart B. McKinney National
    Wildlife Refuge will add significant protection to refuge and to the
    Menunketesuck River estuarine habitat one of Westbrook's most valuable
    natural resources, and a coastal resource of state and national
    significance.
        Named to honor the late U.S. congressman who was instrumental in
    its creation, the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge was
    established to protect migratory bird habitat considered important to
    wading and shorebird species including heron, egrets, terns, plovers
    and oystercatchers among others. Stewart B. McKinney NWR is currently
    comprised of eight units stretching along 60 miles of Connecticut's
    coastline. In addition to the increase in habitat protection over the
    years, the refuge now provides opportunities for scientific research,
    environmental education, and fish and wildlife oriented recreation.
    Located in the Atlantic Flyway, the refuge provides important resting,
    feeding, and nesting habitat for many species of wading birds,
    shorebirds, songbirds and terns, including the endangered roseate tern.
    Adjacent waters serve as wintering habitat for brant, scoters, American
    black duck and other waterfowl. Overall, the refuge encompasses over
    800 acres of barrier beach, tidal wetland and fragile island habitats.
        Available for refuge acquisition in fiscal year 2007 is the 22-acre
    Menunketesuck Salt Meadow Marsh in Westbrook, Connecticut. The property
    is comprised of pristine coastal tidal marsh, a forested upland,
    scrubland, and a rock outcropping that towers above 1,000 feet of
    frontage along the gentle Menunketesuck River as it winds its way to
    Long Island Sound. As a migratory stopover for neotropical migrant land
    birds, this riparian area is the top priority for acquisition for the
    refuge. The marsh property will enhance the resources of the current
    Salt Meadow Unit of the refuge, as it contains part of the least
    developed upland borders of any remaining tidal marsh in all of
    Connecticut. As much of the state's coastline has been built upon, it
    is rare to find an such a large undeveloped marsh area in Connecticut.
    Under imminent threat of development into condominiums, this parcel
    must be acquired by the refuge if it is to continue to serve as an
    island of forested habitat land on an otherwise highly developed
    coastline. In order to acquire the Menunketesuck Salt Meadow Marsh
    property, an appropriation of $1 million is needed from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2007. This priority acquisition
    will increase wildlife habitat protection at the Stewart B. McKinney
    NWR and ensure the public continued opportunities for recreation and
    environmental education along Connecticut's coastline.
        I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $1
    million for the Stewart B. McKinney NWR in the fiscal year 2007
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Continental Divide Trail Alliance

        The Continental Divide Trail Alliance respectfully requests an
    addition to the President's budget of $6.42 million, earmarked for the
    congressionally designated Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. We
    request that $6,076,000 be appropriated to the Forest Service and
    $344,000 be appropriated to the Bureau of Land Management. These funds
    will be utilized toward the funding needed to plan 591 miles of the
    Trail in preparation for construction and to construct 345 miles of the
    Trail.
        Over the last eleven years we have developed countless partners,
    utilized thousands of volunteers and significantly leveraged federal
    funds and resources. We believe the time has come to step up the level
    of support from Congress:
      --The CDTA, Forest Service, National Park Service and Bureau of Land
            Management have a well defined plan to complete the Trail;
      --States, corporations and individuals are making substantial
            contributions to the efforts to complete the CDT and leverage
            limited federal funds; and
      --The investment in this national treasure has tremendous potential
            to capitalize on local and national citizens' investment of
            time and money, provide significant rural economic development
            opportunities and increase the awareness of appropriate uses of
            this amazing national treasure.
        It is important to note that these funds would be available for use
    in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico where the CDT is
    located. Funding provided by this Congress will also be leveraged by
    volunteer labor and financial support from the private sector.
        We are proud of the many successes we have had over the last few
    years, raising over $4 million in private sector support and $3.5
    million in volunteer labor. We truly believe that our efforts can send
    a strong signal to the land managers and Americans from every state
    that the National Trail System model is the best way to be effective
    stewards of our lands.
        It should also be noted that Representatives Hefley, Beauprez,
    Tancredo, DeGette, Salazar, Mark and Tom Udall and Cubin have signed on
    to this request in support of the Continental Divide Trail.

                                   BACKGROUND

        Mission.--The Continental Divide Trail Alliance's (CDTA) mission
    is: ``To construct, manage and preserve a non-motorized public
    backcountry trail along the full length of the Continental Divide from
    Canada to Mexico and to link its significant resources with the
    assistance of volunteers and public and private partnerships. To
    develop an appreciation of and enjoyment in America's natural lands
    through education and the opportunity to experience the Continental
    Divide National Scenic Trail.''
        In January 2005, the CDTA adopted a new Vision: ``Connecting people
    to the land and each other to instill conservation, respect and renewal
    of the human spirit''. This vision builds upon CDTA's ten years of
    community and public lands work. While we are extremely proud of our
    accomplishments, there is much more to be done to fulfill our vision
    through the creation of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail.
    Our Vision guides us to encourage people to know and use the Trail to
    connect with nature, instill public land stewardship, build spiritual
    communities, inspire healthy lifestyles and to protect the environment.
        History.--The idea of a trail through the West's most scenic,
    rugged, diverse and historic landscapes won the approval of Congress in
    1978 when it was officially designated a National Scenic Trail, one of
    only eight in the Nation. The vision for the Continental Divide Trail
    is to create a 3,100-mile primitive and challenging non-motorized trail
    on or near the Continental Divide--the Backbone of America--to allow
    people to experience the scenic beauty of the Rocky Mountains and to
    conserve the nationally significant scenic, historic, natural and
    cultural qualities critical to the Trail's experience.
        The Continental Divide Trail is known as the ``King of Trails''.
    The CDT is the highest (14,290 feet), wildest, and most remote National
    Scenic Trail, offering more wildlife viewing and miles of dramatic and
    diverse landscapes than any other long trail. The Trail is a window
    into our past and an open door for adventure and exploring. It is home
    to working ranches, small towns, and generations of Americans whose
    lives are forever etched with the land they work. It crosses paths
    where Lewis & Clark first set foot on the Continental Divide, where
    legendary mountain men like Jim Bridger and Kit Carson roamed, and
    where Native Americans built rock walls for driving game 5,800 years
    ago. The Trail is a natural resource treasure chest with a changing
    panorama of crystal clear alpine lakes, glorious mountain peaks,
    cascading waterfalls, sheer cliffs, glaciers, dense forests, arid
    deserts, and fields of brilliant wildflowers. The CDT allows modern day
    explorers to journey among thousands of plant and animal species in
    their natural settings: mountain goats, wild horses, elk, moose, deer,
    antelope, grizzlies, bald eagles and road runners, as well as, meadows
    of wildflowers, prickly pear, ancient stands of bristle cone pine,
    aspen groves strewn with columbine and the remote rugged alpine terrain
    with the illusive alpine buttercup.
        In spite of the CDT's rich history and resources, endless benefits
    and conservation values, the lack of public awareness, volunteer
    involvement, overall coordination and funding were killing progress. In
    1995, the Continental Divide Trail Alliance was formed to work with the
    public and federal, state and local agencies in the completion,
    maintenance and protection of the CDT. Start-up funding was provided
    primarily by the Fausel Foundation, National Forest Foundation and
    Recreational Equipment Inc. In 1997, the CDTA coordinated the first
    border-to-border inventory of the Trail's status with volunteers and
    released a State of the Trail Report. The inventory and report led to
    the development of the CDT 2008 Strategic Completion Plan outlining all
    of the needs, projects, methods and costs to complete the CDT by 2008,
    or the Trail's 30th Anniversary.
        Program.--The CDTA is recognized by the Forest Service, National
    Park Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as the major non-
    governmental partner in the completion, management and protection of
    the 3,100 miles Continental Divide Trail. The CDTA is the voice for
    unity in the creation of the Trail. CDTA's work includes Trail
    promotion, public education, and recruitment, training and the
    coordination of volunteers to scout, locate, construct, repair,
    maintain and protect the Trail. Through these programs, thousands of
    people connect with and gain ownership of the land, learn and have a
    greater understanding of public land management, the environment and
    people living along it, as well as the health benefits of using it.
    Currently the CDT is approximately 58 percent complete meaning it is
    located to provide the most scenic, diverse and inspiring experience,
    sensitive to the environment, constructed to a high quality non-
    motorized standard, and signed. When complete the Trail will traverse
    the backbone of America, from Canada to Mexico, passing through five
    states (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico), 25 National
    Forests, 20 Wildernesses, three National Parks (Yellowstone, Glacier
    and Rocky Mountain) one National Monument (El Malpais) and eight BLM
    Resource areas. The CDT acts as a conservation tool, preserving the
    surrounding natural features and significant qualities critical to
    experiencing a National Scenic Trail.
        Accomplishments.--CDTA's work has been praised by national new
    sources, such as Newsweek, Washington Post and Backpacker Magazine and
    received the Take Pride in America Award. This national attention is
    due, in part, to the accomplishments we have made over the past ten
    years (1995-2004).
      --Coordinated, trained and educated nearly 6,700 volunteers who have
            donated more than $3.1 million in volunteer labor on 620 miles
            of the CDT.
      --Organized two end-to-end surveys with more than 1,000 volunteers to
            identify the Trail's status, document more than 300 nationally
            significant features and capture 1,700 photos.
      --Developed a 10-year action plan outlining the needs, projects,
            methods and costs to complete the CDT by 2008.
      --Created mutually beneficial partnerships or shared our vision with
            diverse groups like Rotary Clubs, Wyoming Stock Growers Assoc.,
            Backcountry Horseman of America, National Mining Association
            and Montana Wilderness Association.
      --Completed more than 1,275 miles, 31 bridges and 46 trailheads with
            the physical labor of volunteers and federal land manager
            staff, and generous gifts of individuals, businesses and
            foundations.
        Need.--Americans connection to the land and to our diverse cultures
    and traditions are limited, and in many cases diminishing. With
    approximately 80 percent of U.S. citizens living in urban areas, 40
    percent of adults engaging in no leisure-time physical activity, and
    the average citizen of Western civilizations spending 95 percent of
    their lives indoors, one could deduct fewer people experience and
    recreate in the natural world outside. People shut off from the natural
    world are less sensitive to and supportive of the environment, and
    experience more stress, a perpetual decline in health and well being,
    and dependencies that cause disorders.
        Also, respect and understanding for other people's perspectives and
    lifestyles, particularly as it relates to our public lands, is lacking,
    as witnessed in the continual battles over how public lands should be
    managed and used. Lack of respect and understanding creates conflicts,
    produces poor communication, destroys any sense of community, and
    provokes people to make decisions that hurt others.
        In addition, less than one-third of adults in the U.S. engage in
    the recommended amount of physical activity and millions suffer from
    illnesses (50 million have high blood pressure, one-third are
    overweight, 13.5 million have coronary heart disease, etc.) that can be
    prevented or improved through regular physical activity. Promotion of
    the CDT can inspire and lead people down a path of good health and well
    being.
        Last, federal land managers are confronted with two troubling
    trends: an expanding backlog of work on our public lands and a
    shrinking budget. Funding for routine maintenance, currently a $200
    million backlog, has not kept pace with needs. The result is a
    declining quality of experience for recreationists. CDTA programs
    assist in caring for the land with millions of dollars worth of
    volunteer service.
        The CDTA recognizes and embraces the benefits and challenges of
    building the Continental Divide Trail, including providing access to
    recreate, enjoy and learn from the outdoors and to experience and
    understand the diverse and unique lifestyles and traditions along the
    Trail. Due to its location, the Trail is a magnet for many public-lands
    issues and CDTA works to unite diverse communities in an effort to
    create a national treasure that will benefit all of America.
        Benefit.-- Have you ever sat on top of a mountain and felt
    refreshed, or been cheered by the vibrant sounds of a songbird? Does a
    wildflower's fragrance bring you joy, and a rushing stream change your
    senses? These are only a sample of how nature soothes the soul and
    lessons the stresses of normal life. And, these are only a few of the
    ways the Continental Divide Trail inspires and educates thousands of
    people.
        Experiencing the Continental Divide Trail, whether on a six-month
    end-to-end hike, a one-day adventure, or a volunteer work project, will
    create more knowledgeable and environmentally and socially responsible
    individuals. The Trail crosses 3,100 miles of public lands with diverse
    users and uses, providing an experience that teaches and promotes
    respect and understanding of other people's perspectives.
        Establishing the Trail on the ground will preserve the land and the
    significant scenic, historic, natural and cultural qualities
    surrounding the Trail and critical to the experience.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT)

        CIT respectfully requests $2.5 million for fiscal year 2007 under
    U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Activity:
    Special Programs and Pooled Overhead.
        On behalf of the Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT), I thank
    this Subcommittee for appropriating critically needed operational funds
    to CIT. The authorization for this appropriation that enables CIT to
    educate Indian young adults for our nation's workforce is Public Law
    84-959, ``Vocational Training for Adult Indians.'' Public Law 84-959 is
    fully consistent with the BIA goal of economic self-sufficiency for all
    tribal citizens. CIT expresses its gratitude to this Subcommittee for
    assisting CIT toward reaching the common goal of economic self-
    sufficiency for tribal citizens through education for employment.
        CIT is a tribal college in all definitions, and is a member in good
    standing with all voting rights of the national association that
    advocates for all the nation's tribal colleges, the American Indian
    Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC). However, CIT is not eligible to
    receive funding under the ``Tribally Controlled Colleges and
    Universities Act,'' due to an original 1978 statutory restriction of
    one college per tribe. Dine College in Tsaile, Arizona is the one
    Navajo tribal college already participating under this statute. This
    restriction is fair for nearly all tribes chartering tribal colleges,
    as the average tribal population for those tribes is 4,909 derived from
    U.S. Census 2000 trust land tribal populations. The same U.S. Census
    acknowledges Navajo Nation trust land tribal population 173,987, of a
    total Navajo population of 225,298. This population is spread
    throughout a 17,500,000 acre reservation (26,897 square miles)
    extending into three States (AZ, NM, UT). The Navajo reservation is
    2,810 square miles larger than the State of West Virginia. The driving
    distance across the reservation is approximately nine hours. As an
    example of comparison, the fifteen tribes in the States of Montana,
    North Dakota and South Dakota have a combined tribal population of
    72,835 (U.S. Census 2000). These fifteen tribes charter sixteen tribal
    colleges, each on significantly smaller land bases than the Navajo
    reservation.
        The population and vast service area of the Navajo Nation warrant a
    second tribal college. CIT's Congressional Delegation sought
    unsuccessfully to amend this restriction to allow a second college for
    exceptionally high population tribes. CIT is the only postsecondary
    vocational educational institution on the Navajo Nation reservation.
    CIT students come from throughout the reservation, as well as from the
    towns of Gallup, Cruet, Continental Divide, Fruitland, Kirtland,
    Mentmore, Rehobeth (all in New Mexico), Durango, Colorado, White Mesa,
    Utah and the Tohono O'odham and Hopi Reservations in Arizona. CIT also
    serves all eligible applicants as room is available and has retrained
    non-Indian displaced uranium workers and Indian students from as far
    away as Alaska and Montana.
        In its fiscal year 2007 Budget Justification to the U.S. Congress,
    the Department of Interior proposes elimination of CIT funding, but the
    Department uses erroneous calculations to justify their proposal. CIT
    has submitted correct per student cost and funding calculations to the
    BIA on numerous occasions. To assure accuracy, CIT's cost calculations
    have been prepared by the outside, independent auditing firm of Sloan
    and Company, Albuquerque, New Mexico. CIT's correct per student cost
    per year is $10,282. Of this, 65 percent or $6,710 is for residential-
    related costs. CIT's correct cost is $2,710 higher than the
    Department's inaccurate assessment of $4,000 per student for
    residential costs. CIT's correct instruction-only per student cost is
    $3,572, or 35 percent of total per student cost. CIT is one of the few
    tribal colleges that are residential. CIT also offers day care as an
    essential service for single-parent students who are among those most
    in need of job-oriented educational opportunity. The vast majority of
    all tribal colleges have commuting students only. Most tribal colleges
    do not have residential costs and therefore these dissimilar colleges
    cannot be compared on a per student cost basis to residential tribal
    colleges. This dissimilarity of comparison is further exacerbated as a
    result of the Department applying cost bases which are severely
    inaccurate.
        In its proposal to eliminate CIT funding, the Department
    incorrectly calculates that Interior provides $4,402 per student to
    CIT. The correct per student Interior allocation is half that, $2,237.
    In addition, the Department erroneously calculates CIT enrollment at
    403 Indian Student Count (ISC). CIT's correct ISC for fiscal year 2005
    was 646. CIT submits actual enrollment numbers to the BIA every year.
    The most recent year in which CIT had an enrollment approaching the
    BIA's incorrect fiscal year 2007 citation was in 1993, thirteen years
    prior. In academic year 2005-06, CIT's accurate ISC enrollment is 904.
        CIT does receive U.S. Department of Education Funding under Section
    117 of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act. The other tribal
    colleges also participate in Indian Set-aside Perkins funding under
    Section 116, a section for which CIT is not eligible. CIT began to
    experience a crippling shortfall under Section 117 in 1995 when
    disproportionate funding was redirected to online courses. This
    threatened CIT's operational continuation and in fiscal year 2000 CIT
    sought Interior operational funding to keep its doors open, the same as
    the tribal colleges. All tribal colleges including CIT are eligible to
    compete for multiple sources of funding from many Departments, but
    these sources are not core operational funding. CIT's correct combined
    funding per ISC from Interior and Department of Education is $8,447,
    which still leaves a shortfall of $1,835 per residential student for
    the last year calculated. CIT's 258 ISC enrollment increase from 646 to
    904 will exacerbate the funding shortfall. CIT has consistently
    produced outstanding graduation and employment placement statistics
    with the help of Interior appropriations.
        For fiscal year 2007, the Department also seeks to ``continue
    facilitating a partnership between the Colorado School of Mines, UTTC
    and Crownpoint to offer an energy related career curriculum.'' CIT
    cannot partner with Colorado School of Mines if CIT cannot keep its
    doors open through direct BIA operational assistance.
        Also for fiscal year 2007, the Department of Interior requests ``an
    increase of $600,000 in the Trust-Real Estate Services activity to
    offer a Certified Federal Surveyor curriculum provided by United Tribes
    Technical College and the Crownpoint Institute of Technology.'' The
    fiscal year 2007 Budget Justification is the first time that CIT
    learned of this proposal. CIT was never consulted regarding this
    proposed joint curriculum and does not even offer such a program. CIT
    eliminated its surveyor program 14 years ago due to absence of economic
    demand which demand is necessary for employment opportunities. Further,
    the State of New Mexico requires a bachelor degree in order for
    surveyor graduates to qualify to even take the State certification
    exam. CIT does not offer four-year programs.
        CIT offers one-year certificate and two-year associate degree
    programs, as well as continuing education and summer session. CIT's
    most recent graduating class May 2005 was comprised 201 one-year
    Certificate and two-year Associate degree students, an increase of 40
    graduates over 2004. U.S. Department of Education does not allow Spring
    Count funding, therefore CIT must ask Interior to assist in funding
    this cost. CIT's 2006 Spring enrollment consists of a Nursing Assistant
    program not able to be offered in the Fall. This program is high
    employment demand and has high job placement.
        Nearly all Navajo citizens on the reservation not only can speak
    the Navajo language, but use it in their everyday lives. On trust land
    alone, 106,432 Navajo citizens are age 18 and over. The median Native
    American population age is 27.4 years, eight years younger than the
    median age for mainstream America. Approximately 10,000 Navajo students
    graduate from area high schools each year. The average CIT student age
    is 26, with the actual age range being 18 to 64. The Navajo Nation is
    one of the very few tribes with an extant native language. 94 percent
    of CIT's students are full-time: six percent are part-time. Seventy
    percent of CIT enrollment is comprised New Mexico residents, 29 percent
    Arizona residents and 1 percent from Utah, Colorado, Minnesota and
    Montana
        Of the entire Navajo population, only 4.66 percent of high school
    graduates go on to achieve a bachelor's degree. Only 2 percent achieve
    Masters degrees, and less than .5 percent earn doctorates. CIT has
    proven to offer a realistic educational experience that equips young
    adults with skills that place the majority of graduates into career
    track employment. For students with the goal of continuing their
    educations at four-year institutions, their CIT educational experience
    has proven to augment their ability to succeed. Although distant from
    major towns, Crownpoint is a major reservation activity center.
        In order to overcome the obstacles inherent in its geographic
    location and underserved population, CIT has broader infrastructure
    responsibilities. CIT's campus base is comprised of 153,468 square feet
    of facilities. The campus includes state-of-the-art classrooms, a
    hands-on working Veterinary Clinic, modular administrative buildings,
    library, separate men's and women's dormitories, married student
    housing, daycare and cafeteria. CIT has no recreation facility. CIT has
    a higher proportion of students with developmental education needs
    resultant from inadequate high school preparation. Most students
    require remedial courses to equip them to undertake college level
    programs. CIT has longer distances to transport students over
    reservation expanses where public transportation is non-existent.
    Despite many challenges, CIT earns achievements. CIT twice received an
    excellence award from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for sincere
    commitment to student outcomes, one of only eight such awards
    nationally, which carried with it a modest cash prize and
    congratulatory letter from President Bush. CIT's Culinary Arts Program
    continues to win awards in both national and State competitions.
        For years CIT wait-listed approximately 200 otherwise qualified
    students due to residential housing limitations, a practice recently
    discontinued because limited housing renders admission highly
    improbable. CIT has a ten-year average student retention rate of over
    90 percent. Due to funding challenges resulting in insufficient
    Employment Placement personnel, the average job placement has dropped
    from a previous average of 86 percent to 74 percent. Increased funding
    would greatly assist in this area.
        CIT is fully-accredited by North Central Association of Colleges
    and Schools as a higher educational institution. CIT offers two-year
    Associate of Applied Science degrees in seven disciplines: Accounting,
    Administrative Assistant, Applied Computer Technology, Environmental
    Technology and Natural Resources, Law Advocate, Legal Assistant and
    Veterinary Technician. CIT offers sixteen vocational certificate
    programs: Accounting, Administrative Assistant, Applied Computer
    Technology, Automotive Technology, Building Maintenance, Carpentry,
    Culinary Arts, Electrical Trades, Environmental Technology and Natural
    Resources, Law Advocate. Legal Assistant, Nursing Assistant, Veterinary
    Assistant, Small Business Development (new), Commercial Drivers License
    and Computer Aided Drafting.
        On average, 85 percent of CIT graduates secure full-time employment
    and 15 percent accept seasonal jobs. Of this, 54 percent secured
    employment on-reservation and 46 percent off-reservation. The region's
    economy is comprised significantly of self-employed ranchers who by
    definition are not placed in employment. Several CIT Veterinary
    students are self-employed ranchers who improve their livestock yield
    through knowledge and skills learned in the CIT Veterinary Program.
    Students continuing their educations are considered positive
    terminations.
        Of the above graduating classes students, the CIT Placement Office
    successfully tracked and placed 74 percent of graduates in jobs or
    continuing education. Of all CIT graduates, the average entry level
    annual wage is over $17,000. Commercial Drivers License (CDL) graduates
    earn the highest wage at $16 to $18 an hour, or $33,280 to $37,440
    annually if employment remains stable. The next highest entry-level
    wages are: Veterinary Technician, Assistant $23,920: Legal Advocate/
    Assistant $21,320: Electrical Trades $20,280: Automotive and
    Environmental Technology, both at $19,760. An apprentice will start at
    $9/$11 hourly and increase to $22/$28 hourly in less than 4 years.
        In an average lifetime of employment, CIT graduates will return to
    the Federal Government the cost of its investment many times over. Each
    employed graduate pays an average of $2,576 of their earnings to
    federal taxes in the first year of employment alone. Actual taxes paid
    differ according to a number of variables such as number of dependants,
    but wage earnings and resultant tax contributions will generally
    continue over at least thirty years. Over 60 percent of tracked
    graduates were employed in private industry and did not rely directly
    or indirectly on federal appropriations for jobs.
        On behalf of CIT students and their dependants whose quality of
    life has been greatly improved by education resulting in employment,
    thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the City of North Adams, Massachusetts

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate
    the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $1.1 million
    appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the
    acquisition of Broad Brook watershed project in the Green Mountain
    National Forest.
        The City of North Adams has owned the 3,921-acre Broad Brook
    property across the border in Vermont as a source of drinking water for
    its residents for nearly one hundred years. However, several years ago
    the city ceased depending on the Broad Brook parcel for its water and
    is now interested in selling the property to the Forest Service for
    inclusion into the Green Mountain National Forest. We completed the
    sale of the first portion of the property in December 2005 and are
    anxious to finish this project this year.
        In fiscal year 2007, an appropriation of $1.1 million will secure
    the transfer of the final 970 acres of the 3,921-acre Broad Brook
    watershed property. Located within the boundaries of the Green Mountain
    NF in the towns of Pownal and Stamford, the Broad Brook property would
    be an outstanding addition to the forest, known for its excellent
    recreational opportunities and critical wildlife habitat.
        The State of Vermont has mapped this parcel as being entirely
    within black bear production habitat, regions which support high
    densities of cub producing females. On the property there can be found
    a large and healthy population of the state threatened Large Whorled
    Pogonia (Isotria verticillata), and close to 7 miles of pristine
    headwater streams. A portion of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail,
    which in this part of Vermont coincides with the Long Trail, passes
    across the Broad Brook property. The tract is adjacent to other Forest
    Service ownership, the Stamford Meadows Wildlife Management Area--a
    state-owned sanctuary--as well as other conservation lands near the
    town of Pownal.
        The Vermont congressional delegation, lead by Senator Leahy, has
    secured appropriations for this project in three consecutive fiscal
    years, 2004, 2005, and 2006. These funds recently allowed the first
    phase of the property, 2,450 acres, to be added to the Green Mountain
    NF. An appropriation of $1.1 million in fiscal year 2007 will complete
    the final phase of this project and would add an additional 970 acres
    to the forest.
        The City of North Adams has reduced the total acquisition price for
    the Forest Service for the Broad Brook property by 25 percent off fair
    market value, allowing for a significant savings for the federal
    government. Importantly for the City of North Adams and its residents,
    the sale of this property to the federal government will provide the
    city with critical funds to enhance city services. The community also
    supports the transaction as a positive conservation legacy of which the
    city can be very proud.
        This federal acquisition in Vermont has significant positive
    impacts for residents in both Massachusetts and Vermont. An
    appropriation of $1.1 million will complete the final phase of this
    important project.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of the appropriation for the Broad Brook property
    in Vermont.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of the City of Draper

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of
    the Draper City Council and its residents, I appreciate the opportunity
    to present this testimony in support of a $3 million appropriation from
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund for critical land protection
    efforts along the Bonneville Shoreline Trail in Utah.
        In November 2005, the City of Draper, with an overwhelming vote of
    support by Draper's citizens, completed the purchase and permanent
    protection of Corner Canyon, a 1,020-acre property that was slated for
    development. This land will now be available to the community for open
    space and recreational uses. Corner Canyon is located within Draper's
    city limits and is nestled in the foothills below the Lone Peak
    Wilderness Area, in the ``corner'' between the Wasatch Range and
    Traverse Ridge. Following our acquisition, it will offer a variety of
    trails for hikers, bikers, and equestrians, and provides public access
    to the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Such recreational uses will be
    incorporated in a master plan for Corner Canyon and is scheduled for
    completion by August 2006.
        The Corner Canyon project is the largest ever conservation purchase
    by Draper City, and the $7 million bond passed to fund it is the
    largest bond measure passed in Salt Lake County for a single open space
    acquisition. The landowners agreed to sell the property to the City for
    approximately $13.6 million, with the agreement that a conservation
    easement would be placed on the property once the City acquired it. In
    addition to City funds, funding applications for $500,000 each were
    successfully made to both the State of Utah's Quality Growth Commission
    and Salt Lake County to assist in the acquisition of the property. With
    the assistance of this additional $1,000,000, the city was able to come
    up with the additional funds to acquire the property. For a City of
    approximately 35,000 residents, the purchase of Corner Canyon was
    obviously a very large investment and demonstrates both the commitment
    of the City and importance of protecting this critical land.
        Corner Canyon is truly a public treasure, and has become an
    investment for each of us in the future of Draper. I am convinced that
    ``Our Corner Canyon'' will stand as a monument to our community, to our
    past and those who settled here and to our quality of life.
        A significant portion of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail/Bear Canyon
    property, which the Forest Service would acquire with the requested
    2007 Land and Water Conservation Funds, lies immediately adjacent to
    the Corner Canyon property and is a very important connection to our
    efforts to protect Corner Canyon and the land between City limits and
    the Lone Peak Wilderness Area. Additionally, the Bonneville Shoreline
    Trail/Bear Canyon property contains significant stretches of the
    Bonneville Shoreline and therefore will fill important gaps in
    completion of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail in Salt Lake County. The
    combination of the city's protection of Corner Canyon and the planned
    Forest Service acquisition of Bear Canyon represents an important
    federal and local conservation partnership in southern Salt Lake
    County.
        In fiscal year 2007, additional funds are needed for the Forest
    Service to acquire the remaining portion of the Bonneville Shoreline
    Trail/Bear Canyon property. If not protected, this area could be
    developed, public access to this portion of the Bonneville Shoreline
    Trail could be lost forever, and adjacent forest and wilderness lands
    would also be put at risk.
        Because of the afore stated reasons, I respectfully request that
    you include an appropriation of $3 million for the Bonneville Shoreline
    Trail in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill.
        Thank you for your time, consideration, and attention to this
    request.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the County of Riverside

        On behalf of the County of Riverside, please support full funding
    for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program in fiscal year 2007.
        With your assistance, Congress provided $233 million for PILT in
    fiscal year 2006. This funding provides important compensation to local
    communities that have significant amounts of Federal land in their
    counties. There are over 2.5 million acres of Federal land within the
    borders of the County of Riverside. PILT funds partially offset the
    costs of supplying many valuable services such as search and rescue,
    law enforcement, and road maintenance.
        The authorization for PILT would provide funding at approximately
    $340 million annually, which is warranted by the fiscal pressures felt
    by counties, particularly in California. The President's fiscal year
    2007 budget proposal would cut PILT by $35 million. The County of
    Riverside strongly urges you to oppose this proposal.
        Please continue to work to increase the funding necessary for this
    program.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the County of Ventura

        I am writing on behalf of the County of Ventura to urge you to
    include provisions to extend the existing moratorium against new
    activities on the California Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the
    fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
        On September 20, 2005, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors
    unanimously voted to oppose federal bills and regulations that reduce
    the role or authority of State and local governments in the siting and
    approval of offshore energy facilities or diminish the public and
    environmental review process. The Board also voted to oppose time
    extensions of existing undeveloped offshore oil & gas leases.
        Exploration and development activities on the OCS raise many unique
    and complex environmental issues. In order to avoid the potential
    ecological disaster risks inherent in offshore oil production, avoid
    the air quality impacts to the Ventura County air shed of increased
    offshore oil exploration and production, and to preserve the scenic,
    recreational, economic, and environmental resource values of our coast,
    the Board opposes the extension of existing undeveloped offshore oil &
    gas leases and the lifting of the existing moratorium on new leases.
        The Board of Supervisors urges you to continue to work with your
    colleagues on the subcommittee to oppose efforts to modify the
    moratorium, and to ensure that the role or authority of State and local
    governments in the siting and approval of offshore energy facilities is
    not diminished.
        Thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California

        Support for fiscal year 2007 Federal Funding of $5.2 million for
    the Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land Management to assist in
    the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, with $1,500,000 to
    be expended on identified salinity control related projects and
    studies.
        Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate fiscal
    year 2007 funding for the Department of the Interior-Bureau of Land
    Management with respect to the federal/state Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Program. This program is carried out as a part of
    ecosystem and watershed management pursuant to the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act (Public Law 93-320) and the Clean Water Act
    (Public Law 92-500).
        As you are aware, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the
    largest landowner in the Colorado River Basin. Due to geologic
    conditions, much of the land that is controlled and managed by the BLM
    is heavily laden with salt. Past management practices have led to
    human-induced and accelerated erosional processes from which soil and
    rocks, heavily laden with salt have been deposited in various stream
    beds or flood plains. As a result of this disposition, salt is
    dissolved into the Colorado River system causing water quality problems
    downstream.
        Congress has charged federal agencies, including the BLM, with
    proceeding with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River.
    BLM's rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-
    effective salinity control measures available. These measures may be
    more cost-effective than some of those now being considered for
    implementation by the Bureau of Reclamation through its Basin-wide
    Program and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through its
    Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). In keeping with the
    Congressional mandate to maximize the cost-effectiveness of the
    salinity control program, the Colorado River Board of California
    (Colorado River Board) is requesting that Congress appropriate and the
    administration allocate adequate funds to support BLM's portion of the
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
        Since the Congressional mandates of over two decades ago, much has
    been learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River system.
    The USBR estimates that the quantified economic impacts and damages to
    United States' water users alone is about $330 million per year and
    that there are very significant additional damages yet to be
    quantified. For example, damages occur from:
      --A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
            water use for leaching in the agricultural sector,
      --A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
            water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
            dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
            softeners in the household sector,
      --An increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
            softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
            commercial sector,
      --An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
            and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector,
      --A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
            utility sector,
      --Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
            with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
            terms and conditions, an increase in desalination and brine
            disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
            basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling and reuse of the
            water due to groundwater quality deterioration,
      --Increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
            desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
        For every 30 milligram per liter increase in salinity
    concentrations, there are $75 million in additional damages in the
    United States. In addition, the federal government has made significant
    commitments to the Republic of Mexico and to the seven Colorado River
    Basin states with regard to the delivery of quality water to Mexico. In
    order for those commitments to be honored, it is essential that in
    fiscal year 2007 and in future fiscal years, that the Congress provides
    adequate funds to the Bureau of Land Management for its activities
    related to salinity control in the Colorado River Basin.
        The BLM budget, as proposed by the Administration in the BLM budget
    justification document, includes five long-term vision components for
    the Soil, Water, and Air Management Program. One of these components is
    meeting state water quality standards in all stream miles flowing on
    BLM lands. Reducing saline runoff to meet the interstate, federal and
    international agreements is a critical element of the Soil, Water and
    Air Management Program.
        The Colorado River Board, the state agency charged with protecting
    California's interests and rights in the water and power resources of
    the Colorado River System, requests that Congress appropriate
    $5,200,000 to BLM in fiscal year 2007 for activities that help control
    salt contributions from BLM managed lands in the Colorado River Basin.
    In the past, the BLM has used $800,000 of this funding for proposals
    submitted by BLM staff to the BLM's salinity control coordinator for
    projects that focus on salinity control. The Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Advisory Council report states that the BLM has now
    identified specific projects and studies that in fiscal year 2007
    totals $1.5 million. The Colorado River Board urges the Subcommittee to
    specifically designate, $1.5 million for BLM identified projects and
    studies.
        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), on behalf
    of the seven Colorado River Basin states, has submitted testimony to
    your Subcommittee. The Colorado River Board concurs in the fiscal year
    2007 funding request and justification statements for BLM as set forth
    in the Forum's testimony.
        The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
    water resource to the 17 million residents of southern California.
    Preservation of its quality through an effective Salinity Control
    Program will avoid the additional economic damages to river users in
    California and the other states that rely on the Colorado River.
        The Colorado River Board greatly appreciates your support of the
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program and asks for your
    assistance and leadership in securing adequate funding for this vital
    program.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum

        In Support of $5,200,000 to assist in Colorado River Salinity
    Control, Title II from the Soil, Water and Air Management effort, and
    with support for the President's request for that activity. Also a
    request that $1,500,000 be spent on identified salinity control related
    projects and studies.
        This testimony is in support of funding for the Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM) for the subactivity that assists the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Program authorized by the Congress. The BLM
    budget, as proposed by the Administration in the BLM budget
    justification document, calls for five principal program priorities
    within the Soil, Water, and Air Management Program. One of these
    priorities is reducing saline runoff to meet the interstate, federal
    and international agreements to control salinity of the Colorado River.
        The BLM's 2007 Budget Justification document states, with respect
    to 2005 Planned Program Performance, that the BLM continues to
    implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate progress in cooperation with
    the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture (USDA), and report salt-retaining measures in order to
    further the Plan of Implementation of the Federal Salinity Control
    Program in the Colorado River Basin. The Colorado River Basin Salinity
    Control Forum (Forum) believes that fiscal year 2007 funds appropriated
    by the Congress for the Soil, Water, and Air Management Program should
    be used, in part, for reducing saline runoff in the Colorado River
    Basin.
        The seven Colorado River Basin States, through the Forum, have
    engaged the BLM in a partnership with the Basin states as has been done
    previously with the two other federal agencies implementing salinity
    control in the Basin. The Forum has requested and the BLM has selected
    a salinity control coordinator for this basinwide effort. This person
    now serves with the two full-time coordinators in place for the USBR
    and the USDA efforts. This enhanced working relationship has taken
    advantage of the availability of Basin states' cost-sharing monies to
    leverage federal funds. The Forum is encouraged by the words in the BLM
    budget document. The Forum supports the funding request of $32,053,000
    for the Soil, Water, and Air Management Subactivity. As one of the five
    principal Soil, Water, and Air Program priorities, the Forum believes
    that the BLM needs to specifically target $5,200,000 to activities that
    help control salt contributions from BLM managed lands in the Colorado
    River Basin. In the past, the BLM has used $800,000 of the Soil, Water
    and Air Program funding for proposals submitted by BLM staff to the
    BLM's salinity control coordinator for projects that focus on salinity
    control. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council
    report states that the BLM has now identified projects that in fiscal
    year 2006 could use $1.5 million. For years, Congress has dedicated
    $800,000 on the effort and now the Forum believes $1.5 million should
    be so designated.
        The success of the BLM in controlling erosion and, hence, salt
    contributions to the Colorado River and its tributaries is essential to
    the success of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program,
    including adherence to the water quality standards adopted by the seven
    Colorado River Basin states and approved by the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency (USEPA). Inadequate BLM salinity control efforts will
    result in very significant additional economic damages to water users
    downstream. The Forum submits this testimony in support of adequate
    funding so that the BLM program can move ahead at a pace that is needed
    to sustain these water quality standards.

                                    OVERVIEW

        This testimony is in support of funding for a portion of the Title
    II program. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was
    authorized by the Congress in 1974. The Title I portion of the Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Act responded to commitments that the
    United States made, through a minute of the International Boundary &
    Water Commission, to Mexico specific to the quality of water being
    delivered to Mexico at the international boundary. Title II of the Act
    established a program to respond to salinity control needs of Colorado
    River water users in the United States and to comply with the mandates
    of the then newly enacted Clean Water Act. Initially, the Secretary of
    the Interior and the USBR were given the lead federal role by the
    Congress.
        After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the
    Basin states concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be
    amended. In response to the Basin states' requests, the Congress
    revised the Act in 1984 to give new salinity control responsibilities
    to the USDA and to the BLM. That revision, while leaving implementation
    of the salinity control policy with the Secretary of the Interior, gave
    new salinity control responsibilities to the USDA and to the BLM. The
    Congress has charged the Administration with implementing the most
    cost-effective program practicable (measured in dollars per ton of salt
    removed). The Basin states are strongly supportive of that concept and
    have proceeded to implement salinity control activities for which they
    are responsible in the Colorado River Basin.
        Since the Congressional mandates of over two decades ago, much has
    been learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River system.
    The USBR estimates that the quantified economic impacts and damages to
    United States' water users alone is about $330 million per year and
    there are very significant additional damages yet to be quantified.
    Damages occur from:
      --a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
            water use for leaching in the agricultural sector,
      --a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
            water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
            dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
            softeners in the household sector,
      --an increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
            softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
            commercial sector,
      --an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
            and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector,
      --a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
            utility sector,
      --difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
            with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
            terms and conditions, an increase in desalination and brine
            disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
            basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling due to
            groundwater quality deterioration,
      --increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
            desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
        For every 30 mg/l increase in salinity concentrations, there is $75
    million in additional damages in the United States.
        The Forum is composed of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona,
    California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum
    has become the seven-state coordinating body for interfacing with
    federal agencies and the Congress in support of the implementation of
    the Salinity Control Program. In close cooperation with the USEPA and
    pursuant to requirements of the Clean Water Act, every three years the
    Forum prepares a formal report analyzing the salinity of the Colorado
    River, anticipated future salinity, and the program elements necessary
    to keep the salinities at or below the concentrations in the river
    system in 1972 at Imperial Dam, and below Parker and Hoover Dams.
        In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
    the salinity concentrations at these three locations have been
    identified as the numeric criteria. The plan necessary for controlling
    salinity and reducing downstream damages has been captioned the ``Plan
    of Implementation.'' The 2005 Review of water quality standards
    includes an updated Plan of Implementation. The level of appropriation
    requested in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed upon plan. If
    adequate funds are not appropriated, significant damages from the
    higher salt concentrations in the water will be more widespread in the
    United States and Mexico.

                                 JUSTIFICATION

        The BLM is, by far and away, the largest land manager in the
    Colorado River Basin. Much of the land that is controlled and managed
    by the BLM is heavily laden with salt. Past management practices, which
    include the use of lands for recreation; for road building and
    transportation; and for oil, gas, and mineral exploration have led to
    man-induced and accelerated erosional processes. When soil and rocks
    heavily laden with salt erode, the silt is carried along for some
    distance and ultimately settles in the streambed or flood plain. The
    salts, however, are dissolved and remain in the river system causing
    water quality problems downstream.
        The Forum believes that the federal government has a major and
    important responsibility with respect to controlling salt contributions
    from public lands. The Congress has explicitly directed specific
    federal agencies, including the BLM, to proceed with measures to
    control the salinity of the Colorado River, with a strong mandate to
    seek out the most cost-effective options. It has been determined that
    rangeland improvements can lead to some of the most cost-effective
    salinity control measures available. These salinity control measures
    may be more cost-effective than some now being considered for
    implementation by the USBR and by the USDA. They are very
    environmentally acceptable as they will prevent erosion, enhance
    wildlife habitat, increase dependable stream flows and increase grazing
    opportunities.
        Through studying hundreds of watersheds in the States of Utah,
    Colorado and Wyoming, consortiums of federal and state agencies,
    including the BLM, have selected several watersheds where very cost-
    effective salinity control efforts could be implemented immediately. In
    keeping with the Congressional mandate to maximize the cost-
    effectiveness of salinity control, the Forum is requesting that the
    Congress appropriate and the Administration allocate adequate funds to
    support the BLM's portion of the Colorado River Salinity Control
    Program as set forth in the Forum's adopted Plan of Implementation.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Commission of Nevada

        As a Nevada representative of the Colorado River Basin Salinity
    Control Forum, the Colorado River Commission of Nevada (CRC) supports
    funding for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the subactivity
    that assists the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. The CRC
    supports the fiscal year 2007 funding request of $33,343,000 for the
    Soil, Water, and Air Management Subactivity. As one of the five
    principal Soil, Water, and Air Program priorities, the CRC believes the
    BLM needs to specifically target $5,200,000 to activities that help
    control salt contributions from BLM managed lands in the Colorado River
    Basin.
        Salinity remains one of the major problems in the Colorado River.
    Congress has recognized the need to confront this problem with its
    passage of Public Law 93-320 and Public Law 98-569. Your support of the
    current funding recommendations that support the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Program is essential to move the program forward so
    that the congressionally directed salinity objectives are achieved.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

        Mr. Chairman, Honorable Members of the Committee, on behalf of the
    Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, I want to thank you for
    the opportunity to present our views on the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    budget. The Commission also endorses the testimony of our four member
    tribes on their natural resource program needs. We respectfully request
    that Congress reverse the downward trend in program funding that
    supports tribal well being including the protection of our natural
    resources. We also encourage this committee to take note of the on-
    going collaborative effort ordered by the federal judge within the
    region under the Biological Opinions on the Federal Columbia River
    Power System. For fiscal year 2007, the Commission has identified the
    following funding needs:
        $4,570,185, an increase of $1,435,000 over fiscal year 2006, for
    Columbia River Fisheries Management (a subcategory under the Rights
    Protection Implementation, Wildlife and Parks, Other Recurring Programs
    Area), plus pay cost adjustments. Of this increased amount:
      --$500,000 is required for base programs to address salmon listings
            under the Endangered Species Act, including genetic stock
            identification work required for hatchery reform programs.
      --$535,000 for enforcement officers to patrol In-lieu and Treaty
            Fishing Access Sites on the Columbia River.
      --$400,000 to assist in the start-up of a commercial fish processing
            center and expand marketing efforts to increase the value of
            the commercial treaty fisheries through processing and
            marketing.
        $1,500,000 is required for Conservation Officers, either as a new
    program category/line item included under Wildlife and Parks or as a
    base increase to the Columbia River Fisheries Management line item.
        $4,650,000, an increase of $608,485 over fiscal year 2006, plus
    pay-cost adjustments, for the U.S./Canada Salmon Treaty program.

                                   BACKGROUND

        In 1977, the Columbia River Treaty Tribes (Nez Perce, Umatilla,
    Warm Springs and Yakama Tribes) formed the Commission to provide
    coordination and technical assistance to the member tribes.
        In 1855, the United States entered into treaties with the four
    tribes \1\ to ensure the mutual peace and security of our peoples. For
    the four tribes' cession of millions of acres, the United States
    promised to protect and honor the rights and resources the tribes
    reserved to themselves under those treaties. Our rights and our
    religious beliefs are tied to the salmon which is being destroyed by
    process and delay by those blocking the adoption of necessary recovery
    and restoration actions and programs consistent with the Endangered
    Species Act and federal trust obligations. We have a plan designed to
    restore salmon to healthy sustainable levels.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Treaty with the Yakama Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951;
    Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 12 Stat. 963;
    Treaty with the Umatilla Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 945; Treaty with
    the Nez Perce Tribe, June 11, 1855, 12 Stat. 957.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) continues to fall short
    in funding the fish and wildlife efforts proposed by the region's co-
    managers. This January, 541 project proposals were submitted to the
    Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) for the 2007-09 funding
    cycle. These proposals followed an extensive subbasin planning effort
    involving tribal, state and federal co-managers as well as a growing
    number of local conservation groups and watershed councils. The 2007-09
    proposals total $354 million, $338 million and $324 million over the
    three-year period. Under BPA's proposed artificial funding cap of $179
    million, many projects will not be funded and ongoing projects may be
    at risk of not getting funded. We are recommending that BPA fish and
    wildlife funding levels be set at least at $200 million, $225 million,
    and $240 million respectively in 2007 to 2009. Unfortunately, because
    of BPA's artificial funding cap, we must now ask Congress to fund the
    project proposals identified by the region's fish and wildlife
    agencies.
        CRITFC's principles for fisheries protection and restoration are
    outlined in a restoration plan titled Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (Spirit
    of the Salmon). Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit can be viewed at
    www.critfc.org. The plan's objectives are to halt the decline of
    salmon, lamprey and sturgeon populations and rebuild salmon runs to
    levels that support tribal ceremonial, subsistence and commercial
    harvests. To achieve these objectives, the plan emphasizes strategies
    and principles that rely on natural production and healthy river
    systems. The plan utilizes the cooperative collaborative conservation
    approach that the White House has encouraged parties to use to address
    natural resource issues. The tribes can point to several successes in
    watershed-based restoration of salmon working with state, federal and
    private entities.
        Columbia River Fisheries Management Program Needs.--The member
    tribes have identified programmatic funding shortfalls that undermine
    efforts to fulfill their self-determination goals and objectives for
    ESA recovery planning, hatchery reform, treaty fishing access sites,
    salmon marketing, and conservation enforcement. These funding
    shortfalls require an increase of $1,435,000 over fiscal year 2006 for
    a new program base of $4,570,185 for Columbia River Fisheries
    Management as explained below.
        ESA Recovery Planning.--$500,000 is required for base programs to
    address salmon listings under the ESA, including extensive coordination
    with federal agencies regarding recovery planning for listed salmon. In
    1991, at the BIA's request, we submitted a needs assessment regarding
    outstanding hunting and fishing rights. At that time, we requested
    $1,000,000 to determine the allocation of the conservation burden among
    all sources of salmon mortality caused by hydropower, habitat,
    hatcheries and harvest impacts and for implementing hatchery production
    reform. The BIA provided only $700,000. The funding has supported
    ongoing effort to participate in multiple processes and forums for
    salmon recovery planning.
        Hatchery Reform.--While we have been calling for hatchery reform
    since 1976, the White House recently recognized reforming hatchery
    production programs is an integral part of salmon restoration. The
    tribes are leaders in restoration efforts utilizing methods such as
    supplementation and welcome the White House's new interest to advance
    this useful tool as part of a comprehensive restore salmon program.
    This broader mandate carries responsibilities to monitor and evaluate
    the results of management actions taken to reform production. To meet
    regional obligations and high standards under this broader mandate, the
    tribes must develop the capacity to analyze a broad base of genetic
    data essential for conservation and restoration of salmon populations,
    without impacting remaining wild stocks and request $200,000 for this
    requirement. This funding is part of the $500,000 program increase
    identified for ESA recovery planning.
        In-Lieu Treaty Fishing Access Sites.--We request new base funding
    of $535,000 specifically for the Treaty Fishing Access Sites, putting
    four officers on patrol to provide full coverage. This funding will
    cover dispatch support, vehicles with equipment, and four new uniformed
    officers. In-lieu and treaty fishing access sites were developed to
    replace fishing and access sites lost to the tribes as a result of
    federal construction of hydropower dams. While the BIA provides two
    enforcement personnel for these sites, they are not a dedicated
    resource and often called away from the river area for extended periods
    of time. Problems include illegal drugs, assaults, domestic violence
    complaints, damage to government property (the in-lieu and access site
    facilities), and numerous trespass violations by non-tribal members
    using the sites. All four tribes passed formal resolutions requesting
    that the Bureau provide funding to the Columbia River Inter-Tribal
    Fisheries Enforcement Department to take over protection and
    enforcement responsibilities at these sites.
        Salmon Marketing.--$400,000 to assist in the start-up of a
    commercial fish processing center and expand marketing efforts to
    increase the value of the commercial treaty fisheries through
    processing and marketing. Over the years, tribal fishers have been
    relegated to the bottom of the retail chain, with little compensation
    for their efforts. It is imperative that the tribal fishers have the
    opportunity to increase the economic value of their fisheries through
    processing, specialty product development, and marketing. The Corps of
    Engineers, in coordination with the four tribes, is building a
    commercial fish-processing center along the Columbia River. This
    facility should be finished by early 2007. A business plan to guide
    operations is being completed, and funding is needed for start-up
    capital needs for equipment and initial staffing, and for expanded
    marketing activities to process and move a value added salmon product.
        Conservation Enforcement Program Restoration.--Due to funding cuts
    made by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), we have a
    conservation enforcement request of $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2007 for
    a new program category under Wildlife and Parks for Conservation
    Officers, or as a base funding increase to the Columbia River fisheries
    management line item, to restore the tribes' coordinated fisheries
    enforcement program, and for cultural resource protection. This program
    was previously funded by BPA but was reduced due to BPA's artificial
    limitation on fish and wildlife program funding. The BPA and the
    Northwest Power and Conservation Council have both endorsed
    Congressional funding for this successful program. This funding would
    allow enable the Nez Perce Tribe to maintain a well qualified staff
    that provides conservation enforcement in the tributaries in the Snake
    River Basin, would allow the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
    Reservation to provide conservation enforcement in tributaries in
    northeastern Oregon, and would allow the Columbia River Inter-Tribal
    Enforcement branch to continue conservation enforcement and safety
    programs on the mainstem of the Columbia River between Bonneville and
    McNary dams. The NPCC acknowledged these program needs in its 1994
    ``Strategy for Salmon,'' calling for ``an expanded enforcement program
    to provide additional protection to Columbia River salmon and
    steelhead.'' The program has been successful in both reducing
    violations and educating tribal and non-tribal fishers and continues to
    receive the strong endorsement of NPCC, the BPA, and NOAA Fisheries.
        U.S.-Canada Salmon Treaty Program.--The 24 treaty fishing tribes
    that participate in the implementation of the U.S./Canada Pacific
    Salmon Treaty of 1985 have identified a program need of $4,650,000, an
    increase of $608,485 over fiscal year 2006, plus pay-cost adjustments,
    for the U.S./Canada Salmon Treaty program. This funding supports salmon
    harvest monitoring and evaluation, mark tagging programs, and research
    carried out by the tribes on Chinook, coho, chum, sockeye and pink
    salmon stocks originating in the Snake, Columbia River, Washington
    Coastal and Puget Sound rivers and streams. This work is coordinated
    with state and federal efforts through the U.S. Section of the Pacific
    Salmon Commission in order to ensure cost and program efficiencies.
    Continued funding reductions in this program area have forced the
    twenty-four tribes to cut staff in order to maintain critical research
    needs.
        In summary, through a governing body of leaders from the four
    tribes working together to protect our treaty fishing rights, with a
    staff of biologists, hydrologists, law enforcement personnel, and other
    experts advising tribal policy-makers, the tribes have become proven
    leaders on natural resource issues, provided that adequate resources
    are available. These activities are essential to meet the federal
    mandate of co-management reaffirmed by federal court order. We ask for
    your continued support of our efforts and we are prepared to provide
    any additional information you may require on the Department of the
    Interior budget.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Chugach Regional Resources Commission

        We appreciate the opportunity to provide this written testimony to
    the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies. The
    Chugach Regional Resources Commission (CRRC), a non-profit Alaska
    Native coalition for managing Tribal natural resources, with its seven
    member Tribes located in the Prince William Sound and Lower Cook Inlet,
    respectfully requests restoration of its base funding of $350,000 to
    the fiscal year 2007 Bureau of Indian Affairs budget, Fish, Wildlife
    and Parks Program and an increase of $150,000 for the continued
    operations of the Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery. Thus, CRRC is
    seeking a total of $500,000 for fiscal year 2007 Appropriations. We
    have attached a budget of our appropriations request.
        The Tribes of the Chugach Region, who make up CRRC, appreciate the
    support of the Subcommittee in reinstating our fiscal year 2006
    funding, which was zeroed out by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
    Unfortunately, the Administration has once again zeroed out our funding
    in the President's proposed BIA fiscal year 2007 budget. Therefore, we
    are respectfully requesting the support of the Appropriations
    Subcommittee to restore the $350,000 to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    fiscal year 2007 Fish, Wildlife and Parks budget for CRRC and add it to
    the base budget as permanent funding. We also request an additional
    appropriation of $150,000 to support the Alutiiq Pride Shellfish
    Hatchery until it becomes economically self-sustaining.
        The mission of CRRC is to work with our seven member Tribes to
    promote and develop sound economic resource based-projects and to work
    collectively to address any natural resource and environment-related
    issues that affect the Native people of the Chugach Region.
        Until fiscal year 2002, funding for CRRC had been included in the
    BIA's Fish, Wildlife and Parks budget for the previous 12 years. In
    fiscal year 2002-2006, this fiscal year funding was not included, but
    was restored by Congress. Last year, however, our funding was reduced
    by $50,000, significantly jeopardizing the program's continued
    operation. CRRC funding, over the past 16 years, has supported the
    development and operation of many programs that have assisted
    communities in providing meaningful employment opportunities as well as
    valuable services and products to the people of the State of Alaska.
        If this funding is not restored, 35 Native people in the Chugach
    Region will lose their jobs. With the scarcity of employment
    opportunities in rural Alaska, the impact of approximately six families
    per village losing this income in a village with an average population
    of 100, strikes a devastating blow to the local community economy. In
    addition, these 20 families will create a much larger burden on state
    and federal financial resources as they will be forced to depend upon
    state and federal welfare programs to provide funding for necessary
    living expenses.
        This funding also supports the base operating expenses of CRRC, and
    without it, our work will not be able to continue. A summary of some of
    these programs supported by this funding is provided to give you a
    better understanding of the integral role this funding plays in Tribal
    community development.
        Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery.--The Alutiiq Pride Shellfish
    Hatchery is the only shellfish hatchery in the State of Alaska. A
    20,000 sq. ft. shellfish hatchery located in Seward, Alaska, the
    hatchery houses shellfish seed, brood stock, and algae production
    facilities. Originally known as the Quteckak Shellfish Hatchery, the
    hatchery employs 4 individuals and is operated by the Chugach Regional
    Resources Commission. The Hatchery needs an additional $150,000 to
    facilitate its self-sustaining operations.
        Alutiiq Pride has been successful in culturing goeduck and razor
    clam species but additional research and development funding is needed
    to assist in the nursery, growth and marketing stages. Last year,
    Alutiiq Pride produced 4 million oyster seeds. This year, the Hatchery
    anticipates sales of 8 million oyster seed. Revenue from such sales,
    however, is quite modest ($35,000). The goeduck shellfish farming
    industry is expected to grow rapidly. If Alutiiq Pride can sell
    goeducks and razor clam seeds, the production potential from only 2
    million seed sales can approach $400,000, a tenfold revenue increase.
        The shellfish industry in Alaska has not yet grown to the point
    where seed sales cover the cost of operations. Oyster sales have
    matured and goeduck seed sales will coincide with the expected growth
    of that industry. Alutiiq Pride is undertaking hatchery, nursery and
    grow out operations research to adapt mariculture techniques for the
    Alaskan shellfish industry. Until the hatchery is self-sufficient in 3-
    5 years, however, it requires operations and research and development
    funds if it is to meet the State's growing demand for shellfish seed.
    The Hatchery seeks annual funding of $150,000 for hatchery operating
    expenses research and development funding to develop new shellfish
    species until we are self-sustaining.
        In addition to our work at Alutiiq Pride, the CRRC has established
    a host of other projects that have restored salmon and sockeye runs to
    important areas, created important employment opportunities through
    mariculture project development, and initiated important educational
    projects that will lead to meaningful involvement of the Tribes in the
    management of their resources. These projects include:
        Port Graham Salmon Hatchery.--The Port Graham Salmon Hatchery has
    been in operation since 1990, and raises sockeye, pink, and coho
    salmon. CRRC provided Port Graham with the technical and administrative
    assistance necessary to build the hatchery program. The hatchery's goal
    is to rebuild local salmon runs and provide economic opportunities for
    village residents. CRRC has funded the hatchery operations for many
    years and employed the hatchery staff consisting of 5-7 full time and
    seasonal employees.
        The original hatchery was located in the net loft of the salmon
    cannery building. This building was completely destroyed by a fire in
    January of 1998. CRRC worked closely with the Port Graham Village
    Council to obtain funding and help to build a new hatchery. The new
    hatchery was completed in 2000 and is now in the process of bringing
    salmon production to full capacity, which is 110 million pink salmon
    eggs, 5 million sockeye salmon eggs and 2 million coho salmon eggs. The
    hatchery currently produces local stock pink and coho salmon and
    incubates sockeye salmon eggs for the nearby Native Village of
    Nanwalek. The hatchery is expecting about 300,000 adult pink salmon to
    return this year, which will be enough to fill it to capacity.
        Tatitlek Mariculture Project.--The Tatitlek Mariculture Project has
    grown over the past few years to the point of the community
    constructing a processing facility for oysters, with plans to expand to
    Littleneck clams, scallops, mussels, and cockles. The project employs
    eight community members to care for the oysters until they reach a
    marketable size, at which time they are prepared for market. Another
    component of the project is to expand upon the existing marketing plan
    to ensure continuous funding for the project. This project has several
    funding sources as well, including the BIA, DCED, and revenue received
    from selling their oysters from the Tribal farm, after subsistence
    needs are met. Tatitlek has also received ANA funding in the past,
    which assisted them in getting the project started. This grant was
    administered by CRRC.
        Tribal Education Initiative Project.--Under this project, the
    principal partners, CRRC, University of Alaska-Fairbanks and NOAA will
    work together to establish a coastal resources management technician
    training degree program. CRRC and its member villages are committed to
    greater employment and business development and to improving their
    capacity to play a meaningful role in research, monitoring and
    management of those resources on which their livelihood and culture
    depend. This project will integrate traditional knowledge and western
    science by involving Native Elders and traditional knowledge bearers
    from the region in curriculum development and project implementation.
        As you can see, federal funding has played an integral role in
    allowing CRRC to develop and implement important community-based
    programs such as those described above. The Native people employed
    under this funding, the majority of whom live in remote villages, will
    lose their jobs if this funding is not restored; CRRC will be without
    operating funds, thus unable to facilitate the development of local
    community economies, and Tribes will no longer have a collective voice
    to address the environmental and resource issues that affect their
    lives.
        We are respectfully requesting the Committee's support to restore
    the original amount of $350,000 to the BIA Fish, Wildlife and Parks
    Budget for the Chugach Regional Resources Commission and make it part
    of the recurring base budget. We also request a $150,000 increase to
    fund the continuing operations of the Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery.
    Due to the magnitude of this program to the people of the Chugach, as
    well as its far reaching impacts and high cost to benefit ratio, we are
    also requesting that this funding be included in the budget as part of
    the permanent base. We believe that making our funding a part of the
    permanent base will alleviate the need for us to spend what little
    funding we have on getting our BIA funding restored rather than on
    meaningful projects that will benefit the communities.
        Once again, we ask the Subcommittee to restore these funds in
    behalf of the Native people of the Chugach Region and thank you for
    your support of our programs, as well as this opportunity to provide
    our written testimony.

                                     BUDGET
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Personnel...............................................        $177,435
    Travel for Board of Directors and Staff.................          21,000
    Mariculture/Fisheries/Office Supplies...................          49,970
    Technical Biological and Legal Assistance...............          43,200
    Miscellaneous Expenses (Telephone, Office Space, etc.)..          58,395
    Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery Operations.............         150,000
                                                             ---------------
          Total request.....................................         500,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

        As Chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, I am pleased to
    present this testimony on the Department of the Interior budget for
    fiscal year 2007. A summary of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's fiscal
    year 2007 funding request for Interior is as follows:
        1. To promote improved range management, an increase of
    $1,322,203.00 for Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's Prairie Management
    Program is requested.
        2. To improve service to sixteen (16) communities serviced by the
    Cheyenne River Sioux Law Enforcement Division in order to come into
    full compliance with the Tribe's 638 Law Enforcement Contract,
    $416,351.30 to meet minimum staffing levels for its Law Enforcement
    Division is requested. An increase of $1,225,698.70 is requested for
    adequate staffing levels.
        3. To meet increased volume of caseloads and to address case
    backlog, an increase of $818,431.00 to hire minimum staff for the
    Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court System is requested. An increase of
    $1,164,290.00 is needed to bring the budget up to adequate staffing
    levels.
        4. To fund Phase I of the Trust Asset Management Project for
    agency-level management of rangeland resources, $1,710,867.00 is
    requested.
        5. To restore the Welfare Assistance Program funding to fiscal year
    2006 levels and to specifically fund the Miscellaneous Assistance
    portion of the Program, $250,000.00 is requested.
        6. To provide funding for expansion of the Indian Child Welfare Act
    Program to address a dramatic increase in caseload, $558,093.00 is
    requested.
        7. To fund BIA Road Maintenance, $1,212,101.00 is requested in
    order to provide adequate maintenance for over 316 miles of reservation
    roads.

              NARRATIVE JUSTIFICATION FOR FUNDING REQUEST INCREASE

        Prairie Management Program.--This Program is responsible for
    restoring and preserving the mixed grass prairie ecosystem on the
    Reservation. Its goals are to improve land productivity by implementing
    range management practices that focus on the reduction of erosion,
    improvement of wildlife habitat, control of noxious weeds and the
    black-tailed prairie dog, as well as bison enhancement and endangered
    species recovery. This Program has been funded annually by a special
    congressional appropriation since 1995, however, it has been under-
    funded since its inception. During fiscal year 2006, its funding was
    reduced to approximately $416,000--far below the level necessary to
    sustain the Program. As a result of this reduction in funding, the
    Program was forced to reduce its workforce in fiscal year 2006 to 10
    full-time workers from 18 full-time employees, six contract employees,
    and six seasonal employees in fiscal year 2005. Indeed, without
    adequate funding in fiscal year 2007, the Program will be forced to
    close down completely. Accordingly, we are requesting $1,322,203.00 to
    operate the Program so that improvements to the sustainable resource of
    our rangelands can continue.
        Law Enforcement Division.--The Tribe is requesting $416,351.30 in
    order to meet minimum staffing levels for its Law Enforcement Division.
    An increase of $1,225,698.70 is needed to bring the budget up to
    adequate staffing levels. The Division in its current state is unable
    to provide adequate police protection to the 16 communities it serves.
    Emergency response time suffers due to the size of the Reservation and
    the distance between communities. Coverage is further limited by the
    staffing level--6 sergeants and 16 patrol officers. This is the same
    number of patrol officers the Tribe had in 1998--only now the
    Reservation population is over 20 percent larger.
        BIA appropriations have not increased for Law Enforcement in the
    past five years. The Law Enforcement Division needs additional funding
    to increase staffing levels, so that is can come into compliance with
    the Tribe's 638 contract. With an increase in funding, salaries can be
    increased (patrol officers currently start at $25,771/year; that
    starting salary can be raised to $31,830/year) and new officers can
    attend certification training to better serve the public.
        Tribal Court System.--The Tribe is requesting $818,431 in order to
    bring its Tribal Court System to minimum staffing levels. An increase
    of $1,164,290.00 is needed to bring the budget up to adequate staffing
    levels. In fiscal year 2006, the Tribe had to fund its Tribal Courts
    when the $458,345.21 total budget was expended on salaries and fringe
    benefits alone. The Tribe paid for supplies, communications, and
    building expenses from the CRST General Fund.
        Inadequate staffing levels result in lengthy delays in trial, the
    issuance of orders, and appeals. This interferes with defendants' right
    to a speedy trial. The Tribal Courts are overburdened--there are 57
    cases for every 100 Reservation residents. The additional funds would
    be used to hire one civil court judge, one staff attorney or law clerk,
    one additional criminal court judge, one additional juvenile court
    judge, one mediation clerk, one appellate court clerk, two probation
    officers (adult/juvenile), one compliance clerk and two court process
    servers. Money is also needed for basic operational costs such as
    communications, office supplies, and equipment.
        Unless base funding is increased, a high number of cases will
    continue to be carried out into the next year resulting in violations
    of criminal defendants' sixth amendment rights, reduction in effective
    victim protection, and negative impacts on reservation businesses that
    must rely on the civil court for collection actions.
        Trust Asset Management Program.--The Great Plains Region secured
    $1.825 million for fiscal year 2005 in Public Law 108-447 (Consolidated
    Appropriations Act) for use at the Agency level for staffing in the
    area of rangeland management. This Program, which focuses on the
    specific needs of large land-based agricultural tribal economies, is
    necessary since lease income from lands for agriculture and livestock
    grazing is a main source of revenue for the Tribe and requires
    intensive, on site operation to ensure range productivity. Neither the
    Region nor any of its tribes received funds for fiscal year 2006,
    however, and a result vital land management services, including lease
    compliance, resource management planning and IIM account management at
    the agency level, were not adequately addressed for that fiscal period.
    We are requesting $1,710,867.00 to complete Phase I of the Program.
        Welfare Assistance Program.--The Administration is proposing to
    reduce funding by $11 million from the 2006 enacted level to $74.1
    million for this Program, which will negatively impact many critical
    services and completely eliminate others. For instance, the General
    Assistance (GA) program, which was established by the BIA to provide
    necessary financial assistance to Indians in need when such assistance
    is not available through state or local agencies, would be reduced by
    $5.8 million in fiscal year 2007. Such reduction in funding will have a
    devastating effect on a majority of our most needy members, as we have
    an over 80 percent unemployment rate on our Reservation. Supportive
    services through the GA Program also provide assistance to individuals
    in overcoming personal or environmental handicaps that may inhibit
    their employability. Such services include transportation assistance,
    shelter costs, legal assistance and other critical tasks related to
    employment.
        Miscellaneous Assistance would be eliminated under the
    Administration's fiscal year 2007 budget. Miscellaneous Assistance
    provides indigent Indians with burial assistance, disaster assistance
    and emergency aid, which are services that are not adequately addressed
    under local, state or Federal programs. Accordingly, retaining the
    BIA's responsibility for providing these services is critical.
    Accordingly, we request the Subcommittee's assistance in assuring that
    the Welfare Assistance Program is restored to its fiscal year 2006
    enacted level and that Miscellaneous Assistance is re-funded.
    Specifically, we request $250,000.00 for Miscellaneous Assistance.
        Indian Child Welfare Act Program.--The Administration is proposing
    to reduce funding for this Program by $690,000 from the 2006 enacted
    level, significantly impacting critical support from tribal social
    workers who have responsibility for providing counseling and other
    services to Indian families. The Tribe's Program determines which off-
    reservation proceedings involve our Tribal families and then decides
    whether to transfer the case to Tribal Court or to intervene and
    participate in state proceedings. Most importantly, the Program finds
    family placements for our Lakota children who are removed from their
    homes.
        The Tribe received $79,563.47 in fiscal year 2006 for its Program.
    This amount is well below the funding necessary to run our program at
    adequate levels. The Program currently has 80 active cases (including
    three appeals to the State Supreme Court) and annually receives over
    1,300 requests for assistance in 11 states and 8 counties in South
    Dakota. Due to a dramatic increase in caseload, the current budget is
    inadequate to provide for more staffing. We are therefore requesting
    $558,093.00 to bring the budget up to adequate staffing levels to
    provide salaries for five additional staff positions (one attorney, two
    social workers, and one receptionist).
        BIA Road Maintenance.--In 2005, through the enactment of SAFETEA-
    LU, Congress made a major commitment to address the poor state of
    transportation infrastructure on Indian reservations by increasing
    funding for road construction and improvement. The five year SAFETEA-LU
    authorization makes critical advances in reversing the historical
    neglect and underfunding for road construction on Indian reservations.
    While investing in the construction and improvement of reservation
    roads is vital to tribal economic development and self-determination,
    preserving that investment by maintaining the integrity of these roads
    is just as important. The Administration is proposing to cut the Tribal
    Priority Allocation amount for BIA road maintenance by $2.1 million
    from its 2006 enacted level. This proposal simply does not make sense
    as the lack of maintenance funding, for snow removal for instance, can
    put reservation road out of commission for significant periods of
    time--in the Northern Plains, snow covers roads for, on average, six
    months out of the year.
        The BIA Agency received $462,101.00 for fiscal year 2006, an amount
    that has proven inadequate for actual road maintenance after deductions
    for staff salaries, transportation costs, building utilities, office
    supplies and contractual services. There are over 316 miles of road in
    the Tribe's Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) inventory. This leaves
    approximately $209.00 per road mile for annual maintenance, well below
    approximately $5,000.00 per road mile the amount that is spent by the
    State for the exact same purpose. The Tribe estimates its unmet need,
    at a minimum, of $750,000.00 for fiscal year 2006 alone. Thus, we are
    requesting that the annual allocation for the Tribe's road maintenance
    be increased to $1,212,101.00 annually for fiscal year 2007, which
    would allow for an annual average allocation per road mile of
    $2,582.00.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Water Conservation District

        We are requesting your support for the following appropriations in
    fiscal year 2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper
    Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River
    Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as recommended in the
    President's budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Ecological
    Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element;
    $697,000 within the $5,631,000 item entitled ``General Program
    Activities'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS
    to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado River
    Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
        2. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
    Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
    support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
    in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $211,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year
    2007 to meet FWS' Region 2 expenses managing and implementing the San
    Juan Recovery Program.
        We thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee's
    assistance for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the California State Coastal Conservancy

                                PROJECT REQUESTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Project                              Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Funding for the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay Wildlife        $1,540,000
     Refuge (FWS, Partners for Fish and Wildlife)...........
    Monitoring of San Francisco Bay Salt Ponds (USGS,                900,000
     Biological Research and Monitoring)....................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    SUMMARY

        The following testimony is in support of the California State
    Coastal Conservancy's fiscal year 2007 Interior and Environment
    Appropriations request. The Conservancy respectfully requests needed
    funding for the following critical projects: $1.54 million, U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service, Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (Base
    Budget would be preferable; Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is
    second choice) and $900,000, U.S Geological Survey, Biological Research
    and Monitoring. Both of these requests are for the South Bay Salt Pond
    Restoration Project.

                             CONSERVANCY BACKGROUND

        The California Coastal Conservancy, established in 1976, is a state
    agency that uses entrepreneurial techniques to purchase, protect,
    restore, and enhance coastal resources, and to provide access to the
    shore. We work in partnership with local governments, other public
    agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private landowners.
        To date, the Conservancy has undertaken more than 950 projects
    along the 1,100 mile California coastline and around San Francisco Bay.
    Through such projects, the Conservancy: protects and improves coastal
    wetlands, streams, and watersheds; works with local communities to
    revitalize urban waterfronts; assists local communities in solving
    complex land-use problems and protects agricultural lands and supports
    coastal agriculture to list a few of our activities.
        Since its establishment in 1976, the Coastal Conservancy has:
    helped build more than 300 access ways and trails, thus opening more
    than 80 miles of coastal and bay lands for public use; assisted in the
    completion of over 100 urban waterfront projects; joined in partnership
    endeavors with more than 100 local land trusts and other nonprofit
    groups, making local community involvement an integral part of the
    Coastal Conservancy's work and completed projects in every coastal
    county and all nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. In addition, we
    currently have over 300 active projects that are benefiting the
    citizens of California.

             SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT POND RESTORATION PROJECT

        This project is of national significance because in conjunction
    with the Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration project it will create the
    largest restored wetland on the west coast of the United States. In
    addition, the project will provide extensive habitat for federally
    endangered species and migratory waterfowl and will also provide tidal
    and fluvial flood protection in South San Francisco Bay protecting
    approximately 42,800 acres, 7,400 homes and businesses, and significant
    urban infrastructure, to include major highways, hospitals and airport
    facilities. Finally, the project will also improve wildlife-oriented
    public access and recreational opportunities. The combination of these
    extensive benefits make the project of critical importance to the State
    of California and the region which is evidenced by the amount of
    support this project enjoys in local, state and federal circles.
        In order to continue to advance this important study it is
    imperative that local interests and the federal government work
    together to ensure a reliable funding stream for the project. In
    accordance substantial cost-sharing has already begun among the land
    management agencies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contributed $8
    million toward the $100 million acquisition of the salt ponds. The
    State of California provided $72 million and the Hewlett Foundation,
    Packard Foundation, Moore Foundation, and Goldman Fund provided $20
    million. The foundations are providing an additional $15 million for
    restoration planning and $9 million for land management. The State of
    California is providing over $8 million for planning and $6 million for
    land management.

                           FISH AND WILDLIFE FUNDING

        For the upcoming fiscal year, we respectfully request the inclusion
    of $1,540,000 in funding for the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National
    Wildlife Refuge for continued management and maintenance.
        The Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge is now
    managing 9,600 acres of the recently acquired South Bay Salt Ponds that
    were acquired from Cargill in 2003. In order to effectively manage
    these lands, including installation and management of water control
    structures, levee maintenance, and monitoring of salt ponds increased
    funding is needed through the Department of Fish and Wildlife. In 2004
    $460,000 was added by the President to the Refuge's base budget in and
    $540,000 in appropriations in fiscal year 2005 and 2006 have allowed
    for the successful implementation of interim management of the site.
    The cost of maintenance has increased over what had originally been
    estimated by Cargill and an additional $1,000,000 is needed for levees
    maintenance to protect Silicon Valley from tidal flooding prior to
    implementation of the permanent flood control solution by the Corps,
    which will not commence until at least 2012 and will require years to
    complete.

                                  USGS FUNDING

        We respectfully request the inclusion of $900,000 in funding for
    the United States Geological Survey for the purpose of monitoring the
    San Francisco Bay.
        The funds being requested for fiscal year 2007 would be used by the
    Geological Survey to conduct interdisciplinary monitoring, specifically
    USGS will be engaging in biological, hydrological, and water quality
    studies of Salt Ponds in San Pablo Bay and San Francisco Bay. This
    monitoring is essential to the health of the Bay Area and the future of
    the project as it will be critical in shaping the outcome of the
    feasibility study and future design and implementation of the project.
    Without the proposed monitoring activities, there will be little to no
    understanding of the benefits and impacts of the restoration activities
    that are being planned by the Army Corps of Engineers and local
    sponsors. The State of California is providing gap funding to USGS, but
    cannot continue to fund the monitoring without assistance from the
    Federal Government.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the County of San Diego

        On behalf of the County of San Diego, please support full funding
    for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program in fiscal year 2007.
        With your assistance, Congress provided $233 million for PILT in
    fiscal year 2006. This funding provides important compensation to local
    communities that have significant amounts of Federal land in their
    counties. PILT partially offsets the costs of supplying many valuable
    services such as search and rescue, law enforcement, and road
    maintenance.
        The County of San Diego strongly supports full funding for this
    program. The authorization for PILT would provide funding at an
    estimated $340 million annually, which is warranted by the fiscal
    pressures experienced by counties.
        Please continue to work to increase the funding necessary for this
    program.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of Coconino County, Arizona

        Dear Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $2.2 million from the USDA Forest Service's Forest
    Legacy Program for the Cedar Springs property near Flagstaff, Arizona.
    As you may know the President's budget is requesting $880,000 for Phase
    I of this project.
        The conservation of the 800-acre Cedar Springs property is the top
    priority project for the Forest Legacy Program in Arizona. Riparian
    forests, including those on the property, are home to the most
    biologically diverse natural communities in the state. The project will
    also help maintain important habitat and migration corridors from the
    mixed conifer forest of the higher elevations, across the mid-elevation
    pinyon-juniper forest, to the grasslands at lower elevations.
        Natural springs on the property provide important sources of water
    for wildlife on thousands of surrounding acres. These catchments are a
    potential refugia for the Little Colorado spinedace, a federally-
    listed, threatened fish species. A number of other important wildlife
    species rely on the springs and the property for wintering habitat.
        The property is also home to a number of historical resources from
    pioneer days. Historical constructions include a homestead barn and
    corral, a cedar-post flume, the Grand Canyon Stage Coach line, and the
    Beale Wagon Road, built between 1857 and 1859 across New Mexico and
    Arizona as a route to California. Remnants of this road remain on the
    property, and the Forest Service has developed parts of the road into
    the 19.5-mile Beale Wagon Road Historic Trail.
        The Cedar Springs project is consistent with Coconino County's
    regional conservation strategy and links protected lands in the
    Coconino National Forest, Northern Arizona University's Centennial
    Forest, and the Coconino Plateau Natural Reserve Lands. The project
    complements larger conservation easements to the north and west, and
    protects one of the last remaining private parcels of significant size
    in a landscape of otherwise conserved lands.
        An appropriation of $2.2 million from the Forest Legacy Program in
    fiscal year 2007 will protect the Cedar Springs property in its
    entirety and preserve forestlands vital to the region's natural and
    historic character. The Forest Legacy Program and their non-
    governmental partners are working with the landowner to best conserve
    this property with the requested federal funding.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to provide
    testimony in support of the Cedar Springs project.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of
                              the Flathead Nation

        Honorable Chairman Burns, Ranking Member Dorgan, and members of the
    subcommittee, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the
    Flathead Nation (CSKT) appreciates this opportunity to present you with
    testimony on the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request for the
    Department of Interior. Before offering remarks on the overall budget
    for Indian programs and providing more information about the specific
    projects for which the CSKT request funding, here is the basic
    information about our budgetary requests:
      --$100,000 for a feasibility study on the establishment of a Salish
            and Kootenai Judicial Center and Regional Detention Facility
      --Continued funding for the CSKT land consolidation program
      --$500,000 for tribal water rights negotiations
      --Funding for the Indian Health Service to achieve parity with other
            federal beneficiaries
        Background.--The CSKT reservation is a result of the cession of
    tribal lands made by the Salish, Kootenai, and Pend d'Oreilles Indians
    under the Hellgate Treaty of 1855. In the Hellgate Treaty the Tribes
    ceded over 20 million acres of ancestral land (much of what is now
    considered western Montana) in exchange for a reservation of title to
    lands within an area of 1.3 million acres in northwestern Montana. In
    1904, Congress opened up the Flathead reservation to allotment and
    widespread transfer of tribal land into the hands of individual tribal
    members and ultimately to non-Indians took place. Beginning in the
    1940's, the CSKT began to recover some of the lands over which the
    Tribes had lost ownership. Currently, we have over 600,000 acres of
    land in trust, almost 71,000 owned by the Tribe in fee, as well as over
    36,000 acres owned in fee by individual tribal members, within the
    reservation. The Flathead Nation has been on the cutting edge not only
    of land consolidation in Indian Country, but also in the exercise of
    tribal self-determination.
        The CSKT is a Self-Governance Compact tribe, which means that we
    operate almost all of the programs and services that the federal
    government, mainly through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian
    Health Service, would be required to provide were the Tribes not
    operating them on behalf of the federal government. In addition to the
    more traditional programs that many tribes operate, we operate the Land
    Realty program, operate and manage the power utility (Mission Valley
    Power), and the Financial Trust Services program, including Individual
    Indian Money (IIM) accounts, as well as some IHS functions but not all
    of them. We recently had to give the Contract Care program back to the
    IHS to operate because we were going bankrupt operating this program
    for the IHS While we are confident that the Tribe is the entity best
    suited to carrying out all of these activities, they require major
    obligations of financial support from the federal government.
        Fiscal Year 2007 Interior Budget.--We will not spend time in this
    testimony going over the national scope Indian programs but will say
    that we agree with the analysis of the budget prepared by the National
    Congress of American Indians and the other large Indian organizations.
    We share their concern about the degree to which the proposed budgets
    are wholly insufficient to do the job that the Congress has assigned
    the BIA and the IHS. We are concerned about programs slated for total
    elimination such as Johnson O'Malley education funding in the BIA.
        For the Indian Health Service, the President's overall budget for
    service programs, including direct services and contract support costs,
    proposes an increase of approximately $130 million for the amount
    enacted for fiscal year 2006. While the majority of the budget items in
    the service programs subcategory remain flat, which is itself
    disappointing given the lack of acknowledgement of inflation and pay
    cost adjustments, it is also disconcerting to see the urban Indian
    health program subject to elimination. This program provides service to
    thousands of Indians throughout the United States that live in cities
    and certainly serves some CSKT tribal members. Among other things, this
    will lead to those people returning to the reservation for services and
    there is no corresponding increase that will allow us to serve them.
    The continuation of an effective moratorium on construction of new
    health facilities in Indian Country is another concern to the Flathead
    Nation, as we stand together with our fellow tribes in the position
    that health care facilities, as well as health care services, in Indian
    Country are lagging far behind the acceptable standards for the public
    at large.
        Public Safety and Justice.--In BIA Construction of public safety
    and justice facilities, the President's fiscal year 2007 budget
    proposes $11.6 million. The National Congress of American Indians in
    its budget request for fiscal year 2007 has proposed a much more
    ambitious table that would fund 15 new detention facilities in Indian
    Country within the next three years, at a total cost of $150 million.
    Obviously, under the President's request, which is basically flat from
    the amount enacted by Congress for construction of public safety and
    justice facilities in fiscal year 2006, there is funding for little
    more than one facility per year. The CSKT have for over 10 years been
    considering the possibility of developing a tribal judicial center that
    better meets the needs of tribal police, prosecutors, courts, and
    probation officers, and now request $100,000 in funding for a study to
    determine the feasibility of a new judicial and regional detention
    facility on the Flathead Reservation.
        The CSKT court system processes around 2,300 criminal cases
    annually and has concurrent jurisdiction with the State of Montana for
    felony cases under Public Law 280. While the tribal court generally
    takes a rehabilitative approach to criminal sentencing, referring
    offenders to services for alcohol treatment, mental health treatment,
    or anger management when appropriate; some violent offenders who we
    would prefer to be in jail have instead been released because of a lack
    of jail space. This is definitely not in the best interests of the
    Tribe or the surrounding communities, but is a reality of the limited
    capacity of our system. There are many other tribes in Montana, the
    Northwest, and throughout Indian Country, that have similar problems,
    and that is why the Interior budget for construction of public safety
    and justice facilities must reflect a much more ambitious effort to
    construct and improve facilities in Indian Country. This problem is not
    limited to Indian Country either, as the CSKT knows that some Montana
    counties, including Flathead, Lake and Missoula Counties have been
    forced to send their prisoners out to other jurisdictions because of a
    lack of capacity. The need for a new regional and tribal facility is
    clear, but a more formal study of the situation is needed to move
    forward.
        In 1998 the Flathead Nation entered into a contract with EKM,
    Incorporated to conduct an assessment of the current and future needs
    of the CSKT court and detention services. The assessment showed that
    the existing facility that the Tribe has in place is insufficient to
    keep up with the needs of tribal justice system currently and into the
    future. The space at the existing facility is simply too limited to
    provide adequate services. Further, the assessment concluded, the
    mechanical and electrical systems are completely outdated and should be
    replaced entirely. The CSKT also does not have a juvenile facility,
    which results in additional expenditures of $250,000 to detain
    juveniles at off-reservation locations. The feasibility study we
    propose is a reasonable step to take in determining the likely benefits
    to not only the CSKT but to neighboring localities and counties of a
    new judicial and detention facility. Attached for your information and
    files is a more detailed description of what we would like to do with
    this study.
        Indian Land Consolidation.--Indian lands are increasingly owned by
    a number of heirs who each hold a fractionated interest in parcels of
    property. This result of the allotment era when tribal lands were
    divided and parceled out to individual tribal members has resulted in a
    system where hundreds or even thousands of people hold property
    interests in a given parcel of land. The allotment period also resulted
    in ``checkerboarding'' of Indian land ownership between Indians and
    non-Indians and has created an entanglement of jurisdictional issues
    that the federal government, tribes, states, counties, and localities
    must work through together. The substantial increase in the overall
    budget for the Indian Land Consolidation Act (ILCA) program is a
    positive step for Indian Country. We are one of the tribes involved in
    the BIA's ILCA program. The Bureau approached our tribes to get
    involved because (a) we have plenty of fractionated land and (b) we are
    using our limited tribal dollars to repurchase land on the reservation
    whenever it comes up for sale. We are therefore able to use tribal
    dollars as a local match to BIA ILCA funds. We believe we may be the
    only tribes in the country doing so. OMB is pressuring the BIA to only
    target ILCA funds on the most fractionated reservations and we are not
    in the top 10 in that regard. Nonetheless we have a lot of
    fractionation and again are ensuring the BIA gets a good bang for its
    buck by supplementing the program with tribal funds. We therefore
    request that the Appropriations Committee include language in the
    fiscal year 2007 Interior Report directing the BIA to continue funding
    the ILCA program on our reservation at the same level at which is has
    been previously funded.
        Water Rights Negotiations Funding.--The Confederated Salish and
    Kootenai Tribes are actively negotiating water rights with the Montana
    Water Rights Compact Commission. These negotiations began in the mid
    1980's. During the late 1980's and early 1990's the State of Montana
    shifted priorities to other Montana Indian reservations. Then in 1995
    the CSKT renewed active negotiations and the United States created the
    Federal Flathead Water Rights Negotiating Team. Negotiations have
    continued since this time and are getting progressively active
    requiring increasing funding especially with the Montana Water Rights
    Compact Commission scheduled to terminate in 2009.
        The Tribes prepared a proposal for assistance in funding this
    effort in 2006 to the Portland Regional Office of the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs to be funded under the Water Resources Planning and Pre-
    Development Program for $707,625. The Tribes have been notified that
    only $31,694 will be made available to the Tribes. The Tribes have
    reviewed the proposal and have determined that $500,000 would be
    adequate per year to support our water rights negotiations effort.
        While the level of negotiation activities increases the level of
    federal support continues to decrease. This continues to be a concern
    for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes especially with the
    Montana Water Rights Compact Commission terminating in 2009.
        IHS Budget.--As everyone knows, good health care systems are
    essential for maintaining health, and healthy individuals are the
    keystone of healthy families and healthy communities. Despite the
    federal governments trust obligations owed to Indian Tribes in the
    field of health care, Indians remain the minority population with the
    highest rate of a number of serious diseases in the United States.
    Further, Indian people have by far the lowest life expectancy of any
    minority population in the United States. Alcoholism, diabetes, drug
    abuse, cancer, heart disease, accidental deaths, and suicide are all
    rampant in Indian Country. While not all of the burden can be placed on
    the federal government for the well-being of Indian people, the federal
    government does have a legal obligation to fund Indian health care
    services, among other populations.
        While Indian people rank highest among occurrences of a number of
    major diseases, among all of the groups for which the United States
    must pay for health care, Indians rank the lowest in terms of per
    person funding. According to a recent study conducted by the U.S.
    Commission on Civil Rights, ``A Quite Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet
    Needs in Indian Country,'' the Federal Government pays $5,915 annual
    per Medicare recipient. It pays $5,214 on average annual per veteran
    through VA health care. The U.S. even pays $3,803 annually in health
    care for each federal prisoner. For Indian people, though, the federal
    government contributes only $1,914 per person annually. This disparity
    is completely unacceptable. The government is essentially saying we are
    only worth half as much a federal prisoner! The Congress must begin to
    address this stunning inequity and commit to parity funding between
    tribes and other federal health care beneficiaries. At this time, the
    CSKT would like to call for a ramping up of the IHS service budget over
    the next five to seven years to reach parity with other federal health
    care recipients. This is going to require a concentrated political
    effort on behalf of advocates for Indian Country in Congress, as
    nothing less than an increase of $500 million per year for the next
    five years will get Indian health care to a level of equity with other
    federal health care recipients. This must be a coordinated approach
    between the Budget Committees, the Authorizing Committees and the
    Appropriations Committee but it really must start in fiscal year 2007.
        Section 122.--We do request that the language now appearing as
    Section 122 of the fiscal year 2006 Interior Appropriations be extended
    again in fiscal year 2007 and that the Committee consider an
    appropriate level of funding for the participating tribes so that we
    can fully meet trust standards as we are required by the language of
    the section.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of Colorado Springs Utilities

        We are requesting your support for the following appropriations in
    fiscal year 2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper
    Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River
    Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as recommended in the
    President's budet.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Ecological
    Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element;
    $697,000 within the $5,631,000 item entitled ``General Program
    Activities'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS
    to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado River
    Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
        2. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
    Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
    support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
    in Utah..
        3. Allocation of $211,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year
    2007 to meet FWS' Region 2 expenses managing and implementing the San
    Juan Recovery Program.
        We thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee's
    assistance for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama
                                     Nation

        Forestry.--The Yakama Nation seeks commitments from the Federal
    Government to ensure adequate funding to implement forest management
    measures designed to protect, maintain and enhance our sacred forest
    resource.
        Background.--The Yakama Indian Reservation is located in south
    central Washington (Figure 1) on the east slope of the Cascade Mountain
    range. The reservation is approximately 1.3 million acres, of which
    more than 600,000 acres are forested. The Yakama forested area contains
    an estimated 10 billion board feet of timber and approximately 150
    million board feet is harvested annually. It is the largest forestry
    operation nationally within the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

        The Yakama forest plays a vital role for the Yakama People. Our
    forest is used for subsistence living which includes traditional foods
    and medicines, big game and fish, and a spiritual setting for our
    enrolled members (Figure 2). It also is essential for both the Tribal
    economy and surrounding communities.

        The Yakama Nation forest resource is the absolute core of our
    Tribe's economy. The timber harvesting program creates economic
    opportunities and includes employment within the forestry and natural
    resource programs, tribal logging operations, and tribal enterprises
    such as the lumber mill, Yakama Forest Products (YFP). YFP alone
    employs over 340 people, over 90 percent are tribal affiliated, with an
    annual payroll and benefits exceeding $11 million. More than 2,000 jobs
    are directly related to the Yakama forest and an estimated five times
    that amount indirectly benefit.
        Although the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) continues to carry out
    its trust responsibility, the Yakama Nation is increasingly
    participating in the management of our forest resources. The BIA has
    contributed significantly to the management of our resources despite
    the budget limitations. The BIA forestry budgets have remained
    relatively flat over the past decade, while our forest has increasingly
    been impacted by insect and disease problems and a compounding increase
    in the risk of catastrophic wildfire.
        From 1980 to the late 1990's, the BIA failed in offering the full
    amount of timber that was scheduled for harvest. The effects of this
    shortfall contributed to overstocked stands that were ravaged by a
    Western Spruce Budworm outbreak during the 1990's. The Yakama Nation
    accelerated the harvest levels in 1999 through 2001, but we are once
    again falling short of our annual allowable harvest levels. Although we
    achieved our allowable cut of 147 million board feet in 2004, we fell
    well short of this level in 2003 harvesting 131 million board feet.
    This past year in 2005, we were able to harvest only 128 million board
    feet.
        These reduced harvest levels can be attributed directly to the
    funding levels. Along with BIA federal funds, the Yakama Nation retains
    10 percent of the total value harvested and uses these administrative
    fees to fund nearly half of our forestry program. The combination of
    falling timber prices and the BIA failing to meet its trust obligation
    to offer the annual allowable harvest is causing severe budget
    shortfalls.
        Many of the budget shortfalls are being met with tribal funds. In
    fiscal year 2006, the Yakama Nation will contribute more than $315,000
    to pay for the shortfall in salaries of our tribal employees who
    receive their funding from the administrative fees. Additionally, the
    Yakama Nation assists in the funding of many of our natural resource
    programs including archeology, cultural resources, fisheries and
    wildlife.
        Forestry Recommendations.--The Yakama Nation requests a stronger
    commitment from the federal government in meeting its trust obligation
    to the Yakama Nation. At minimum, the BIA should offer the annual
    allowable harvest to the Yakama Nation. In order to prepare these
    timber sales to meet the standards in the National Environmental Policy
    Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation
    Act, additional funding is imperative. The Yakama Nation therefore
    requests the following.
      --Reallocation of the Increased Harvest Initiative Funds.--These
            nonrecurring funds are allocated for the specific purpose of
            allowing tribes to achieve their annual allowable harvest
            levels. The Yakama Nation receives a portion of these funds but
            requests an additional $300,000 increase.
      --Reallocation of the Endangered Species Act Funds.--These
            nonrecurring funds are allocated for the purpose of meeting the
            requirements of federally listed animal species. The Yakama
            Nation is required under federal law to survey for the Northern
            Spotted Owl, a federally listed species. We request an
            additional $200,000 increase.
      --Forest Development Funds.--These funds are allocated for the
            maintenance and enhancement of commercial timberland to support
            the desired level of annual timber harvesting. Since the Yakama
            Nation operates the largest forestry program nationally, the
            Yakama Nation should receive the highest level possible from
            this funding source. We request an additional $200,000
            increase.
        The Yakama Nation further recommends supporting the ``Indian Forest
    Management Assessment Team'' report, December 2003. The report is a
    requirement of the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act,
    Public Law 101-630, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to
    obtain an independent assessment every 10 years. The report is the
    second independent congressionally mandated report on the state of
    Indian forests and forestry. The report contains an analysis of funding
    on Indian forest lands compared with similar federal and private
    forests.
        The support of these recommendations will serve to better meet the
    trust obligations of the BIA and protect our sacred resources that are
    so vital to our traditional values and economic viability.
        Johnson O'Malley.--The Yakama Nation strongly opposes the proposed
    total defunding of Johnson O'Malley (JOM) education funds. In fiscal
    year 2006, JOM was funded at $16.4 million. JOM provides financial
    assistance to Tribes through their Tribal Priority Allocations to
    supplement funding received by tribes from other federal, states, and
    tribal sources. Tribes have used JOM to help Indian students succeed in
    school by providing counseling, cultural activities, remedial
    education, and crucial school supplies, even extending to things like
    eyeglasses. JOM is a crucial program to the Yakama Nation because of
    the flexibility it provides in helping us meet the needs of our
    students. JOM should definitely not be eliminated, and should at least
    be funded at the level for fiscal year 2006, if not higher.
        Attorney Fees.--We urge the Congress to return the $7 million that
    came from BIA accounts to pay the Cobell attorneys, most importantly
    the $2 million that was taken from attorney fees account and the $1
    million from other across the board cuts in BIA programs. Tribes
    desperately need attorney fees funding to protect their natural
    resources and there are other sources that would have been far more
    appropriate to use to pay the Cobell attorneys
        The Yakama Nation relies on the Interior litigation support and
    attorney fees to protect our treaty rights to fish, hunt, and gather in
    the Hanford Reach portion of the Columbia River Basin. In some cases,
    such as that concerning cleanup of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the
    United States has a conflict of interest that prevents it from bringing
    a suit on behalf of a tribe. This is the purpose of the litigation
    support and attorneys fees funds: to facilitate the ability of Indian
    tribes to litigate to protect their interests when they United States
    cannot do so. The Hanford Reach, located along the Columbia River
    within the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, is one of the most heavily
    contaminated sites of nuclear waste materials in the world. However, it
    also happens to be an area of usual and accustomed use for the Yakama
    people that carries major cultural, social, and spiritual significance.
    The Tribe continues to lead efforts to force the Department of Energy
    to abide by the terms of the Yakama's treaty with the United States
    through a professional cleanup of the Hanford site. We have used the
    funds to assess injury and recover damages to our trust resources
    harmed by nuclear waste facilities located on the Hanford Reach along
    the Columbia River. We request $750,000 for Litigation support and
    $450,000 for Attorneys Fees under the Rights Protection Implementation
    category of the Interior budget.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
                                  Reservation

        Chairman Burns, Ranking Member Dorgan and members of the
    Subcommittee, on behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
    Reservation (``Colville Tribe'' or the ``Tribe'') I thank you for this
    opportunity to submit written testimony to the Subcommittee. As you may
    know, the Colville Tribe has been working with Senators Patty Murray
    and Maria Cantwell to restore $630,000 in Lake Roosevelt Management/
    Enforcement funds to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (``BIA'') that were
    not requested in the President's fiscal year 2007 Budget Request. These
    funds, administered in the ``Other Recurring Programs'' account of the
    BIA's budget, are vital to the continued public safety and the security
    of the United States/Canadian border.
        Before discussing how the Colville Tribe uses these funds and why
    the funds are vital to ensure public safety, I would like to take this
    opportunity to provide some brief background on the Colville Tribe.
    Although now considered a single Indian tribe, the Confederated Tribes
    of the Colville Reservation is, as the name states, a confederation of
    twelve smaller aboriginal tribes and bands from all across eastern
    Washington State. The Colville Reservation encompasses approximately
    1.4 million acres and is located in north central Washington State. The
    Colville Tribe has over 9,200 enrolled members, making it one of the
    largest Indian tribes in the Pacific Northwest. About half of the
    Tribe's members live on or near the Colville Reservation.

                  LAKE ROOSEVELT MANAGEMENT/ENFORCEMENT FUNDS

        Lake Roosevelt Management/Enforcement funds enable both the
    Colville Tribe and the Spokane Tribe to employ law enforcement officers
    to patrol Lake Roosevelt and its shoreline to enforce federal laws
    (through cross-deputization arrangements) and tribal health and safety
    laws. Lake Roosevelt is the 151-mile reservoir of the Grand Coulee Dam,
    the largest hydroelectric power plant in the United States and the
    third largest in the world. As a national tourist destination, Lake
    Roosevelt receives approximately 1.5 million visitors annually.

    Homeland Security
        The law enforcement patrols funded by Lake Roosevelt Management/
    Enforcement funds have become increasingly critical since the September
    11 terrorist attacks. As you can imagine, the Grand Coulee Dam is
    considered a ``high-value'' terrorist target. Indeed, in early 2002
    media outlets reported that U.S. troops recovered materials relating to
    the Grand Coulee Dam in the rubble of Al-Qaeda hideouts in Afghanistan.
    Tribal personnel funded by Lake Roosevelt Management funds have in
    recent years worked cooperatively with the Bureau of Reclamation and
    the National Parks Service to increase their patrols to correspond with
    the heightened security of the Grand Coulee Dam. To this end, Lake
    Roosevelt Management/Enforcement funds play a direct role in protecting
    public safety by ensuring that a key access point to the Grand Coulee
    Dam, Lake Roosevelt, remains patrolled.

    Border Security
        The patrols funded by Lake Roosevelt/Management funds are also an
    integral part of securing the United States' northern border with
    Canada. The northern boundary of the present-day Colville Reservation
    is approximately 70 miles long and is within 35 miles of the U.S./
    Canadian border. In addition, the Tribe owns two large tracts of trust
    land and numerous smaller parcels that are either contiguous to or
    within 5 miles of the U.S./Canadian border. One of these tracts, a 562
    acre parcel, abuts the U.S./Canadian border. Another 592 acre tract is
    within 5 miles of the border. Drug smuggling along the U.S./Canadian
    border, particularly in rural eastern Washington State, has become an
    increasing problem in recent years.
        In recent weeks, numerous sightings of unmarked fixed-winged
    aircraft capable of landing on water have been reported on lakes and
    waterways within and near the Colville Reservation. Most significantly,
    on March 14, 2006, tribal law enforcement officers funded by Lake
    Roosevelt Management/Enforcement funds seized an unmarked float plane
    from Canada that was attempting to smuggle illegal drugs into the
    United States through the Colville Reservation. After being alerted to
    the plane and after a long chase, the Tribe's officers captured and
    detained the pilot the next day and handed over to federal law
    enforcement authorities an estimated $2 million in illegal drugs that
    had been dropped by the plane on the bank of Columbia River near the
    Grand Coulee Dam. The U.S. Border Patrol recently honored the Tribal
    officers that participated in this seizure.
        In addition to this incident, three other incidents involving
    similar float planes smuggling drugs via waterways on the Colville
    Reservation have also resulted in arrests in recent weeks:
      --On February 19, 2006, a float plane was spotted landing and
            depositing bags of illegal drugs on Omak Lake, a small lake
            within the Colville Reservation. Although that plane and its
            pilot managed to escape, the Tribe's law enforcement officers
            apprehended the driver of a vehicle that retrieved the bags and
            recovered an estimated $400,000 worth of illegal drugs.
      --On March 23, 2006, a float plane landed on Soap Lake, another small
            lake within the Colville Reservation, and dropped yet another
            load of illegal drugs. That plane and its pilot were also able
            to escape but authorities were able to arrest two Canadian
            citizens who retrieved the drugs. The drugs seized in this
            incident were valued at $1.5 million.
      --Earlier this month, the Tribe's law enforcement gave chase to yet
            another float plane, though the plane managed to escape.
        The Colville Tribe's law enforcement personnel receive two to three
    reports of float plane sightings per week on the Colville Reservation.
    The Colville Tribe has reason to believe that up to 25 aircraft may be
    involved in cross-border drug smuggling activities using the Colville
    Reservation. The fact that these float planes are focusing their
    smuggling activities on waterways and other bodies of water within the
    Colville Reservation makes funding for Lake Roosevelt Management/
    Enforcement funds all the more critical.

                       FUNDING HISTORY AND MATCHING FUNDS

        Congress has appropriated Lake Roosevelt Management/Enforcement
    funds to the BIA every year since the five parties executed the
    agreement in 1990. In turn, the BIA apportions the funds between the
    Colville Tribe (approximately two-thirds) and the Spokane Tribe
    (approximately one-third). From fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year
    2005, Congress funded the program at $630,000. Congress funded the
    program at $350,000 in fiscal year 2006.
        Matching funds for the Colville Tribe's activities under this
    program for fiscal year 2007 include the following: (1) the Tribe will
    contribute approximately $500,000 (the Spokane Tribe similarly
    contributes substantial tribal resources to its program); (2) the U.S.
    Department of Justice will contribute $175,000 through the COPS grant
    program; (3) the Tribe reprogrammed $170,000 in BIA tribal priority
    allocation funds from other BIA programs; and (4) the program will
    generate an estimated $90,000 from fines and fees. The Colville Tribe
    uses all the funds from the direct appropriations to fund the salaries
    of the program's 12 full-time officers.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue
    and to describe how important Lake Roosevelt Management/Enforcement
    funds are, both to the Tribe and to the continued public safety. The
    Colville Tribe appreciates the Subcommittee's consideration of the
    Tribe's request.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District

        We are requesting your support for the following appropriations in
    fiscal year 2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper
    Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River
    Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as recommended in the
    President's budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Ecological
    Services Activity; Endangered Species Sub-activity; Recovery Element;
    $697,000 within the $5,631,000 item entitled ``General Program
    Activities'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS
    to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado River
    Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
        2. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
    Operations & Maintenance Sub-activity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
    support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
    in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $211,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year
    2007 to meet FWS' Region 2 expenses managing and implementing the San
    Juan Recovery Program.
        We thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee's
    assistance for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Colorado Water Congress

        We are requesting your support for the following appropriations in
    fiscal year 2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper
    Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River
    Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as recommended in the
    President's budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Ecological
    Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element;
    $697,000 within the $5,631,000 item entitled ``General Program
    Activities'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS
    to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado River
    Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
        2. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
    Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
    support ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery in
    Utah.
        3. Allocation of $211,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year
    2007 to meet FWS' Region 2 expenses managing and implementing the San
    Juan Recovery Program.
        We thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee's
    assistance for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Duchesne County Water Conservancy District

        We are writing to request your support for continued funding for
    the Colorado River Salinity Control Title II Program. This program has
    greatly assisted in removal of many tons of salt from the Colorado
    River, but there is still a great deal of work to be completed that
    will require an adequate level of funding. The seven Colorado River
    Basin states, as well as Mexico, have greatly benefitted from this
    important program. For many years high concentrations of salt in the
    Colorado River had severely damaged agricultural production in the West
    as well as resulting in poor quality water being delivered to Mexico.
        Great strides have been made in improving water quality in the
    Colorado River since the inception of this program but we strongly feel
    that there is still a great deal to be done. We understand that the
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum is requesting $17,500,000
    in funds be appropriated for this program for fiscal year 2007 and we
    would like to add our full support to that funding level request. We
    would also like to express support for the continued funding of the
    Natural Resource Conservation Service program, the Environmental
    Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) which works closely with the Salinity
    Program. It is very important that adequate funding levels be
    maintained for it also.
        We request the Subcommittee's assistance to ensure that the
    Colorado River Salinity Control Title II program and EQIP program are
    provided with continued adequate funding.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of David J. Bardin

        Chairman Burns and Members of the Subcommittee: I urge
    Congressional actions of great potential benefit to citizens of Montana
    and North Dakota and to the national security of the United States.
      --In 2000, USGS ``misplaced'' two virtually-finished studies that
            could help augment our country's domestic oil and gas
            supplies--studies made with taxpayer support by a prolific U.S.
            government scientist.
      --Please direct the U.S. Geological Survey in the Department of the
            Interior to share with the entire exploration and development
            community (not just the private consultants to whom USGS
            transferred possession in 2000) two studies involving large
            amounts of crude oil in the Bakken Source System of the
            Williston Basin.
      --Bakken oil is a very high quality, low sulfur, low asphalt, no tar
            crude oil.
      --The two studies, prepared by the late Leigh C. Price, an award-
            winning scientist who died in August 2000, untimely ending a
            27-year career at the USGS, are:
        --A comprehensive report, ``Origins and characteristics of the
                basin-centered continuous-reservoir unconventional oil-
                resource base of the Bakken Source System, Williston
                Basin''--a 1999/2000 manuscript.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ USGS identified this report as ``in press'' in 2001 (USGS
    Professional Paper 1653).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        --An extensively-researched Hydrogen Index contour map of the
                Williston Basin, assembling results of analyzing some 1,700
                rock samples.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Price described this valuable map and its preparation in the
    report referred to above (e.g., at pages 217-218) and in a posthumous
    USGS publication (Chapter H in DDS-67, a book funded in part by the
    Department of Energy). USGS has received a FOIA request for the
    Hydrogen Index mapping information.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Please also encourage USGS in its scheduled 2007/2008 reassessment
            of undiscovered, continuous-type, unconventional crude oil and
            associated gas resources of the Williston Basin to consider
            those studies (which supported 1,000 times more barrels of
            potential crude oil resource than the official USGS assessment)
            or openly explain its reasons for disregarding them.
        These studies (and results of successful exploration by independent
    producers since 2000) cast doubts about an official ``National Oil and
    Gas Assessment'' (NOGA) as first issued by USGS in 1995 and updated in
    2005. In 1995, USGS did not regard Price's resource assessment as
    sufficiently documented to be worthy of considering. Price laid it all
    out in the 1999/2000 manuscript, explaining bases for his assessment
    and criticizing flaws in the NOGA assessment (at pages 177-183). USGS
    silently buried the manuscript until 2006.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ USGS located internal copies of the manuscript only when
    furnished one of the external copies, this year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Accepting Price's estimate of a recoverable, 200+ billion barrel
    continuous-type recoverable resource in Montana and North Dakota would
    multiply the official USGS NOGA estimate of total USA technically-
    recoverable resources onshore and state waters.

       POTENTIAL UNDISCOVERED, TECHNICALLY-RECOVERABLE CRUDE OIL RESOURCES
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Assessment made
               Estimate            -----------------------   Mean estimate
                                         by         year   Crude oil barrels
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NOGA (onshore & state waters,   USGS........  1995...    112,600,000,000
     total USA).
    Including:
        Undiscovered conventional     ..........    .....     30,300,000,000
         fields (includes North
         Slope ANWR).
        Reserve growth in             ..........    .....     60,000,000,000
         conventional field.
        Continuous-type               ..........    .....      2,100,000,000
         accumulations.
            Of which Williston        ..........    .....        150,000,000
             Basin Bakken oil.
        Measured (proven) reserves    ..........   ......     20,200,000,000
    Williston Basin Bakken oil....  L.C. Price..  1999...    206,500,000,000
    NOGA (onshore & state waters)-- USGS........  2005...     47,340,000,000
     sum of conventional and
     continuous-type resources
     (includes North Slope ANWR at
     10.36 BBO).
    Outer Continental Shelf:
        Alaska OCS................  MMS.........  2006...     26,610,000,000
        Atlantic OCS..............  MMS.........  2006...      3,820,000,000
        Gulf of Mexico OCS........  MMS.........  2006...     44,920,000,000
        Pacific OCS...............  MMS.........  2006...     10,530,000,000
    Proven reserves (onshore,       EIA.........  2004...     21,371,000,000
     state waters, OCS).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Of course, Price's figures (like the NOGA) are just estimates. They
    are subject to uncertainty.\4\ But hard evidence has mounted. The
    Bakken Source System is now a very hot ``play.'' Although USGS was
    unaware until this year of the Elm Coulee Field, discovered in 2000, it
    is the largest onshore discovery in the lower 48 States in 50 years.
    USGS did not grasp that this rapidly growing Bakken oil production
    (which passed 50,000 barrels of oil per day late in 2005) is based on
    horizontal drilling of hundreds of oil wells into dolomites immediately
    adjacent to source rocks (where Julie LeFever, of the North Dakota
    Geological Survey, and Leigh Price predicted in the early 1990s that
    abundant oil would be found) rather than into the Bakken shale source
    rock layer which seems to be all that USGS considered in its NOGA
    assessment.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ The Price manuscript details mass-balance calculations (while
    stressing inherent limits on its accuracy, at pages 210-211); it lays
    out estimates of in-place oil resources--413 BBO within a wide range of
    271 to 503 BBO--and uses a recovery factor of at least 50 percent (page
    235). The NOGA does not disclose estimates of oil resources in place or
    recovery factors for this unconventional, continuous-type resource.
        \5\ Annual growth of Elm Coulee Field, MT--actual production of
    Bakken oil (in barrels)--follows:
            2000-- 21,164
            2001--277,784
            2002--798,075
            2003--2,710,095
            2004--7,565,126
            2005--15,713,513
        Source: Jim Halvorson, Montana Oil & Gas Conservation Board.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        USGS has shown extreme caution as to continuous-type resources. A
    USGS culture of ``scientific'' and ``unbiased'' and ``impartial''
    estimates may consider a high estimate to be ``going out on a limb''
    but a low estimate to be just fine. For example, the 1995 NOGA
    assessment of undiscovered, continuous-type non-associated natural gas
    resources in the Barnett Shale formation in north Texas was zero--yes,
    nothing (``justified'' by deliberately excluding from NOGA
    consideration the very prolific East Newark Field field near Dallas,
    TX). Yet development of this Barnett Shale resource into proven
    reserves (not merely potential resources)--one of the most successful
    natural gas projects in our country--checked and reversed a decline in
    Texas gas production. USGS was wrong--too low--and felt obliged to
    reassess in 2003 (at 26 trillion cubic feet).
        In 2000, after Price's death, USGS transferred possession of much
    of his USGS research products to a private consultant associated with a
    private consulting firm--both in Colorado. As I wrote to USGS Acting
    Director Leahy on February 24, 2006, because the USGS ``lost track of
    Price's extensive report [i]t is available to very few geoscientists
    and members of the exploration and development community. USGS should
    make it equally available to one and all.'' It is high time to retrieve
    Leigh Price's outputs and disseminate them. USGS should have released
    Price's outputs 5\1/2\ years ago. Now USGS should repair its omissions
    promptly rather than demand patience while it finds excuses for
    withholding information or further delays.
        Congress can serve the national interest by helping convince USGS
    to air professional disagreements within its ranks and to foster
    professional debate in the sunshine.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Defenders of Wildlife

        Defenders of Wildlife is a national non-profit organization
    dedicated to saving and restoring wildlife and wildlife habitat. We
    have substantial concerns about the administration's fiscal year 2007
    budget and make recommendations in the following priority areas.
        Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS): Endangered Species (ESA)
    Program.--Defenders urges a total of $215.8 million for the four
    endangered species operations accounts, an increase of $68 million over
    fiscal year 2006 as follows: $30 million for Listing, an increase of
    $12.4 million; $113.6 million for Recovery, an increase of $40 million;
    $55.5 million for Consultation, an increase of $7.5 million; and $13.6
    million for Candidate Conservation, an increase of $5 million. We are
    extremely disappointed that even though FWS biologists have estimated
    that about 200 currently listed species are on the verge of extinction
    primarily due to insufficient recovery funding, the president's budget
    cuts the Recovery account by $7.7 million or 10 percent and requests
    amounts far below the need for the other 3 accounts. Even though more
    than 280 candidates await proposal for protection under the Endangered
    Species Act, the president's request for programs that list new species
    as endangered or threatened and designate their critical habitat is
    virtually level. Many of these plants and animals have been waiting
    years for protection. While consultation does receive a modest
    increase, it is paid for by the cut in the Recovery budget; and
    Candidate Conservation is cut by more than $500,000. Both of these
    programs are in need of significant increases. Demand for efforts to
    conserve the long list of candidates while they await protection far
    exceeds funding; and increases are needed to fund projects with local
    stakeholders and partners. In addition, the number of projects reviewed
    under the Consultation program has increased from 40,000 in 1999 to
    about 77,000 in 2005 and further increases are expected. Finally, the
    development and implementation of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs),
    which allow activities to proceed while still protecting species,
    continues to grow, with funding critically needed to help ensure timely
    and effective development and monitoring of 500 existing and nearly 300
    new HCPs that together will cover about 72 million acres when complete.
        FWS: National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance.--
    Defenders and the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, a
    diverse coalition of 21 conservation, recreation and scientific
    organizations, are requesting an fiscal year 2007 increase of $35
    million over fiscal year 2006, a total of $417.5 million, to address
    fixed costs and to make progress on a small portion of the $2.46
    billion operations and maintenance backlog. We are concerned that the
    president's budget includes a nearly $1 million cut for operations and
    maintenance and fear that recent progress made in the refuge system
    budget will now be lost. Moreover, during the past year, more than $8
    million has been reprogrammed to pay previously underestimated refuge
    system bills. We hope that this accounting problem has been addressed
    and that similar measures will not be necessary in the future. In
    addition, 61 refuges suffered unprecedented damage from last year's
    hurricanes, including the deposition of hazardous debris on a number of
    refuges. The worst impacts were to Sabine National Wildlife Refuge in
    Southwest Louisiana from as much as 350,000 gallons of hazardous
    materials in a six-mile debris field. FWS reported initial damages of
    $173.6 million to facilities, while habitat stabilization and
    monitoring needs total $96.7 million. The cost of hazardous materials
    cleanup remains unknown. We greatly appreciate the Subcommittee's
    support in providing supplemental funding to begin to repair this
    extensive damage and urge your continued strong support to once again
    make the Refuge System whole.
        FWS: State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program.--Defenders joins the
    Teaming With Wildlife Coalition in requesting at least $85 million,
    $17.5 million above the 2006 level, for this important program that
    channels money to states to protect at-risk wildlife before Endangered
    Species Act protection becomes necessary. The upcoming year is very
    important since each state for the first time has just completed a
    State Wildlife Action Plan under this program to help guide wildlife
    conservation more strategically and effectively. Funding increases are
    needed to begin implementation of key actions in the plans. The Action
    Plans are the key to the program's success in its ability ultimately to
    avert the need to list numerous species in the future. We urge the
    Subcommittee to continue its oversight of the plans and their
    implementation.
        FWS: Migratory Bird Programs.--Defenders urges $45.2 million for
    Migratory Bird Management, an increase of $7 million over fiscal year
    2006 and $5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
    Fund, an increase of $1.1 million. The recommended increases for
    Migratory Bird Management include $1 million to begin implementation of
    new conservation plans for nine focal species, $500,000 to begin
    development of the next set of plans for focal species, $1 million to
    begin to address recent declines in webless game birds, $4 million to
    protect habitat through the Joint Ventures program and $500,000 for
    fixed costs. The president's budget does request a $3.1 million
    increase for Migratory Bird Management, but it falls far below the
    need. As funded, these programs cannot fulfill their mandates to
    adequately monitor and plan for the conservation of 825 species of
    migratory birds, including the 25 percent of all U.S. migratory birds
    in serious need of conservation to assure their long-term survival.
        FWS: International Programs.--Defenders urges $12.9 million, an
    increase of $3 million over enacted for the International Affairs
    program and $8 million, an increase of $1.6 million over fiscal year
    2007, for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MNSCF).
    Defenders is also opposed to a proposal in the budget to place the
    Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund under the MNSCF, a move that will help
    further the administration's tendency to play budgetary shell games.
    Moreover, the two programs are administered through different FWS
    divisions, so it makes no sense to combine them. In addition, the
    president's request provides only level funding for International
    Affairs, actually a cut when including fixed costs, and slashes the
    small but effective Multinational Species Conservation Fund by 33.4
    percent below fiscal year 2006. Recommended increases in the
    International Affairs program would be allocated as follows: $1.4
    million to replace key personnel; $1.1 million allocated among the four
    highly successful Wildlife Without Borders programs that work with
    resident peoples and develop locally adapted, long-term wildlife
    management and conservation programs; and $500,000 for fixed costs.
        FWS: Law Enforcement.--Defenders requests a total of $61.5 million,
    an increase of $5.4 million over fiscal year 2006, allocated as
    follows: $2.5 million for needed special agents and wildlife
    inspectors; $500,000 for security clearances for inspectors so that
    they can have access to the International Trade Data System, an e-
    government interagency trade enforcement initiative; and $2.4 million
    for fixed costs. Although the administration requests a $1.2 million
    increase, it does not even fully fund fixed costs. With globalization,
    e-commerce and the ever-increasing complexity of our world, wildlife
    here at home and around the world are targets of escalating criminal
    activity. Increases are desperately needed to help the Law Enforcement
    program address these rapidly proliferating threats.
        FWS: ESA Related Grant Programs.--Defenders recommends $100 million
    for the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, $20 million over the 2006
    level; $50 million for Landowner Incentive Grants, an increase of $28.3
    million; and $10 million for Private Stewardship Grants, an increase of
    $2.7 million. Non-federal lands are crucial to the conservation of rare
    species. At least 65 percent of federally listed plants and animals are
    found on non-federal lands, with many absolutely dependent upon these
    lands for their survival. The Cooperative Endangered Species Fund
    provides grants to states for conservation activities on non-federal
    lands both for listed and candidate species. Landowner Incentive and
    Private Stewardship Grants provide funding to states and private
    landowners for efforts to conserve species at risk on private lands.
    Funding for these programs falls far below current demand.
        Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Wildlife and Fisheries Management
    (WFM) and Threatened and Endangered Species Management (TESM).--
    Defenders urges $45.5 million for WFM, an increase of $5 million above
    fiscal year 2006; and 23.8 million, an increase of $2.6 million for
    TESM. BLM manages more land, and more wildlife and fish habitat, than
    any other federal agency, administering half of the remaining habitat
    for the imperiled sage grouse and almost 15 million acres of prairie
    grasslands vital to many declining grassland dependent species. Yet
    funding and resources for these two key wildlife programs have been
    increasingly diverted to support energy development on BLM lands at the
    expense of their own proactive conservation projects--30 percent of
    funds are allocated to other programs. Given the major expansion of
    energy development on BLM lands included in the president's budget and
    proposed level funding for wildlife programs, it is highly likely that
    resources will continue to be siphoned away from wildlife conservation.
    An alternative to providing increased funding would be to include
    language in the committee report prohibiting the continued diversion of
    funds to other programs.
        BLM: Challenge Cost Share.--Defenders recommends $14.4 million, an
    increase of $5 million over fiscal year 2006 for this effective program
    that allows the agency to work with partners to restore wildlife,
    habitat and other resources and averages a $2 match. Level funding in
    the president's budget fails to address gaping needs for sage grouse
    conservation, off-highway vehicle management and invasive species
    control.
        BLM: Native Plant Materials Development.--Defenders recommends $9
    million, an increase of $4.4 million over fiscal year 2006. This
    funding critically is needed as part of the Burned Area Rehabilitation
    account to provide for restoration of native plants after wild fires
    and other disturbances, and is vital to preventing the spread of
    invasive plants which degrade habitat.
        Forest Service: Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management.--
    Defenders urges $188.5 million, an increase of $55.6 million. The
    president's budget slashes this account by almost $9 million, a 6.8
    percent cut. The 193 million acre National Forest System is critically
    important to the conservation of wildlife, fish and their habitat--more
    than 425 species listed under the Endangered Species Act and an
    additional 3200 at risk species occur on Forest Service lands. Fish and
    wildlife resources on our National Forests are important to people all
    across the nation--about 40 million visits per year are primarily for
    hunting, fishing or wildlife viewing.
        BLM and Forest Service Land Sales.--The president's budget contains
    two highly controversial proposals to raise funds for the federal
    treasury and rural schools through an expanded BLM land sale program
    and a new program to sell national forest lands. Defenders is opposed
    to these two proposals. Federal lands provide valuable resources for
    our nation's wildlife, unparalleled outdoor recreational opportunities
    for all Americans, and protection for our communities' water supplies.
    Selling these lands will deprive Americans today and in the future of
    these important recreational opportunities and essential national
    resources. Rather than selling off individual parcels of federal lands,
    the Bush administration should exchange isolated parcels for other
    lands connected to or near existing federal lands.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).--The president's budget
    eviscerates LWCF, funding it at only $85.1 million. Yet habitat and
    wild places across the country are increasingly threatened and in dire
    need of protection. Defenders evaluated hundreds of federal land
    acquisition projects to determine some of the highest priority needs
    for wildlife conservation based on their importance to threatened and
    endangered species, nexus with the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant
    Program's State Wildlife Action Plans, and their degree of threat.
    Based on this analysis, Defenders recommends the Subcommittee fund the
    following 16 projects totaling $51.3 million. However, these projects
    are only a subset of the overall enormous need; we urge total federal
    LWCF funding for fiscal year 2007 to be no less than $220 million.

                                                  [Dollars in millions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Project                             Description                   Agency        State       Funds
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Blackwater NWR....................  Provides habitat for the endangered      FWS.........  MD.........    $1.8
                                         Delmarva fox squirrel and bald eagle.
    Cache River NWR...................  The site of the recent rediscovery of    FWS.........  AR.........  \1\ .485
                                         the endangered Ivory-billed woodpecker.
    Driftless NWR.....................  Protects remaining populations of two    FWS.........  IA.........      .550
                                         listed species.
    Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR.......  Protects over 480 species of birds and   FWS.........  TX.........     1
                                         at least seventeen listed species.
    Silvio O. Conte NWR...............  Supports ten listed species in the       FWS.........  CT, MA, NH,     4
                                         Connecticut River watershed.                           VT.
    St. Marks NWR.....................  Protects habitat for several endangered  FWS.........  FL.........  \1\ 1.5
                                         species, including the wood stork.
    Upper Klamath NWR.................  Protects wetlands for waterfowl and the  FWS.........  OR.........  \1\ 3.4
                                         largest bald eagle population in the
                                         Lower 48.
    Gulf Islands NS...................  The last remaining breeding habitat for  NPS.........  MS, FL.....     2.1
                                         the endangered diamond-backed terrapin.
    Saguaro NP........................  The Park's only riparian hardwood        NPS.........  AZ.........     4.2
                                         forest for several listed species.
    Wind Cave NP......................  Protects mixed-grass prairies for large  NPS.........  SD.........     5
                                         herds of bison, deer, and elk.
    Cascade Checkerboard..............  Secures wildlife migration corridors     NFS.........  WA.........     3.3
                                         for the greater Cascade Mountain area.
    Flathead NF.......................  Provides habitat for listed species      NFS.........  MT.........    16.2
                                         such as grizzly bear, lynx, and bald
                                         eagle.
    Gallatin NF.......................  Establishes crucial habitat              NFS.........  MT.........     1.6
                                         connectivity in the Greater
                                         Yellowstone Ecosystem.
    Suwannee Wildlife Corridor........  Protects habitat and migration           NFS.........  FL.........     5
                                         corridors for the imperiled Florida
                                         black bear.
    Carrizo Plains NM.................  One of the largest grouping of listed    BLM.........  CA.........      .700
                                         species on public lands in the U.S.
    Coachella Valley Preserve.........  Protects sand source vital to maintain   BLM.........  CA.........  \1\ .250
                                         endangered fringe-toed lizard habitat.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Fiscal year 2007 presidential request.
    NWF:National wildlife refuge, NF: National Forest, NP: National Park, FWS: Fish and Wildlife Service, FS: Forest
      Service, NPS: National Park Service, BLM: Bureau of Land Management

                                     ______

                       Prepared Statement of Denver Water

        We are requesting your support for the following appropriations in
    fiscal year 2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper
    Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River
    Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as recommended in the
    President's budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Ecological
    Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element;
    $697,000 within the $5,631,000 item entitled ``General Program
    Activities'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS
    to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado River
    Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
        2. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
    Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
    support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
    in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $211,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year
    2007 to meet FWS' Region 2 expenses managing and implementing the San
    Juan Recovery Program.
        We thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee's
    assistance for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Eastern Forest Partnership

        On behalf of the Eastern Forest Partnership and our member groups
    representing citizens from Mississippi to Maine, I would like to offer
    testimony concerning fiscal year 2007 appropriations for the U.S.
    Forest Service and the Department of the Interior--specifically the
    Forest Legacy Program and Land and Water Conservation Fund. We feel
    that recent federal studies, most notably the U.S. Forest Service's
    recently released Forests on the Edge report, support our call for the
    strongest possible mark for conservation funding programs in the fiscal
    year 2007 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations
    Bill, including $80 million for the U.S. Forest Service's Forest Legacy
    Program and $220 million for the Department of Interior's federal side
    of the Land & Water Conservation Fund. We have included at the end of
    this testimony a list of priority eastern projects that we feel are
    meritorious of fiscal year 2007 funding from these programs.

                          EASTERN FORESTS ON THE EDGE

        Over the past fifteen years, federal agencies have been studying
    our eastern forests and the unique value of these lands as ``green
    infrastructure'' for the American people. In particular, forested
    watersheds play an essential role in the crowded eastern states
    providing clean drinking water supplies for rural communities and
    distant cities alike. Recent U.S. Forest Service studies have
    highlighted the acute threats to some of the most important forested
    water supply areas across the East, including the Southern
    Appalachians, Highlands, and Northern Forest.
        However, until the release of the Forests on the Edge report this
    summer, the U.S. Forest Service had not been able to provide a clear
    and scientific assessment of exactly where and to what extent future
    development might compromise watersheds and other important forest
    resources, such as timber supply areas, wildlife habitat, and public
    recreation like hunting and fishing. The report gives a stark view of
    the future: it projects that through 2030 the nation will lose 44
    million acres of private forestland to development. According to the
    report, the effects will be particularly acute in the East, with all of
    the top fifteen watersheds for projected future development in the
    eastern forests and three of those just in the State of Maine.
        This rampant and likely increasing parcelization of forestland will
    continue to produce some short-term economic returns for landowners and
    in some important instances may produce needed housing units in
    undersupplied areas. However, much of this new development is often far
    from appropriate growth areas, especially development of large rural
    parcels of former working forestland for second homes, and will lead to
    long term economic decline and increasing threats to natural resources
    like drinking water. Parcelized forestlands are less valuable for
    forestry and often closed off from timber harvest or even basic forest
    stewardship. Parcelized lands are also more often posted and closed to
    any public recreational access like hunting--here in my home state of
    Vermont, the number of landowners controlling less than ten acres has
    doubled in the last fifteen years and posted land has increased by more
    than 1,200 percent over the same period. Finally, parcelized
    forestlands have significantly reduced value for watershed protection,
    wildlife habitat, and other natural values.

            CONTROLLING FOREST PARCELIZATION: FOREST LEGACY AND LWCF

        It is clearly in the national interest to manage this growing trend
    of forest parcelization on multiple fronts. The Eastern Forest
    Partnership is deeply engaged in conversations about forest programs in
    the 2007 Farm bill, and believes that technical assistance and cost-
    share programs through the U.S. Forest Service and our state foresters
    will play a significant role in helping landowners more effectively
    steward their lands while also lowering costs and increasing benefits
    of ownership so that these private owners will continue to hold their
    lands.
        We also feel that an increased commitment to funding land
    conservation projects through Forest Legacy will play a significant
    role in keeping our eastern forestland and traditional way of life
    intact. Forest Legacy has now conserved more than one million acres of
    land, most often through conservation easements on private lands that
    allow public access and continued forestry operations. The program has
    leveraged one dollar of state, local, and private funding for every
    dollar spent. This catalytic role is appropriate and effective for the
    federal government.
        Our top priority Forest Legacy projects for fiscal year 2007 are
    well-represented on the President's list, most notably the Grafton
    Notch project in Maine that was top-ranked, Cumberland Mountains
    project in Alabama, and Birdsboro Waters project in Pennsylvania. These
    three projects represent the kind of strategic landscape conservation
    that is the hallmark of the Forest Legacy Program. All three projects
    will leverage past Forest Legacy investments, link to other conserved
    areas, and deliver critical conservation of high priority lands for
    multiple-use, including forestry, recreation, and natural resource
    protection.
        These projects are also notable for the enthusiastic local support
    that has been evidenced through letters, communications with elected
    officials, and attendance at public meetings. In November, I traveled
    to Washington with local supporters for each of these projects to
    deliver their messages of support directly to key officials in the Bush
    administration. Back home the support and public interest in these
    projects is overwhelming. We had 112 local residents turn out for a
    recent public meeting on a cold February night in Bethel, Maine to
    discuss the Grafton Notch project and other local conservation efforts
    along the Mahoosuc Range of Maine and New Hampshire. I personally
    attended an event in Birdsboro, Pennsylvania that drew local, state,
    and federal officials into the pouring rain alongside local citizens to
    celebrate this popular project.
        Due to conservation funding shortfalls in recent years, important
    Forest Legacy projects have been eliminated in conference, even some
    included in the House, Senate, and administration lists, as occurred
    with Birdsboro Waters in fiscal year 2005. Many other projects have
    been severely under-funded and end up coming back for a second phase of
    funding, including Connecticut's Skiff Mountain project that was only
    partially funded in fiscal year 2006 and returns in fiscal year 2007.
    The result is a severe loss of momentum in these states as the same
    projects continue to clog the pipeline. Even the President's strong
    Forest Legacy appropriation of $61 million and good list of projects
    excludes fourteen states entirely and many critical projects, such as
    North Carolina's Clarendon Plantation, the Skiff Mountain, Phase II and
    Sparta Mountain South, Phase II projects to complete important work in
    the Highlands, and the Phillips Brook project on New Hampshire's side
    of the Mahoosuc Range that lies just a few miles from the top-ranked
    Grafton Notch project.
        For the federal side of the Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF),
    the rapid reduction below authorized levels continues to hamper federal
    agency land acquisition in the East, most notably for national forest
    and national wildlife refuge enhancement. The Region 8 list of national
    forest acquisitions in particular is annually full of time-sensitive
    opportunities that are being lost as funding does not come through. The
    agency describes this dire situation well in its testimony in support
    of the Georgia Mountains fiscal year 2007 LWCF project on the
    Chattahoochee National Forest:
        ``The watersheds of the Chattahoochee National Forest supply the
    drinking water for the largest urban areas in the State of Georgia . .
    . also provide unexcelled recreational opportunities for forest
    visitors, and are critical habitats . . . The Chattahoochee is an urban
    forest and under intense pressure from second home development . . .
    The cumulative impact from this development and population growth
    surrounding the Forest is seriously threatening water quality by
    generating non-point source pollution.''
        Eastern refuges are also in dire need of acquisition dollars: the
    Silvio Conte National Wildlife Refuge ranks fifth in the Land
    Acquisition Priority System (LAPS), in part because the Connecticut
    River watershed that the refuge covers is projected by the Forests on
    the Edge report as one of the top twenty in the nation for future
    development. Yet the refuge was excluded from the President's fiscal
    year 2007 list and only received a fraction of needed funding in fiscal
    year 2006.
        In conclusion, it is our belief that the national interest demands
    continued investment in land conservation programs that will help
    protect the eastern forests. Forest Legacy has a proven track record of
    conserving private forestlands and assisting state acquisition as
    federal match to locally-led cooperative conservation efforts. We again
    urge an appropriation of $80 million with funding for the strong list
    of eastern projects at the end of this testimony. The Land and Water
    Conservation Fund is less widely applicable in the East, but critically
    important--at least $220 million should be available for federal
    acquisition of high value natural and recreational value lands from
    willing sellers, including the projects listed below. These
    acquisitions will benefit the public interest and greatly lessen
    management challenges for fragmented eastern federal lands. Thank you
    very much for your consideration of this testimony and the projects
    listed below.

                  EFP FOREST LEGACY--FISCAL YEAR 2007 REQUESTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State                       Project                           Request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       AL Cumberland Mountains Preserve                         $1,185,000
       AL Mobile Delta                                           1,000,000
       AR Morrow Big Pine                                          500,000
       CT Skiff Mountain, phase II                               1,200,000
       DE Green Horizons                                         2,000,000
       FL Northeast Florida Timberlands                          2,225,000
       GA Paulding County Land Area                              2,225,000
       KY Marrowbone Creek State Forest                          1,000,000
       MA Southern Monadnock Plateau                             2,500,000
       ME Grafton Notch                                          2,000,000
       ME Lower Penobscot Forest                                 5,500,000
       ME Machias River, phase III                               2,000,000
       NC Whitehurst State Forest                                4,500,000
       NC Clarendon Plantation                                   2,500,000
       NH Phillips Brook                                         3,500,000
       NH Willard Pond/Robb Res.                                 3,000,000
       NJ Sparta Mountain South, phase II                        2,100,000
       NJ Mountain Gate                                          1,050,000
       NY Tahawus                                                5,000,000
       PA Birdsboro Waters                                         300,000
       RI North-South Corridor                                   3,000,000
       SC Pee Dee River                                          2,500,000
       SC Savannah River                                         2,500,000
       VA New River Corridor                                     2,100,000
       VT Orange County Headwaters                               1,542,000
       VT Adams Pond                                             1,167,000
                                                           -----------------
                Total                                           58,094,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

         EFP LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND--FISCAL YEAR 2007 REQUESTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State                       Project                       Request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              AL Alabama National Forests                       $1,500,000
              AL Bon Secour                                      1,500,000
              AR Ozark-St. Francis & Ouachita NF                   834,000
              FL St. Marks NWR                                   1,700,000
              FL Suwannee Wildlife Corridor/Pinhook Swamp        2,000,000
              FL Florida National Scenic Trail                   2,000,000
              GA Georgia Mountains                               2,700,000
              KY Daniel Boone NF                                 4,615,000
           KY/TN Cumberland Gap NP (Fern Lake Watershed)         2,500,000
              MS Lower Yazoo Basin, Delta NF                     2,500,000
              MS Horne Island                                    2,000,000
              NC Croatan NF (Onslow Bight)                       5,000,000
              NC Uwharrie National Recreational Trail            1,600,000
              NH Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge           1,000,000
     NH/VT/MA/CT Silvio Conte National Wildlife Refuge           4,000,000
              OH Wayne Select Lands                                500,000
              PA Flight 93 Memorial                              5,000,000
              SC Francis Marion Sumter NF                        4,685,000
              TN Tennessee Mountains                             3,000,000
              VA Eastern Shore of Virginia NWR                   2,277,000
              VA Jefferson NF (Black Lick & Appalachian          2,850,000
                  Trail)
              VT Green Mountain National Forest (Broad           1,100,000
                  Brook Phase II)
                                                           -----------------
                       Total                                    54,861,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Friends of Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife
                                     Refuge

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee, my name is
    Heidi Wittenborn, President of Friends of Balcones Canyonlands National
    Wildlife Refuge. On behalf of Friends I would like to express my
    appreciation for this opportunity to testify. Friends urges you to
    appropriate $1.5 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to acquire a conservation easement
    for Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge. The tract this
    appropriation would protect is key habitat for the Golden-cheeked
    Warbler, a songbird Audubon lists as one of the ten most endangered.
    Its acquisition would be a significant step towards the long range goal
    of completing the Refuge. Acting now is extremely important, as the
    window of time for protecting habitat is closing rapidly in the face of
    accelerating urban expansion, and the opportunity for protecting this
    species is at risk.
        Friends is a nonprofit, volunteer organization. Its mission is to
    support, complete, and enhance Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife
    Refuge and its diverse ecology, and promote its use for recreational,
    educational, and scientific purposes. The organization's membership is
    drawn primarily from Central Texas communities situated near the
    Refuge.
        Balcones Canyonlands Refuge is located in the Texas Hill Country
    northwest of Austin, Texas and resides in Burnet, Travis, and
    Williamson counties. The Refuge was formed in 1992 to conserve habitat
    of the endangered Golden-cheeked Warbler as a step towards recovery and
    eventual delisting of the species. In addition to the Golden-cheeked
    Warbler, the Refuge serves to protect the habitat of the endangered
    Black-capped Vireo and numerous other wildlife species.
        State-sponsored biological studies show that to stabilize and
    sustain these endangered songbirds, Balcones Canyonlands needs a total
    of 46,000 acres of habitat. It presently has some 21,000 acres. The
    Refuge augments a similarly named Preserve in Austin, comprised of
    nearly 30,000 acres and operated by the City and Travis County. The two
    parts were established for the same purpose and together are intended
    to provide habitat needed to enable recovery of these species.
        Balcones Canyonlands Refuge, although fourteen years old, is not
    yet half complete. It is particularly important to act now as time is a
    critical consideration in completing the Refuge. Because of the
    proximity of the Refuge to the rapidly expanding Austin metropolitan
    area, urban expansion is a serious threat to habitat needed by the
    Refuge. There are already three outlying real estate developments
    within the acquisition boundary of the Refuge and a rapidly advancing
    blanket of urban residential and commercial development is within
    sight.
        This year, we would like to go forward with the partially completed
    acquisition of the Armstrong conservation easement, which contains
    substantial Golden-cheeked Warbler habitat. The property is in a
    strategic location, will alleviate cumulative habitat fragmentation
    within the approved acquisition area of the Refuge, and preclude
    development and land uses that would be incompatible with the Refuge's
    objectives. It is anticipated that the conservation easement covering
    this segment of the Refuge could be acquired for $1.5 million and that
    the transaction could be consummated within 6 months following
    appropriation of the needed funds.
        In addition to the recovery of these endangered species, Balcones
    Canyonlands Refuge is a rapidly growing source of eco-tourism for the
    surrounding area. The Refuge's annual songbird festival continues to
    grow with record attendance predicted for this year. Our first annual
    winter sparrow festival also was a sell out. Over the longer term,
    Balcones Refuge is expected to become a major draw for birders
    interested in viewing the endangered Warbler and Vireo, as well as
    other bird species for which this area provides unique habitat. The
    Refuge has been described as one of the Last Great Places by the Nature
    Conservancy and as an ``Important Bird Area'' by two national
    conservation groups based on its ``global importance'' to the
    endangered Warbler and Vireo.
        Also, Balcones Canyonlands offers Central Texas a variety of
    recreational opportunities compatible with wildlife protection. Once
    completed, Balcones Canyonlands will be a step towards providing
    additional accessible public outdoor areas, identified as a critical
    need in a recent study for Texas Parks and Wildlife.
        For all of these reasons Friends of Balcones Canyonlands National
    Wildlife Refuge strongly recommends that you set aside $1.5 million
    from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for Balcones Canyonlands
    Refuge for fiscal year 2007.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to present this statement to
    the Subcommittee.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate
    the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $2 million
    appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the
    critical land protection in the Superior National Forest in Minnesota.
        Long Island is the largest undeveloped island in Burntside Lake.
    Located 30 miles southeast of Crane Lake and 3 miles northwest of Ely,
    Burntside Lake is over 10,000 acres in size. The lake is an important
    recreational area, with two entry points into the Boundary Waters Canoe
    Area Wilderness (BWCAW), five public campsites and six public canoe
    launching points. The lake is also the start of a popular 11-mile canoe
    trail outside of the BWCAW, referred to as the Burntside-Dead River-
    Everett Trail. One of the few lakes in Minnesota that support a natural
    cold water fishery, the lake is renowned for its big lake trout and
    walleye and also supports one of the largest populations of loons in
    the state.
        Beyond its current recreational and natural qualities, Burntside
    Lake holds significant historic and cultural value. It is the location
    of writer and conservationist Sigurd Olson's legendary Listening Point.
    As Walden was to Thoreau and Sand Country to Aldo Leopold, Listening
    Point was a place of inspiration for Olson and where he wrote many of
    his books and crafted aspects of the 1964 Wilderness Act.
        Long Island is situated directly across from Olson's beloved
    Listening Point. When he first discovered the point, he had been
    looking for a long time throughout northern Minnesota for a place to
    listen, to contemplate ``the grandeur of creation,'' and a place that
    would evoke the spirit and beauty of the northern wilderness. When he
    came to the point he wrote: ``From the top of one of [the rocks] I
    could see the vistas across to the islands and knew the search was
    over. Here was everything I had ever hoped to find. I would never own
    the water or the horizons, but the sunsets, the moonrises and the
    vistas would belong as much to me as though written into the deed
    itself.'' Listen Point, Alfred A. Knopf, 1958.
        While Listening Point is protected today, Long Island is not.
    Without that protection, the vista and much of what Sigurd Olson wrote
    about in his book will be lost.
        Long Island would be an outstanding addition to the Superior NF,
    boasting one mile of undeveloped lakeshore. The island has a beautiful
    sand beach, which would be utilized by the public for recreation. There
    are limited numbers of public beach areas within the forest boundaries,
    and this would be a rare opportunity for the public. The island is home
    to nesting osprey, blue heron and nesting loons, and has potential for
    habitat for rare and sensitive species.
        The 64-acre Burntside Islands Scientific and Natural Area (SNA),
    which features two virtually undisturbed islands, is located
    immediately southwest of Long Island. These two forested bedrock
    islands are home to old-growth Great Lakes pines forests that are
    extremely rare outside of the BWCAW. Public acquisition of the Long
    Island property will ensure that the attributes of the northwoods
    region so treasured by its many visitors will be protected in
    perpetuity.
        Furthermore, Long Island, if protected, will offer the public a
    near-wilderness experience, a wonderful benefit to those who can not or
    choose not to go into the BWCAW itself.
        An appropriation of $2 million from the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund in fiscal year 2007 will secure the acquisition of Long Island,
    protect its critical natural resources for the public, and maintain the
    integrity of the great northwoods.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of Friends of the Columbia River Gorge

        I thank you for the opportunity today to present this testimony in
    support of critical land acquisition projects in the Columbia River
    Gorge National Scenic Area. Appropriations totaling $2 million from the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund to the Forest Service will go a long
    way to protect a number of identified high-priority properties in the
    Gorge, including the Bridal Veil and Russell properties in Oregon and
    the Hopper and Grazini properties in Washington.
        The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (CRGNSA) was created
    by Congress in 1986 ``to protect and provide for the enhancement of the
    scenic, cultural, recreational, and natural resources of the Columbia
    River Gorge'' and to encourage economic growth in nearby urban areas.
    The scenic area protects nearly 300,000 acres in both states and
    receives hundreds of thousands of visitors annually.
        The 1986 act also declared the White Salmon River in Klickitat
    County, Washington as a National Wild and Scenic River. In 2005,
    Congress extended this designation to its headwaters on Mount Adams.
    The White Salmon is one of only three rivers in Washington to have such
    a listing.
        The acquisition of key properties in fiscal year 2007 will benefit
    recreational access to areas in the Gorge and White Salmon:
        The 17-acre Bridal Veil property in Oregon is located near
    Multnomah Falls at an intersection of Interstate 84. Protection of this
    property would conserve land along the historic Columbia River Highway,
    serve as a potential site for interpretation, and would greatly improve
    public access to Bridal Veil Falls.
        The Russell property is a 50 acre parcel located near Mosier just
    south of the Historic Columbia River Highway on the lower two-thirds of
    an open, grassy hillside, locally known as Hudson Hill. This north and
    west facing property provides a stunning panorama of the Columbia River
    Gorge with the show capped volcanic peaks of Mt. Adams and Mt. Hood
    visible in the distance. Acquisition of this property would provide an
    excellent recreation opportunity.
        The 4.5-acre Hopper property in Washington is adjacent to a planned
    public boat launch site on the river. With the White Salmon River
    renowned for its kayaking and whitewater rafting opportunities, this
    acquisition is critical to ensuring recreational access to the river.
        An appropriation of $2 million from the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund will protect these priority parcels in and around this a vital
    recreational and ecological corridor.
        We thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in favor of the appropriations for the Columbia River Gorge
    National Scenic Area and the Wild and Scenic Rivers administered by the
    NSA.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of Friends of Congaree Swamp

        On behalf of: Friends of Congaree Swamp; South Carolina Wildlife
    Federation; Audubon South Carolina; Columbia Audubon Society; South
    Carolina Coastal Conservation League; Sierra Club--South Carolina
    Chapter; and Congaree Land Trust
        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $4.5 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    to the National Park Service for land acquisition at Congaree National
    Park in South Carolina.
        Congaree Swamp National Monument was authorized as a unit of the
    National Park Service in 1976. In 2003, Public Law 108-108 designated
    Congaree as a National Park--South Carolina's first and only national
    park--and also authorized a boundary expansion of 4,576 acres.
        Congaree National Park rests on a floodplain of the Congaree River
    in central South Carolina, and is recognized as an International
    Biosphere Reserve, a National Natural Landmark, a Wilderness Area, and
    a Globally Important Bird Area. With its 75 species of trees, Congaree
    hosts the nation's largest tract of old-growth bottomland hardwood
    forest, and nurtures some of the tallest trees in the eastern United
    States with some pines reaching over 160 feet.
        More than 190 species of birds have been observed within the park.
    Following rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Arkansas,
    Congaree National Park is considered prime habitat for recovery of this
    species. Currently, the South Carolina Ivory-billed Woodpecker Working
    Group is coordinating searches within Congaree National Park.
        Congaree National Park also offers excellent opportunities for
    recreation. A 2.5-mile boardwalk loop provides easy access into
    Congaree's forest, and more than 20 miles of trails are available for
    hiking. Visitors enjoy canoeing and kayaking on Cedar Creek, currently
    nominated for designation as the first Outstanding National Resource
    Waters in South Carolina. Outdoors enthusiasts can also enjoy fishing,
    camping, birding, and picnicking.
        In fiscal year 2005, Congress appropriated $6 million from the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund to purchase the 2,395-acre Bates Fork
    tract--at the confluence of the Congaree and Wateree Rivers. This is
    the largest tract within the Congaree boundary expansion, authorized in
    2003. The National Park Service completed this acquisition in November
    2005.
        Fiscal year 2007 presents the opportunity to acquire the 1,886-acre
    Riverstone tract--also within the boundary authorized in 2003. The
    Riverstone tract will connect the previously-acquired 22,000 acres of
    Congaree National Park with the recently-acquired 2,395-acre Bates Fork
    tract. The Bates Fork tract, in turn, adjoins the 16,700-acre Upper
    Santee Swamp Natural Area, owned by the South Carolina Public Service
    Authority. So, the Riverstone tract is the link to connect Congaree
    National Park and the Upper Santee Swamp Natural Area.
        Resources on the Riverstone tract--including Bates Old River, Big
    Lake, Little Lake, Running Creek and Running Lake--have significant
    natural, recreational, and historical values. Bates Old River is the
    longest oxbow lake (4 miles) in the Congaree River floodplain and one
    of the longest oxbows in South Carolina. An unusual mix of sweetgum,
    bald cypress, water tupelo, and green ash dominates the Bates Old River
    ridge and swale system. The Riverstone tract harbors extensive areas of
    early- and mid-successional plant communities rarely found in Congaree
    National Park, plus dwarf cypress and planer tree communities not
    represented at all on existing park lands. In addition, there are
    numerous large specimen swamp cottonwoods and water hickories.
    Acquisition of the Riverstone tract will provide new and diverse
    recreational and historical interpretation opportunities for park
    visitors while adding to the park's natural resources.
        A fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $4.5 million from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund will provide the National Park Service with
    funds to purchase this critical Riverstone tract, thereby ensuring
    permanent protection of its outstanding natural and cultural resources,
    and connecting the 22,000 acres upriver with the 19,000 acres
    downriver.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony and for your consideration of our request.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Peter J. Defoe.
    I am the Chairman of the Reservation Business Committee of the Fond du
    Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewas and would like to thank you for
    this opportunity to present testimony on fiscal year 2007
    Appropriations. The Fond du Lac Band occupies a reservation in
    northeastern Minnesota, which encompasses 100,000 acres and was
    established by the Treaty of September 30, 1854. The Fond du Lac Band
    provides health, education, social and other governmental services to a
    population of 6,500 Indian people that live on or near the Fond du Lac
    Reservation.
        We are deeply concerned about the very substantial cuts proposed in
    the President's fiscal year 2007 budget. Those budget cuts--if they
    stood--would severely reduce our ability to educate our children, care
    for our elderly and infirm, prevent crime, and protect and manage our
    natural resources. We urge Congress to restore or increase the funding
    on which we depend to provide essential services to our Band members.
    In particular, we ask that funding be restored or increased in the
    following areas:
    Bureau of Indian Affairs
        Johnson O'Malley--restore $16.3 million.
        Early Childhood Development--restore $3.2 million.
        Education Construction--restore $49 million.
        Tribal Colleges & Universities--restore $824,000.
        Tribal Colleges & Universities--reaffirm funding for the Fond du
    Lac Tribal College.
        Circle of Flight--restore $600,000.
        Tribal Courts--restore $5.3 million.
        Fond du Lac Law Enforcement & Resource Management--increase by $9
    million.
        General Assistance Program--restore $11.3 million.
    Indian Health Services
        Increase funding for Indian health care.
        Increase funding for contract support costs.

                            BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

        Education: Johnson O'Malley program, Early Childhood Development
    program, Education Construction and Tribal Colleges & Universities.
    Johnson O'Malley (JOM) funding helps Indian children with tutoring,
    cultural enrichment and Native language education, and is critical to
    tribal education programs. We request that Congress restore full
    funding to these vitally important education programs. A complete cut
    of funding for this program, as is proposed, would severely erode this
    irreplaceable source of funds for essential educational services. The
    Department has attempted to justify this amount by claiming that JOM
    funding duplicates funding provided by the Department of Education, but
    this is not the case. The Department of Education has testified that it
    has not adjusted its budget to cover this loss of funds.
        The Early Childhood Development program, which enhances the school
    readiness of our young children, is also critical to preparing our
    youth for school and in meeting the President's ``No Child Left
    Behind'' standards. We ask Congress to restore $3.2 million to this
    program.
        Additionally, we do not support the Bureau of Indian Affair's
    decreased funding for Education Construction, including significant
    cuts to Facilities Operations (O&M). Facilities O&M funding must be
    increased for fiscal year 2007 to the level necessary to provide for
    the continued safety and utility of our educational facilities. Current
    funding levels are not keeping pace with the escalating costs of
    operating educational facilities. Rising fuel, utility costs, and the
    cost of living adjustments for skilled maintenance and custodial staff
    must be considered in adjusting adequate levels of Facilities O&M
    funding.
        We ask Congress to restore the Tribal Colleges and Universities
    endowment grant funding by $824,000 to the fiscal year 2006 level. More
    importantly for the Band, we ask Congress to reaffirm funding to the
    Fond du Lac Tribal College. In 1987, the Fond du Lac Tribal College was
    chartered by the Band to provide post-secondary education to Indian
    students. The Tribal College currently provides post-secondary
    education to close to 500 Indian students. For many years, the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs provided funds to the Tribal College, recognizing it
    as an entity eligible for federal financial assistance for Tribal
    Colleges under the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance
    Act. The President's Budget includes funding for Tribal Colleges under
    the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act but it has
    not been determined whether the Bureau of Indian Affairs intends to
    include continued funding for the Fond du Lac Tribal College. Without
    the funds provided to the Tribal College under the Tribally Controlled
    College or University Assistance Act, the College will not be able to
    carry out its valuable mission: to provide higher education
    opportunities for its Indian students. Therefore, we ask Congress to
    reaffirm funding to the Fond du Lac Tribal College for fiscal year
    2007.
        Natural Resources: Circle of Flight.--We ask Congress to restore
    the Circle of Flight Wetland/Waterfowl Enhancement Program in the BIA's
    fiscal year 2007 budget to at least the fiscal year 2006 level of
    $600,000, and to consider providing the amount of $1,113,000 to cover
    actual program needs. Circle of Flight has been one of Interior's top
    trust resource programs for more than a decade. Since fiscal year 1991,
    Great Lakes tribes and our partners have restored or enhanced more than
    66,000 wetland, grassland and native prairie acres. The Circle of
    Flight program has invested more than $6 million in habitat projects,
    and has leveraged these dollars for an additional $18 million in
    federal, state, private, and tribal funding, yielding an impressive
    match ratio of 3 to 1.
        Public Safety and Justice: Tribal Courts.--We urge Congress to
    restore Tribal Court funding by increasing the appropriated amount by
    $5.3 million to fiscal year 2006 levels. We also support additional
    funding to meet detention facility needs, but believe that this
    increase should not come at the expense of a reduction in funding for
    Tribal Courts, which have been historically under-funded and which are
    essential to effective law enforcement efforts.
        Public Safety and Justice: Fond du Lac Law Enforcement and Resource
    Management Program.--We request a one-time appropriation of $9 million
    to the Fond du Lac Resource Management Program for law enforcement and
    natural resource protection ($1.5 million in base funding for court
    operations and law enforcement, $1.5 million for resource management
    and conservation enforcement, and $6 million for expansion of office
    space to serve both). This additional funding is needed because of the
    Band's increased law enforcement responsibilities. Following a
    Minnesota Supreme Court decision in 1997 holding that the State did not
    have jurisdiction to enforce traffic laws on roads within Indian
    reservations, State v. Stone, 572 N.W.2d 725 (Minn. 1997), the Fond du
    Lac Band needed to establish a Tribal law enforcement department to
    address on-reservation law enforcement needs. The Band has done this,
    using a combination of tribal funds and federal funds (made available
    through the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program and the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs), and by entering into cooperative agreements
    with local law enforcement agencies. However, because of the short-term
    limited financial resources available, there are significant unmet
    needs in this area. At Fond du Lac, we need long term funding to pay
    for staff and equipment to adequately ensure the safety of the
    Reservation population. With the increased responsibility assumed by
    the Band there is an increased need to expand the staff and its
    capabilities. With this in mind, we request that $1.5 million be added
    to our base budget to continue to implement the enforcement systems for
    the Band.
        Related to this are the Band's responsibilities for enforcing
    conservation laws that protect natural resources and regulate Band
    members who hunt, fish and gather those resources both within and
    outside the Reservation pursuant to rights reserved under Treaties with
    the United States in 1837 and 1854. The Band's rights to hunt, fish and
    gather on lands ceded under these treaties have been recognized and
    upheld by the federal courts and the United States Supreme Court. Under
    established Band conservation law, the Band is responsible for
    enforcing regulations over approximately 8,000,000 acres in northern
    and central Minnesota. It is also essential that the Band continue to
    manage its on-reservation resources in order to meet the demands of an
    increasing population. The on-reservation resources are vitally
    important to Band members as they provide the foundation for our
    culture, subsistence, employment and recreation. Therefore, we are
    seeking an additional $1.5 million be added to the Band's base budget
    for the Fond du Lac Resource Management Division, for its Resource
    Management programs to enable us to continue to protect these resources
    for the future generations at Fond du Lac. The funds for this program
    have not been increased since 1991. We also request a one-time
    allocation of $6 million to the Band for the expansion of the office
    space, as our current building is inadequate to house both law
    enforcement and natural resource management staff.
        General Assistance Program.--We urge Congress to restore $11.3
    million in funds to this program. The General Assistance Program helps
    the Band ensure that its tribal members' health and general welfare
    needs are met by providing another form of assistance. The General
    Assistance Program is especially important for the Band's families with
    children, elders and tribal members with disabilities.

                             INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

        While we support the President's proposal to increase the budget
    for Indian Health Services, the amount of that increase ($130 million
    from fiscal year 2006 funding levels) still will not meet the actual
    costs of providing health care to Indian people. The proposed increase
    fails to address the high rates of medical inflation and the
    substantial unmet need for health care among Indian people. For
    instance, Indians at Fond du Lac, like Indians throughout the Nation,
    face disproportionately higher rates of diabetes and the complications
    associated with diabetes, than the rest of the population. Heart
    disease, cancer, obesity, chemical dependency and mental health
    problems are also prevalent among our people. While other federal
    programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, have seen annual increases in
    funding of 5-10 percent to address inflation, the budget for IHS has
    never had comparable increases, and, as a result, IHS programs have
    consistently fallen short of meeting the actual needs. The Band
    supports the efforts of all Indian tribes to receive 100 percent of the
    Level of Need Formula (LNF) so that it can address the serious and
    persistent health issues that confront its community. The Band serves
    about 5,800 Indian people at its clinics, but the current funding level
    meets only 40 percent of our health care funding needs. In addition,
    the Band requests an increase in funding for substance abuse and mental
    health programs in order to combat the growing methamphetamine problem
    on our Reservation. In addition, while this Administration seeks the
    use of electronic health records for all Americans, this is a seriously
    unfunded mandate for tribal organizations.. Therefore, the Band
    requests an increase in funding to continue the implementation of our
    Electronic Health Record (EHR) so that we may reduce medical errors and
    increase the quality of our patient care. We also urge the Committee to
    provide increased funding for contract support costs comparable to that
    provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

                     SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED BUDGET INCREASES

        Fish and Wildlife Service: Tribal Wildlife Grant program and
    Landowner Incentive Program.--We strongly support the President's
    proposed $5 million increase in funding for the Tribal Wildlife Grant
    (TWG) program, and the $2.7 million increase to the Landowner Incentive
    Program in the Interior Department's budget for the U.S. Fish &
    Wildlife Service. Fond du Lac has received grants in these two programs
    this year, which will be used for important fisheries, wildlife, and
    wild rice management and restoration projects. These increases will
    help to address the considerable need for managing our shared natural
    resources.
        In conclusion, the needs at Fond du Lac and throughout Indian
    Country remain massive. Your support to preserve the current BIA
    funding levels is essential to our ability to maintain vitally
    important programs. Your support of our additional funding requests
    will enable us to improve the delivery of services to Band members and
    help ensure that we enter the 21st Century with a renewed sense of
    hope. Miigwech. Thank you.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
                                   Commission

        We are seeking your support for the President's fiscal year 2007
    Budget Request of $3 million to support the National Fish Habitat
    Initiative (NFHI) and, furthermore, we are asking you to support an
    additional $3 million to be appropriated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service's Southeast Fisheries Program for the Southeast Aquatic
    Resources Partnership (SARP). The NFHI, lead by the International
    Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in partnership with the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, seeks to develop a nationwide fisheries
    habitat restoration plan modeled on the successful North American
    Waterfowl Management Plan. The SARP is currently developing a Southeast
    Aquatic Habitat Plan that will help guide the implementation of the
    NFHI on a regional scale and serve as a model for other regions of the
    country. The SARP, through its aquatic habitat planning process, will
    identify and establish Fish Habitat Partnerships that will deliver the
    objectives of the NFHI in the Southeast.
        The SARP was initiated in 2001 to better address the conservation
    and management of aquatic resources in the southeastern United States.
    This partnership developed from the realization that (1) the Southeast
    has the highest diversity of aquatic species and habitats of any region
    in the country; (2) that these resources are facing serious threats to
    their future existence; and (3) that no one state or federal agency has
    all the necessary resources and authority to address this impending
    aquatic crisis. It is only by working together through partnerships
    that we will make a difference.
        The SARP is comprised of those state and federal agencies and
    organizations with management authority for fisheries and aquatic
    resources. It includes the fish and wildlife agencies from 13 states
    (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
    Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and
    Texas), the Gulf and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commissions, the
    Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries. These entities have
    signed an unprecedented Memorandum of Understanding pledging to work
    together for the conservation and management of aquatic resources in
    the Southeast. No similar multi-state, multi-agency partnership exists.
    To date, SARP has been successful in receiving over $700,000 in grant
    monies as well as contributions from the agency members. This unique
    and focused effort is poised to deliver a new regional approach to
    aquatic conservation for future generations. Securing $3 million in
    additional funding for the SARP is critical for the successful
    implementation of the Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan.
        Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you should
    have any questions or need further information, please contact Mr. Jim
    Estes at 850-488-5460.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Friends of Indian Health

        The Friends of Indian Health is pleased to submit testimony on the
    fiscal year 2007 appropriation for the Indian Health Service. The
    Friends is a coalition of over 50 health organizations and individuals
    dedicated to improving the health care of American Indians/Alaska
    Native (AI/AN) people.
        The Friends thanks the Committee for its past support for the
    Indian Health Service (IHS). The Committee's action has sent a strong
    message that addressing the health care needs of Indian people is a
    high priority of the federal government. With that thought in mind, we
    are recommending a funding level of $3,361,787,000 to sustain clinical
    and preventive services and to attract a viable workforce of health
    care providers that will lead to eliminating the disparity of disease
    and health care among AI/ANs.
        Numerous studies have shown that the disparity in health care for
    Indian people has continued to increase since the early 1990's. AI/AN
    people have a lower life expectancy--nearly four years less--when
    compared to other populations. This occurs for a variety of reasons:
      --Native American youth are more than twice as likely to commit
            suicide,
      --AI/AN people are 670 percent more likely to die from alcoholism,
      --650 percent more likely to die from tuberculosis,
      --318 percent more likely to die from diabetes and
      --204 percent more likely to suffer accidental death
        At the center of this disparity is an inequity in funding for
    health care. The IHS operates with an estimated 55 percent of what it
    needs to provide adequate health care using the Federal Employee Health
    Benefits Programs as the benchmark. The service spends $2,130 per
    person per year for health care, which is more than 50 percent below
    similar expenditures by public and private health insurance plans. As
    organizations and individuals involved in health care, we know that
    additional funding can make a difference in eliminating disparities in
    disease rates and access to care.
        The Friends recommends an increase of $192,000,000 above the
    President's request for IHS for fiscal year 2007. We believe that by
    targeting this increase to already proven IHS programs, access to
    health care can be improved and the rise in mortality rates reversed.
    Specifically, we recommend the following increases:
      --+$22,000,000 for loan repayment. The quickest way to close the gap
            in health care access is to hire an adequate workforce. The
            current vacancy rate for IHS health professionals overall is
            approximately 16 percent with critical shortages in all fields.
            The IHS conducts an excellent recruiting program but there are
            more applicants than there are funds available. The ability to
            offer loan repayment is essential for recruiting and retaining
            health care professionals, many of whom graduate with over
            $200,000 of student loan debt.
      --+$8,000,000 for prevention. The Friends is very pleased that the
            President's request includes $2,000,000 for prevention
            activities. The IHS has proven that being able to prevent
            disease can save lives. Surveys show that the average death
            rate for the AI/AN populations dropped 28 percent between 1972
            and 2002. Additional resources are needed to reduce these rates
            even further.
      --+$2 million for Tribal Epidemiology Centers. Activities of Tribal
            Epidemiology centers include the development of surveillance
            systems for disease conditions, investigation of disease
            outbreaks, development and implementation of disease control
            and prevention programs and coordination of activities with
            other public health authorities in the region. The data
            gathered by the centers helps the IHS to better target its
            prevention resources.
        The Friends is pleased to see that the Administration has accounted
    for inflation, contract support costs and population growth in its
    fiscal year 2007 budget. These figures help provide a more realistic
    approach for budgeting for the IHS. However, in several of these
    accounts are still below actual need. If they are not fully funded then
    mandatory needs will drain resources from current programs creating
    even more disparity in health care for AI/AN people. We believe that
    the following increases reflect the actual level of need:
      --+$31 million for Pay Act costs. The President's budget provides for
            a 2.2 percent salary raise for civil service employees and
            commissioned officers. However, it does not contain sufficient
            funding to cover ``within-in grade'' (WIGIS) increases.
      --+$18 million for Contract Health Services (CHS). Funding for this
            program is used to purchase health care services outside IHS
            facilities through private health care providers in places
            where an IHS facility does not exist, or is not staffed or
            equipped to meet the health care needs of the AI/AN patients.
            CHS funding is used to address health care that has been
            deferred or denied such as: treatment for diabetes, cancer,
            heart disease, injuries, mental health, domestic/community/
            family abuse/violence, maternal and child health, elder care,
            refractions, physical therapy, and elective orthopedic services
            The President's budget provides for an increase of $36.9
            million but it still leaves this fund short. One of the
            consequences of underfunding this account is that it creates a
            financial drain on non-IHS health communities.
      --+$67 million for Health Care Facilities. The Friends of Indian
            Health was very pleased that last year this Committee
            appropriated $38 million for IHS health facilities
            construction. However, the agency still needed an additional
            $47 million to meet the facilities construction schedule. We
            are disappointed to see that the Administration is again
            proposing to decrease this account. The IHS has carefully
            planned its construction schedule and an interruption in that
            planning will only result in higher construction costs in the
            future.
      --+$33 million for Urban Indian Health Program (UIHP). While the
            Friends appreciate the need not to duplicate federal programs,
            we do not agree with the Administration's analysis that the
            Community Health Center program can accommodate urban Indians.
            Indeed, the National Association of Community Health Centers
            has also opposed this proposal stating that, ``the fiscal year
            2007 budget [for the Community Health Centers] is not designed
            to meet the needs of the more than 1 million AI/ANs currently
            living in communities served by the UIHP.'' We strongly urge
            the Committee to restore this program until a better approach
            can be developed so that health care for urban Indians is not
            compromised.
      --+$11 million for Indian Health Care Improvement. The President's
            budget for fiscal year 2007 does not include an increase for
            this fund, which was created to address deficiencies in health
            status and resources for all tribes. Funds are allocated using
            the Federal Disparity Index, which benchmarks the cost of
            providing personal health services by a mainstream health plan
            in comparison to the IHS.
        Below are additional statements by groups represented by the
    Friends detailing the need for improved Indian health care. As health
    care organizations and providers, we know that there will ultimately be
    a cost savings to the government if the disease disparity rates can be
    reduced and access to health care improved for AI/ANs.
        The Friends recommends that the Committee continue its consistent
    funding approach for the IHS so that it can continue to address the
    health care needs of the AI/AN populations. Weakening the IHS public
    health infrastructure can only lead to even greater increases in
    mortality and morbidity rates of American Indians and Alaska Natives.

                                 MENTAL HEALTH

        Poverty is a significant contributing factor toward mental and
    substance abuse disorders. The poverty rate for American Indians and
    Alaska Natives (AI/AN) in 2001 was 24.5 percent, as compared to 7.8
    percent for non-Hispanic whites. The median household income estimate
    for AI/ANs was $32,000 as compared to $46,000 for non-Hispanic whites.
        Inadequate mental health and substance abuse services contribute to
    a suicide rate for AI/AN that is about 1.7 times the rate for all races
    in the United States and the suicide rate for males 15 to 34 years of
    age is over two times the national rate.
        The suicide rate for Indian people is 60 percent higher than the
    general population.
        Studies have shown that 69.9 percent of all suicidal acts
    (completions and attempts) in AI/AN country involved alcohol use.

                                 KIDNEY DISEASE

        American Indians have one of the highest rates of chronic,
    irreversible kidney failure or End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) of any
    population with a prevalence rate 3.5 times that of white Americans.
        Diabetes is the leading cause of all new cases of kidney failure
    for all Americans, and the explosion in the incidence of type 2
    diabetes among American Indians is the driving force behind the AI/AN
    kidney disease prevalence rate.

                                  ORAL HEALTH

        79 percent of children aged 2-5 years had a history of decay.
        78 percent of adults 35-44 years old and 98 percent of elders 55
    years or older had lost at least one tooth because of dental decay,
    periodontal (gum) disease or oral trauma.

                                    DIABETES

        Today diabetes has reached epidemic proportions among Native
    Americans. Each year 54,000 people lose their feet or legs to diabetes.
    Amputation rates among Native Americans are 3-4 times higher than the
    general populations.
        An Arizona tribe has the highest rate of diabetes in the world.
    About 50 percent of the adults between the ages of 30 and 64 have
    diabetes in this tribe.

                             VISION AND EYE HEALTH

        A recent three year study of Navajo people (the largest native
    population) revealed that within the prior two years only about 33
    percent had an eye exam and that only 20 percent had visual acuity good
    enough to qualify for a driver's license, even with their present
    eyeglasses.
        With the high rate of diabetes, it is imperative that timely
    detection and treatment be available in Indian country. Diabetic
    retinopathy occurs in 24.4 percent of Oklahoma Indians.

                                    PHARMACY

        Pharmacists play an important role in disease state management,
    particularly the monitoring of patients suffering from diabetes.
        Through the pharmacy training program, now in 13 sites, the IHS
    plays a significant role in the education of pharmacists interested in
    pursuing careers in the IHS.

                              WOMEN'S HEALTH CARE

        AI/AN girls up through the age of 19 are approximately 3 times more
    likely to commit suicide than their white counterparts.
        Although AI/AN women across Indian country have lower cancer death
    rates than United States all races, in Alaska and Northern Plains, the
    rates for AI/AN women are 22 percent and 42 percent higher,
    respectively, than for United States all races.
        The 2002 United States prevalence of diagnosed diabetes in women 20
    and over was 7.1 percent. For AI/AN women, it was 15.9 percent, more
    than double. This disease is devastating to the health of these women;
    in addition, it increases complications in childbearing, and elevates
    the risk that their children will also become diabetic.

                             CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE

        More than one-third of the nation's AI/AN population is under the
    age of 15, and the health of these children consistently lags behind
    other populations. For example, the SIDS rates among AI/AN infants are
    nearly twice that of the general population.
        AI/AN children are more than twice as likely to die in the first
    four years of life than the general population, and remain twice as
    likely to die through age 24.
        The rate of type 2 diabetes among AI/AN teens aged 15-19 has
    increased 109 percent since 1990.

                          CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE (CVD)

        While the general U.S. population has seen a 50 percent decline in
    cardiovascular mortality, the AI/AN population rates are rapidly and
    dramatically increasing.
        CVD is the leading cause of death among AI/ANs and is double the
    rate of the general U.S. population.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission

                                    SUMMARY

        This statement is submitted in support of fiscal year 2007
    appropriations for Colorado River Basin salinity control program
    activities of the Bureau of Land Management. I urge that $5,200,000 be
    appropriated for the Bureau of Land Management for activities that
    benefit the control of salinity in the Colorado River Basin, and of
    that amount, $1,500,000 be marked specifically for the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Program. In addition, I support the President's
    requested appropriation of $33,343,000 for the Land Resources
    Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air Management, but request an increase
    of $700,000 in that amount to provide for the needed Colorado River
    Basin salinity control activities of the Bureau of Land Management.

                                   STATEMENT

        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is
    comprised of representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin States
    appointed by the respective Governors of the States. The Forum has
    examined all of the features needed to control the salinity of the
    Colorado River. Those features include activities by the cooperating
    States, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Agriculture, and
    the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The salinity control program has
    been adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin States and approved by
    the EPA as a part of each state's water quality standards. Also, water
    delivered to Mexico in the Colorado River is subject to Minute 242 of
    the U.S. treaty with Mexico that sets limits on the salinity of the
    water.
        About 75 percent of the land in the Colorado River basin is owned,
    administered or held in trust by the federal government. BLM is the
    largest landowner in the Colorado River Basin, and manages public lands
    that are heavily laden with salt. When salt-laden soils erode, the
    salts dissolve and remain in the river system, affecting the quality of
    water used from the Colorado River by the Lower Basin States and
    Mexico. BLM needs to target the expenditure of at least $5.2 million
    for activities in fiscal year 2007 that benefit salinity control in the
    Colorado River Basin. In addition, BLM needs to target the expenditure
    of $1,500,000 of the $5.2 million specifically for salinity control
    projects and technical investigations. Experience in past years has
    shown that BLM projects are among the most cost-effective of the
    salinity control projects.
        As one of the five principal Soil, Water and Air Management program
    activities, BLM needs to specifically target $5.2 million to activities
    that benefit the control of salinity on lands of the Colorado River
    Basin. In the past, BLM has allocated $800,000 of the Soil Water and
    Air Management appropriation for funding specific project proposals
    submitted by BLM staff to the BLM salinity control coordinator.
    However, some of that funding has been eliminated in recent years by
    budget rescissions or transfers to other uses to balance budget needs.
    Consequently, the $800,000 allocated by BLM from the Soil, Water and
    Air Management Subactivity for Colorado River Basin salinity control
    has been reduced, limiting the implementation of needed salinity
    control efforts. The recently released annual report of the federally
    chartered Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council
    reports that BLM has identified projects that could utilize funding in
    the amount of $1.5 million for fiscal year 2007. Consequently, I
    request that $1.5 million of the Soil, Water and Air Management
    Subactivity be marked specifically for Colorado River Basin salinity
    control activities. Achieving this level of appropriation for the
    critically needed cost effective salinity control work by BLM may
    require an increase of $700,000 in the BLM budget request of
    $33,343,000 for the Soil, Water and Air Management Subactivity.
        I believe and support past federal legislation that finds that the
    federal government has a major and important responsibility with
    respect to controlling salt discharge from public lands. Congress has
    charged the federal agencies to proceed with programs to control the
    salinity of the Colorado River Basin with a strong mandate to seek out
    the most cost-effective solutions. BLM's rangeland improvement programs
    can lead to some of the most cost-effective salinity control measures
    available. In addition, these programs are environmentally acceptable
    and control erosion, increase grazing opportunities, produce dependable
    stream run-off and enhance wildlife habitat.
        The water quality standards adopted by the Colorado River Basin
    States contain a plan of implementation that includes BLM participation
    to implement cost effective measures of salinity control. BLM
    participation in the salinity control program is critical and essential
    to actively pursue the identification, implementation and
    quantification of cost effective salinity control measures on public
    lands.
        Bureau of Reclamation studies show that damages from the Colorado
    River to United States water users are about $330 million per year. For
    every increase of 30 milligrams per liter in salinity concentration in
    the waters of the Colorado River, an increase in damages of $75 million
    is experienced by the water users of the Colorado River Basin in the
    United States. Control of salinity is necessary for the Basin States,
    including New Mexico, to continue to develop their compact-apportioned
    waters of the Colorado River. The Basin States are proceeding with an
    independent program to control salt discharges to the Colorado River,
    in addition to up-front cost sharing with Bureau of Reclamation and
    Department of Agriculture salinity control programs. It is vitally
    important that BLM pursue salinity control projects within its
    jurisdiction to maintain the cost effectiveness of the program and the
    timely implementation of salinity control projects to avoid unnecessary
    damages in the United States and Mexico.
        At the urging of the Basin States, BLM has created a full time
    position to coordinate its activities among the BLM state offices and
    other federal agencies involved in implementation of the salinity
    control program. The BLM 2007 Budget Justification states that BLM
    continues to implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate progress in
    cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Department
    of Agriculture and reports salt retention measures to implement and
    maintain salinity control measures of the federal salinity control
    program in the Colorado River Basin. BLM is to be commended for its
    commitment to cooperate and coordinate with the Basin States and other
    federal agencies. The Basin States and I are pleased with the BLM
    administration's responsiveness in addressing the need for renewed
    emphasis on its efforts to control salinity sources and to comply with
    BLM responsibilities pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Salinity
    Control Act, as amended. While it is commendable that BLM's budget
    focuses on ecosystems and watershed management, it is essential that
    funds be targeted on specific subactivities and the results of those
    expenditures reported. This is necessary for accountability and
    effectiveness of the use of the funds.
        I request the appropriation of at least $5.2 million in fiscal year
    2007 for Colorado River salinity control activities of BLM, and that
    $1,500,000 of that amount be marked specifically for the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Program, including projects and technical
    investigations. In addition, I request the appropriation of a minimum
    of $33,343,000 for the Land Resources Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air
    Management as requested by the President. However, I request that
    $34,043,000 be appropriated for the Land Resources Subactivity: Soil,
    Water, and Air Management to provide for the increase of $700,000
    needed for a total of $1.5 million marked specifically for Colorado
    River salinity control activities without causing any reduction of
    other activities funded from the Soil, Water and Air Management
    appropriation. I very much appreciate favorable consideration of these
    requests. I fully support the statement of the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Forum submitted by Jack Barnett, the Forum's Executive
    Director, in request of appropriations for BLM for Colorado River
    salinity control activities.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On Behalf of
    the Friends of the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, I appreciate
    the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $650,000
    appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for land
    acquisition within the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge.
        The Rachel Carson NWR plays a critical role in land protection
    efforts in southern Maine, serving as an anchor around which numerous
    local conservation organizations focus their efforts to protect land
    along the river corridors that flow through the refuge to the sea. The
    refuge and its supporters are working to effectively stitch together
    conserved properties into a greenbelt for habitat and water quality
    protection and public enjoyment. Previous years' appropriations have
    allowed the USFWS to conserve several properties within the refuge at
    Biddeford Pool and Parson's Beach, providing an important buffer
    between the intense development pressure along the southern Maine coast
    and its fragile coastal estuaries. While significant acreage within the
    refuge is protected today, additional areas of concern remain in need
    of protection.
        Available for immediate acquisition from a willing landowner in
    fiscal year 2007 is the 49-acre Parsons Woods property, located in the
    Parson's Beach area of the refuge near Kennebunkport. Consisting of
    wooded uplands, the property lies immediately adjacent to existing
    refuge lands and land being acquired with previously appropriated
    funds. The Parson's Woods tract contains the headwaters of a tributary
    of the Little River, the bulk of which flows through existing refuge
    lands and empties into the Atlantic between Laudholm and Crescent Surf
    beaches. If acquired, this parcel will allow the refuge to protect
    important wildlife habitat and link it to already protected refuge
    lands. Located in a rapidly developing part of Maine, this acquisition
    offers the refuge an outstanding opportunity to conserve southern
    Maine's coastal landscape and further consolidate the fragile habitat
    that exists on the marshes, uplands, creeks, and the estuaries of the
    coast.
        The Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge is the
    longest standing Friends of the National Wildlife Refuge system groups
    in the northeast, voicing support for the acquisition and protection of
    lands vital to the health of the refuge and the communities of southern
    Maine. We are a 501c3 organization, and our board leadership represents
    all ten of the refuge's districts. Our local roots recognize and speak
    for the benefits the refuge brings to our southern Maine communities,
    the critical plant and animal habitat of our unique coast, and the
    generations of visitors to the Rachel Carson Wildlife Refuge.
        We are fast approaching the 100th anniversary of Rachel Carson's
    birth in May 2007, and urge you to ensure that her legacy of protection
    for critical coastal areas is honored through an appropriation to the
    refuge. Given the development pressures in this part of the state, the
    opportunity to permanently protect the Parsons Woods property only
    exists for a limited time. An appropriation of $650,000 for the Rachel
    Carson NWR in fiscal year 2007 will yield enormous public benefits for
    generations to come.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Fort River Partnership

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee, I appreciate
    the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $2 million
    appropriation to the Fish and Wildlife Service from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF) for the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and
    Wildlife Refuge (Conte NFWR) in Massachusetts.
        The Fort River Partnership coordinates the work of federal, state,
    and nonprofit partners \1\ to protect wildlife habitat, working farms,
    and water quality in the Fort River region of the Connecticut River
    valley in Massachusetts. As a board member of Valley Land Fund I
    strongly support the efforts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
    expand the Fort River Division of the Conte NFWR through land
    acquisitions that protect grassland bird habitat along and near the
    Fort River.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Fort River Partnership participants include representatives
    from the USFWS Conte NFWR, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation
    and Recreation, the Kestrel Trust, Valley Land Fund, Franklin Land
    Trust, the Conservation Fund, and the Trust for Public Land.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Silvio O. Conte was a conservationist, fisherman, and champion of
    the Connecticut River who served as a U.S. Representative for
    Massachusetts' 1st District from 1959 until his death in 1991. Just
    before he died, Congressman Conte introduced legislation to establish a
    national wildlife refuge in the Connecticut River watershed, and his
    congressional colleagues paid tribute to his conservation legacy by
    authorizing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to establish the
    Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge in 1991. The refuge,
    officially established in 1997, protects native and endangered fish,
    wildlife, and plant species throughout the 7.2 million acre Connecticut
    River watershed, located in portions of Massachusetts, Connecticut,
    Vermont, and New Hampshire.
        Available for acquisition this year in the Conte NFWR in
    Massachusetts are three tracts in Hadley, that total 82 acres and
    complement the Refuge's recent acquisition of 23 acres nearby. These
    parcels are part of the Grasslands Complex Special Focus Area and are
    prized for their potential to provide habitat to grassland bird species
    such as the grasshopper sparrow, bobolink, and upland sandpiper, as
    well as for their frontage on the Fort River. The Fort River is the
    longest free-flowing tributary of the Connecticut River in
    Massachusetts.
        With roughly two and a half million people in the Connecticut River
    watershed, the threat from development poses a challenge to the mission
    of the refuge and the protection of the valley's resources. Hadley, a
    traditional farming town rich in prime soils, is increasingly facing
    the challenges of rising land values and loss of rural character. The
    addition of these parcels to the Refuge's Fort River Division will
    contribute strongly to the creation of a viable land base for grassland
    bird species and to the health of other critical Fort River species,
    including the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel. Failure to
    protect these parcels will inevitably lead to housing developments in
    this sensitive area. The Select Board of the Town of Hadley has
    declared its support for the establishment and expansion of this
    Division. The FWS and its partners are working closely with local land
    trusts to ensure that the refuge additions are leveraged through local,
    state, and federal investments in farmland protection, creating a
    conservation mosaic in the focus area that preserves its rural,
    historic and scenic character and protects the quality of the town's
    drinking water aquifer.
        The estimated value of the Fort River Grasslands properties is $2
    million, which is part of a larger $4 million request to fund other
    conservation opportunities throughout the four Conte NFWR states in
    fiscal year 2007. The $2 million appropriation to protect these Fort
    River properties will allow the Conte NFWR to continue to provide
    valuable resource protection within the Connecticut River valley in
    Massachusetts.
        I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $2
    million for the Silvio O. Conte NFWR in Massachusetts in the fiscal
    year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. I also
    support the request of the Friends of the Silvio O. Conte National Fish
    and Wildlife Refuge for a total of at least $4 million for the entire
    four-state refuge. This amount will help fund the $5.25 million in
    current high-priority Conte NFWR projects that are at risk of being
    lost in the Connecticut River watershed, a region comprising one sixth
    of New England's land mass and providing over 70 percent of the
    freshwater inflow to Long Island Sound.
        Thank you for your attention to this request.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Friends of the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and
                                Wildlife Refuge

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate
    the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $4 million
    appropriation to the Fish and Wildlife Service from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund for the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife
    Refuge. This amount will help fund the $5.25 million in current high-
    priority Conte NFWR projects that are at risk of being lost in the
    Connecticut River watershed.
        The Friends of the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife
    Refuge (SOC Friends) respectfully request your support for our fiscal
    year 2007 budget priorities. The pages that follow summarize our
    collective vision for what it will take in the fiscal year 2007 budget
    cycle to achieve the conservation results that the late congressman and
    champion of the Connecticut River, Silvio O. Conte, dreamed of. While
    $4 million will not fully fund all of the priority projects listed
    below, we hope that it will be sufficient to leverage additional
    funding to complete these projects if the Service has sufficient
    flexibility to apply the funds where they are most needed.
        Our unified request reflects the unique nature of the Silvio O.
    Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, which encompasses 7.2 million
    acres in New England's largest watershed, comprising one sixth of New
    England's land mass and providing over 70 percent of the freshwater
    inflow to Long Island Sound. The Refuge's diverse natural habitats help
    it rank as the top refuge in the region in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service Land Acquisition Priority System. Uniting four states,
    encompassing nine congressional districts and a constituency of more
    than 2 million citizens, the Conte Refuge is a New England treasure
    that provides tremendous opportunity to create permanent public
    benefits.
        The SOC Friends group includes the following organizations: The
    Nature Conservancy; The Trust for Public Land; The Conservation Fund;
    Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests; Connecticut River
    Watershed Council; Appalachian Mountain Club; Northern Forest Alliance;
    Connecticut Audubon; New Hampshire Audubon; Massachusetts Audubon;
    National Audubon Society; Friends of the Discovery Center; Friends of
    Pondicherry; Nulhegan Gateway Association; and Fort River Partnership.
        As conservation partners with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    we stand ready to help make Silvio Conte's vision a reality, and
    respectfully request the support of Congress in this effort.
        Our identified requests include:
        Connecticut.--Salmon River Division:
      --Cost: $2,000,000
      --Acreage: 289 acres
        The Salmon River division is comprised of a range of important
    natural features, including free-flowing rivers, thriving freshwater
    tidal marshes, forested wetlands, floodplain forests, and rare plant
    and animal species. The Elm Camp/Johnson property would be the first
    acquisition in this division and is a keystone property containing
    3,360 feet of frontage on Pine Brook, a high-quality stream that
    provides remarkable cold-water fish habitat; and 1,440 feet on the west
    bank of Salmon River, site of extensive state and federal efforts to
    restore anadromous fish runs, including the Atlantic salmon. Pine Brook
    is the only major Salmon tributary free of artificial barriers to
    migratory fish.
        Massachusetts.--Fort River Division:
      --Cost: $2,000,000
      --Acreage: 82 acres
        These parcels are prized for their potential to provide habitat to
    grassland bird species such as the grasshopper sparrow, bobolink, and
    upland sandpiper, and for more than a mile of frontage on the Fort
    River. The Fort River is the longest free-flowing tributary of the
    Connecticut River in Massachusetts, home to the federally-listed
    endangered dwarf wedgemussel and other rate mussels, fish, dragonflies,
    and turtles. At the center of a mosaic that includes over 600 acres of
    the protected farmland and new refuge holdings, these parcels are
    subject to development proposals that would drastically reduce the
    tremendous habitat potential of this rural landscape.
        New Hampshire--Ashuelot River Division:
      --Cost: $500,000
      --Acreage: 1,400 acres
        The Ashuelot River and its watershed are remarkable for their
    biodiversity and natural features, including: diverse freshwater
    wetlands, large unfragmented forest blocks, high quality wild brook
    trout streams, spawning habitat for anadromous fish, and rare species
    and natural communities, including the federally endangered dwarf wedge
    mussel. The subject property includes the headwaters of the high
    quality Roaring Brook stream system, and supports an exemplary wetland
    ecosystem containing a complex of emergent marsh, beaver flowages,
    scrub-shrub floodplain, riverbanks, and seepage swamps. Roaring Brook
    is a free-flowing tributary of the Ashuelot, supports a key Atlantic
    salmon stocking site, and provides excellent habitat for 63 species of
    birds and an abundance of other wildlife.
      --Pondicherry Division:
      --Cost: $180,000
      --Acreage: 98 acres
        Pondicherry was designated as a National Natural Landmark in 1974,
    and was recently designated as the first Important Bird Area in New
    Hampshire. The area has long been known to offer exceptional avian
    habitat supporting approximately 230 species of birds of which 125
    species have been confirmed as breeding. Species of particular
    conservation interest include common loon, northern harrier, sore,
    rusty blackbird, whip-poor-will, and American black duck. 20 species of
    reptiles and amphibians, 41 species of mammals, and 17 species of fish
    have also been documented to use the Pondicherry Refuge site. Recent
    ecological surveys have identified and documented a variety of
    exemplary natural communities including peat bogs, fens, deep emergent
    marshes, and increasingly threatened.
      --Mohawk River Division:
      --Cost: $320,000
      --Acreage:126 acres
        This River, located in New Hampshire's North Country is remarkable
    for its remote, boreal forests, rugged mountain peaks, abundant clear
    streams, lush wetlands, and rich lowland forests. Its habitats include
    mature conifer forests, mixed northern hardwoods, boreal peat bogs and
    freshwater wetlands. The Mohawk River provides nursery and rearing
    habitat for juvenile Atlantic salmon. It also provides high quality
    habitat for native brook trout.
        Vermont.--Nulhegan Division:
      --Cost: $250,000
      --Acreage: 116 acres
        The Nulhegan Basin includes a complex of bogs, freshwater wetlands
    and spruce forest. These habitats provide nesting areas for loon,
    hooded mergansers, black, ring-necked and wood ducks. The Nulhegan
    Basin supports the only viable population of spruce grouse in the
    Connecticut River Watershed. More than a dozen rare plants and animals
    are also known to occur in this area.
        On behalf of the SOC Friends, I respectfully request that you
    include an appropriation of $4 million for the Silvio O. Conte NFWR in
    the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
        I thank you in advance for your attention and your support as we
    endeavor to promote this investment in the natural and human
    environment.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of Florida State University

        Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Members of the
    Subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony before this
    Committee. I would like to take a moment to briefly acquaint you with
    Florida State University.
        Located in Tallahassee, Florida's capitol, FSU is a comprehensive
    Research I university with a rapidly growing research base. The
    University serves as a center for advanced graduate and professional
    studies, exemplary research, and top-quality undergraduate programs.
    Faculty members at FSU maintain a strong commitment to quality in
    teaching, to performance of research and creative activities, and have
    a strong commitment to public service. Among the current or former
    faculty are numerous recipients of national and international honors
    including Nobel laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners, and several members
    of the National Academy of Sciences. Our scientists and engineers do
    excellent research, have strong interdisciplinary interests, and often
    work closely with industrial partners in the commercialization of the
    results of their research. Florida State University had over $182
    million this past year in research awards.
        Florida State University attracts students from every state in the
    nation and more than 100 foreign countries. The University is committed
    to high admission standards that ensure quality in its student body,
    which currently includes National Merit and National Achievement
    Scholars, as well as students with superior creative talent. We
    consistently rank in the top 25 among U.S. colleges and universities in
    attracting National Merit Scholars to our campus.
        At Florida State University, we are very proud of our successes as
    well as our emerging reputation as one of the nation's top public
    research universities.
        Mr. Chairman, let me tell you about two projects we are pursuing at
    FSU. Our first project centers around the creation of a Coastal Marine
    Institute.
        Beach erosion and renourishment are critical issues in regions that
    are dependent on tourism and recreation. Florida's beaches and barrier
    islands protect $150 billion in coastal structures and infrastructure.
    Beach-related tourism generates approximately $40 billion in direct and
    indirect annual spending. More than half of Florida's sandy beaches are
    classified as critically eroding, the result of frequent storms, sea-
    level rise, and the loss of sand sources due to coastal development.
    Recent hurricanes have drastically added to the erosion problem.
        To that end, Florida State University propose to create an MMS
    Florida Coastal Marine Institute (FCMI), for the purpose of bringing
    researchers on southeastern coastal marine environments together with
    MMS scientists on projects related to MMS' work on the marine resources
    of the outer continental shelf (OCS).
        Our work will predominantly entail research into the environmental
    effects of extracting OCS sand resources for beach renourishment in the
    Southeast. Sand for renourishment is nearly always sought offshore,
    where the extraction process is potentially disruptive to the marine
    environment. The state's beaches comprise a quarter of America's sandy
    shorelines. Beach renourishment is the principal tool employed in
    Florida to address coastal erosion. State government agencies alone
    spend about $30 million annually on beach renourishment-related
    activities. Similar amounts come from local sources and the federal
    government, for a total of nearly $100 million annually expended on
    beach restoration in Florida.
        The readily available sand resources close to shore are rapidly
    being depleted. OCS sand is being used more and more frequently for
    replenishing Florida's eroded beaches, on both coasts. Such use will
    accelerate in the future, as sources further and further offshore are
    tapped for sand.
        Research into the environmental effects of sand extraction is
    multi-faceted. The offshore resource itself needs to be quantified and
    evaluated. Environmentally sensitive zones on the shelf need to be
    identified. The potential biological and physical impact on offshore
    extraction sites needs to be carefully evaluated. The proposed Florida
    CMI would be a source of much-needed expertise into these issues. We
    are requesting $750,000 for this activity.
        Our second project involves the creation of a southeast regional
    Center to focus research on the long-term sources and fates of mercury
    delivered to the global atmosphere. We will focus on the most critical
    piece of the puzzle--gaseous elemental mercury. The Center will be
    partnered between Florida State University and Georgia Institute of
    Technology. FSU's Oceanography Department and Geochemistry Program of
    the National High Magnetic Field Lab excel in the collection and
    analyses of ultra-trace element chemistry and isotopes globally--
    including mercury--in both atmospheric and aquatic environments.
    Georgia Tech's Schools of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences and Civil &
    Environmental Engineering have extensive national and international
    programs in urban photochemical chemistry, tracing of ``tailpipe'' and
    ``smoke stack'' gases, and global atmospheric mapping of trace gases
    from research airplanes and satellites. The Center will be a component
    of the ``Geotraces'' program, a new international 10-year effort
    starting in 2006 to map for the first time the global distributions of
    ultra-trace elements and isotopes in the ocean.
        Mercury is one of two trace elements known to have a large source
    to the surface ocean via deposition from the atmosphere. Mercury is
    thus targeted by Geotraces. The source of lead is known to be
    tetraethyl-lead additives in gasoline (now banned in the United
    States). In south Florida, the anthropogenic lead source is European,
    the source of vapor mercury to the ocean's surface is unknown.
        Although there is agreement that the atmosphere dominates the
    transport pathways for mercury, there is controversy regarding what
    fraction of mercury entering lakes and rivers is natural vs. man-made
    and global vs. local. Most mercury emissions are in the northeast
    United States, yet most mercury deposition is in the southeast.
    Patterns of mercury in rainfall have been interpreted as both ``local
    source'' and ``global long-distance source''. Local, regional, and
    global distributions of gaseous elemental mercury are unknown yet
    elemental mercury is thought to represent the most important source of
    anthropogenic mercury to the atmosphere. Because of the critical
    importance of mercury emissions to ecosystem and human health, and
    because of the increasing reliance of America's electric power plants
    on coal, a concentrated and well-focused effort on the atmospheric
    portion of the mercury cycle is required. In order to correctly
    regulate the ``correct'' man-made source it is essential to establish a
    scientific basis for quantifying the global array of atmospheric
    sources. We are seeking $2,000,000 for this activity.
        Mr. Chairman, these are just two projects that Florida State
    University is working on that will have long reaching and positive
    outcomes for our country's future. Your consideration is greatly
    appreciated.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Friends of Westwater Canyon

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: The Friends of
    Westwater Canyon appreciates the opportunity to present this testimony
    in support of a $1.3 million appropriation from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund for the second phase of the Westwater Ranch
    conservation project in the Colorado River Special Recreation
    Management Area.
        Westwater Canyon and Colorado River SMRA.--The Colorado River has
    carved some of nature's greatest wonders in its long and sometimes
    tortuous path: the Grand Canyon, the vanished but once hauntingly
    beautiful Glen Canyon and the fearsome waters of Cataract Canyon in
    Canyonlands National Park. Just as remarkable is Westwater Canyon in
    southeastern Utah, some 40 miles west of Grand Junction, Colorado and
    40 miles northeast of Moab, Utah.
        Visitors to Westwater Canyon experience a wild whitewater river, a
    truly unique contrast of land formations as well as a remote,
    prospering habitat for both plant and wildlife. Treasures unfold in the
    canyon: beautiful geologic formations, ephemeral streams and seeps,
    wildflowers, petroglyphs and potholes. Its cliffs are home to the
    endangered Peregrine Falcon, Golden and Bald Eagles, and Desert Bighorn
    sheep. The canyon's entrance hosts a unique Cottonwood-Willow forest--
    one of the rarest forest types in the United States. Critical habitat
    is found here for endangered native Colorado River fishes: the Colorado
    Squawfish, Bonytail Chub, Humpback Chub and the Razorback Sucker.
        Westwater Canyon is located within the Westwater Canyon Wilderness
    Study Area and Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Colorado River Special
    Recreation Management Area. The BLM Westwater Ranger Station, located
    on the Colorado River less than an hour's drive from both Moab, Utah
    and Grand Junction, Colorado, serves as both a takeout for many rafters
    coming downriver from the McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area
    (in Colorado) and a launching point for the whitewater trip through
    Westwater Canyon. This canyon is the first whitewater stretch of the
    Colorado River in Utah and is an exceedingly popular trip due to the
    canyon's relative proximity to metropolitan areas, its classic desert
    scenery, and numerous challenging rapids.
        Friends of Westwater Canyon.--The Friends of Westwater Canyon was
    incorporated as a non-profit organization in 1997 by community members
    to achieve a number of goals:
        1. Preserve the unique desert river canyon of Westwater,
        2. Educate the public as to qualities of Westwater Canyon,
        3. Work with the Bureau of Land Management to ensure Westwater
    Canyon is not impaired by development and indiscriminate destruction of
    its natural resources.
        The preservation of Westwater Canyon enjoys the ongoing support of
    many commercial and conservation organizations such as: the Utah Guides
    and Outfitters Association, Colorado Plateau River Guides Association,
    Colorado River Outfitters Association, Utah Rivers Council, Southern
    Utah Wilderness Alliance, American Rivers, Mineral Policy Center,
    Western Mining Action Project and Friends of Westwater Canyon. In
    addition, hundreds of individuals have taken action on behalf of
    Westwater Canyon.
        Support of LWCF Funding Request.--Available for acquisition in
    fiscal year 2007 is the second phase of a conservation easement on the
    1,100-acre Westwater Ranch at the mouth of Westwater Canyon on the
    Colorado River. The ranch is one of the largest remaining private
    parcels along the Colorado River between the McInnis Canyons NCA in
    Colorado and the Westwater Wilderness Study Area. The property has over
    three miles of river frontage, which is lined with cottonwood, willow
    and other riparian vegetation. For the thousands of rafters who put in
    at the BLM Ranger Station, located immediately upstream of Westwater
    Ranch, these three miles of river frontage on the ranch before entering
    Westwater Canyon itself are an important element of the recreational
    experience. Wildlife often observed on the ranch from the river include
    wild turkeys, deer and bald eagles, which frequently nest in the
    riparian corridor on the ranch property.
        New owners recently acquired the ranch and are working to restore
    the ranch to agricultural uses, including removal of invasive Russian
    knapweed and Tamarisk. BLM and The Trust for Public Land are now
    working with these new owners to protect the remainder of the ranch
    with the purchase of a conservation easement. In fiscal year 2006, Land
    and Water Conservation Funds were secured to protect 500 acres of the
    ranch.
        Without protection, this property faces an imminent threat from
    rural residential development. Protecting the ranch will provide scenic
    benefits along the Colorado River, provide the public with additional
    camping and recreational facilities at the current ranger station, and
    protect the area's unique richness of natural and recreational
    resources. I respectfully request you include an LWCF appropriation of
    $1.3 million in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill to complete the acquisition of the remaining
    acreage of Westwater Ranch.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Grand County, Utah

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: Grand County
    appreciates the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a
    $1.3 million appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    for the second phase of the Westwater Ranch conservation easement
    project in the Colorado River Special Recreation Management Area.
        Grand County is located in eastern Utah with county seat in Moab,
    and population of approximately 8,700. The County contains some of the
    world's most spectacular scenery. Within its boundaries lie Arches and
    Canyonlands National Parks, Dead Horse Point State Park, Manti-La Sal
    National Forest, the Colorado River, and an abundance of Bureau of Land
    Management Recreation Areas. This region is an outdoor wonderland for
    hikers, bikers, sightseers, photography buffs, rafters, golfers, four
    wheel drive enthusiasts and much more. Moab, the county seat, is the
    only town in Utah located on the Colorado River.
        The County has always had deep ties to the Colorado River, having
    been named after the river when the County was founded in 1890 (and
    river was then known as the Grand River). Over its history, Grand
    County's economy has been greatly benefited by farming, ranching,
    mining, oil exploration and more recently, by tourism generated by the
    numerous natural resource and recreational and hunting opportunities in
    the area.
        The area along the Colorado River near BLM's Westwater Ranger
    Station is one of those important recreation and hunting areas in Grand
    County. We understand that funding provided by Congress in the fiscal
    year 2006 federal budget will allow for the first phase of a
    conservation easement to be acquired by BLM, which will protect a
    portion of the privately-owned Westwater Ranch. Additional funding of
    $1.3 million is being requested in the fiscal year 2007 budget for this
    Westwater Ranch conservation easement to be completed. The owners of
    Westwater Ranch have also indicated their willingness to sell a small
    portion of the ranch adjacent to the Ranger Station to BLM that would
    enable expansion of the public facilities at the Ranger Station.
        The purchase by BLM of a conservation easement on Westwater Ranch
    will enhance the visitor experience in Grand County by preservation of
    scenic values. The purchase of private land for expansion of BLM's
    Westwater Rnager Station will do much to ease congestion at the
    Station. Additionally, the acquisition of other private parcels located
    between the Utah/Colorado state line and the Westwater Ranger Station
    will resolve public access problems on existing roads with locked
    gates, with which we are very familiar.
        We strongly support an LWCF appropriation of $1.3 million in the
    fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, and
    BLM's plans to acquire a conservation easement on Westwater Ranch,
    lands adjacent to the existing Westwater Ranger Station for expansion
    of the public facilities, and acquisitions of selected lands along the
    Colorado River and upstream of the Station to protect the riverfront
    and provide for improved public access.
        Thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission
                                    (GLIFWC)

     AGENCIES--BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        1. BIA TREATY RIGHTS PROTECTION/IMPLEMENTATION: $4,174,000
    ($382,000 above fiscal year 2006 enacted).
        Agency/Program Line Item: Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, Operation of Indian Programs, Trust-Natural Resources
    Management, Rights Protection Implementation, Great Lakes Area Resource
    Management.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The requested BIA funds reflect GLIFWC's allocation of this
    line item that also funds the 1854 Authority.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Funding Authorizations: Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 13; Indian Self-
    Determination and Educational Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 450f
    and 450h; and the treaties between the United States and GLIFWC's
    member Ojibwe Tribes, specifically Treaty of 1836, 7 Stat. 491, Treaty
    of 1837, 7 Stat. 536, Treaty of 1842, 7 Stat. 591, and Treaty of 1854,
    10 Stat. 1109.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The rights guaranteed by these treaties, and the associated
    tribal regulatory and management responsibilities, have been affirmed
    by various court decisions, including a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2. EPA ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT: $300,000 (fiscal year
    2004 enacted).
        Agency/Program Line Item: Environmental Protection Agency,
    Environmental Programs and Management (funneled through the EPA's Great
    Lakes National Program Office).
        Funding Authorizations: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1268(c);
    and treaties cited above.
        glifwc's goal--a secure funding base to fulfill treaty purposes
        As Congress has recognized for over 20 years, funding for GLIFWC's
    conservation, natural resource protection, and law enforcement
    programs: (i) honors federal treaty obligations to eleven Ojibwe
    Tribes; and (ii) provides a wide range of associated public benefits.
    The lack of a secure funding base jeopardizes GLIFWC's ability to: (i)
    implement federal court orders and intergovernmental agreements
    governing the exercise of treaty-guaranteed hunting, fishing and
    gathering rights; and (ii) participate in cooperative management
    partnerships in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota.
        1. BIA TREATY RIGHTS PROTECTION/IMPLEMENTATION: $4,174,000. As its
    primary Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act
    funding base, GLIFWC seeks to:
        a. Restore $157,000 in base funding lost over the last four years
    that is not included in the Administration's fiscal year 2007 budget
    proposal;
        b. Restore $75,000 of base funding for annual pay cost adjustments
    that the BIA routinely has not included in its budget request to
    Congress; and
        c. Provide $150,000 in additional base funding to sustain
    enhancements in conservation law enforcement and emergency services
    capabilities.
        2. EPA ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT: $300,000. As an EPA
    funding base for its primary environmental program elements, GLIFWC
    seeks to:
        a. Provide $189,700 for basic scientific/technical capabilities to:
    (i) continue participation in a number of Great Lakes initiatives
    (including the Binational Program to Restore and Protect Lake Superior,
    the Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP), and the Great Lakes
    Regional Collaboration); (ii) carry out habitat and human-health
    related research; and (iii) provide the requisite analysis and data to
    support participation in regional initiatives and to assess the impact
    of particular projects on tribal treaty rights.
        b. Provide $110,300 to undertake three habitat and human health-
    related research projects regarding: (i) GLIFWC's fish consumption
    mercury advisory program; (ii) ceded territory sulfide mining site
    evaluation and monitoring; and (iii) a Lake Superior herring
    contaminant assessment.

           CEDED TERRITORY TREATY RIGHTS--GLIFWC'S ROLE AND PROGRAMS

        Established in 1984, GLIFWC is a natural resources management
    agency for its 11 member Ojibwe Tribes regarding their ceded territory
    (off-reservation) hunting, fishing and gathering treaty rights. Its
    mission is twofold:
      --Ensure that its member Tribes are able to exercise their rights for
            the purposes of meeting subsistence, economic, cultural,
            medicinal, and spiritual needs; and
      --Ensure a healthy, sustainable natural resource base that supports
            those rights.
        GLIFWC is a ``tribal organization'' within the meaning of the
    Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act (Public Law
    93-638). It is governed by a Constitution developed and ratified by its
    member Tribes and by a board comprised of the Chairs of those Tribes.
        GLIFWC operates a comprehensive ceded territory hunting, fishing,
    and gathering rights protection/implementation program through its
    staff of biologists, scientists, technicians, conservation enforcement
    officers, policy specialists, and public information specialists.
        Its activities include: (i) natural resource population assessments
    and studies; (ii) harvest monitoring and reporting; (iii) enforcement
    of tribal conservation codes in tribal courts; (iv) funding for tribal
    courts and tribal registration/permit stations; (v) development of
    natural resource management plans and tribal regulations; (vi)
    negotiation and implementation of agreements with state, federal and
    local agencies; (vii) invasive species eradication and control
    projects; (viii) biological and scientific research, including fish
    contaminant testing; and (ix) development and dissemination of public
    information materials.

                   JUSTIFICATION & USE OF THE REQUESTED FUNDS

        For over 20 years, Congress has recognized GLIFWC as a cost
    efficient agency that plays a necessary role in: (i) meeting specific
    federal treaty and statutory obligations toward GLIFWC's member Tribes;
    (ii) fulfilling conservation, habitat protection, and law enforcement
    functions required by federal court decisions affirming the Tribes'
    treaty rights; (iii) effectively regulating harvests of natural
    resources shared among the treaty signatory Tribes; and (iv) serving as
    an active partner with state, federal and local governments, with
    educational institutions, and with conservation organizations and other
    non-profit agencies.
        Particularly relevant to the requested EPA funds, Tribal members
    rely upon treaty-protected natural resources for religious, cultural,
    medicinal, subsistence, and economic purposes. Their treaty rights mean
    little if contamination of these resources threatens their health,
    safety, and economy, or if the habitats supporting these resources are
    degraded.
        With the requested stable funding base, GLIFWC will:
        1. MAINTAIN ITS CORE CAPABILITIES TO CONSERVE NATURAL RESOURCES AND
    TO REGULATE TREATY HARVESTS: As was the case with the BIA funding base
    provided by Congress for the past 5 years, GLIFWC would: (i) restore
    program cuts caused by chronic under-funding; \3\ (ii) provide cost-of-
    living pay increases to staff; \4\ and (iii) solidify law enforcement
    and emergency response infrastructure improvements that have been
    instituted with a combination of BIA and U.S. Department of Justice
    COPS funds.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ For example, the previously restored funding base was used to:
    (i) reinstitute fall juvenile walleye recruitment surveys to previous
    levels; (ii) restore tribal court and registration station funding
    cuts; (iii) restore Lake Superior lamprey control and whitefish
    assessment programs; (iv) restore GLIFWC's share in cooperative
    wildlife and wild rice enhancement projects; (v) replace aging
    equipment; (vi) meet expanding harvest monitoring needs; and (vii) meet
    uncontrollable increases in employee benefit costs.
        \4\ Since fiscal year 2002, the Administration has not included
    funding for GLIFWC employee cost of living pay adjustments in GLIFWC's
    base funding levels. Failure to include these adjustments in succeeding
    budgets negates their very purpose and results in recurring de facto
    budget cuts if the adjusted salaries are to be paid in subsequent
    years.
        \5\ GLIFWC has: (i) upgraded its patrol capabilities with new
    vehicles, boats, snowmobiles, and off-road vehicles; (ii) increased
    officer medical training and upgraded first aid equipment; (iii)
    upgraded its radio systems to be compatible with surrounding agencies;
    and (iv) established ongoing joint training with federal, state, and
    local agencies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2. REMAIN A TRUSTED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PARTNER AND SCIENTIFIC
    CONTRIBUTOR IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION: With the requested EPA funding
    base, GLIFWC would maintain its ability to bring a tribal perspective
    to the interjurisdictional mix of Great Lakes managers.\6\ It also
    would use its scientific expertise to study issues and geographic areas
    that are important to its member Tribes but that others may not be
    examining.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ GLIFWC currently participates on a regular basis in the
    Binational Program to Restore and Protect Lake Superior, International
    Joint Commission and SOLEC forums, the Great Lakes Regional
    Collaboration, and the implementation of agreements to regulate water
    diversions and withdrawals under the Great Lakes Charter, Annex 2001.
        \7\ With the requested fiscal year 2007 EPA funds, GLIFWC would:
    (i) continue its long-standing program to collect and test fish for
    mercury and to communicate testing results through health care
    providers and GIS maps; (ii) assess the impacts of contaminants leaking
    from a closed mine in Wisconsin; (iii) conduct water testing and
    baseline monitoring of heavy metals in the area of a proposed sulfide
    mine in Michigan's Upper Peninsula near pristine Lake Superior
    tributaries where native coaster brook trout spawn; and (iv) assess
    mercury, PCB and organochlorine levels in Lake Superior herring, the
    second most commercially-harvested fish in the U.S. waters of Lake
    Superior.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The lack of a secure, ongoing EPA funding base jeopardizes GLIFWC's
    role as a trusted environmental management partner and scientific
    contributor in the Great Lakes Region. The federal government's treaty
    obligations to GLIFWC's member Tribes compel more than the mere
    opportunity to compete for a diminishing patchwork of discretionary EPA
    grants. This is particularly true given important current initiatives
    such as the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration in which GLIFWC
    participates as a full partner.
        3. MAINTAIN THE OVERALL PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT DERIVE FROM ITS
    PROGRAMS: Over the years, GLIFWC has become a recognized and valued
    partner in natural resource management, in emergency services networks,
    and in providing accurate information to the public. Because of its
    institutional experience and staff expertise, GLIFWC provides
    continuity and stability in interagency relationships and among its
    member Tribes, and contributes to social stability in the context of
    ceded territory treaty rights issues.
        Over the past 20 years, GLIFWC has built many partnerships that:
    (i) provide accurate information and data to counter social
    misconceptions about tribal treaty harvests and the status of ceded
    territory natural resources; (ii) maximize each partner's financial
    resources; (iii) avoid duplication of effort and costs; (iv) engender
    cooperation rather than competition; and (v) undertake projects and
    achieve public benefits that no one partner could accomplish alone.

                     OTHER RELATED APPROPRIATIONS CONCERNS

        1. Fully Funded BIA Contract Support Costs: Since 1995, GLIFWC has
    experienced a $372,000 shortfall in contract support costs despite its
    historically low indirect cost rates that never exceeded 15.25 percent.
    This is unsustainable and, when combined with increased administrative
    costs, will force GLIFWC to increase its fiscal year 2006 rate by over
    3 percent from its fiscal year 2005 rate.
        2. BIA Circle of Flight Tribal Wetland & Waterfowl Initiative: Once
    again, Congress should fully fund this long-standing tribal
    contribution to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan that the
    Administration again proposes to eliminate.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Task Force

        As members of the Great Lakes delegation, we are writing to express
    our strong support for the many programs in the Department of Interior,
    the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Agency for Toxic
    Substances & Disease Registry that protect the human health as well as
    fish and wildlife resources in the Great Lakes. In particular, we ask
    that you consider the following requests.
      --We urge the Committee to provide the fully authorized amount of
            funding ($54 million) for the Great Lakes Legacy Program.
        The Great Lakes are plagued by contaminants from years of
    industrial pollution that have settled into the sediments of
    tributaries to the lakes. These pollutants degrade the health of both
    humans and wildlife. The worst of these polluted areas are known as
    Areas of Concern (AOC). The Great Lakes Legacy Act was enacted in 2002
    in order for the EPA to clean-up contaminated sediments in the Great
    Lakes. The Great Lakes Legacy program will provide funds to the EPA in
    order to address contaminated sediments at AOCs, and we support funding
    at the fully authorized amount ($54 million) for the Great Lakes Legacy
    program as well as language to allow the life of these funds to extend
    beyond 2 years. The EPA completed the first Legacy project in November
    of 2005, and of the four projects that have received funding, EPA
    estimates that over 1.2 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment
    will be removed. This program represents how federal funding can
    leverage significant private funds. Although the President's budget
    requested $50 million in fiscal year 2006, the program received $30.0
    million, and the President included $49.60 million in his proposed
    budget for fiscal year 2007.
      --We urge the Committee to provide $4 million for the Fish and
            Wildlife Service (FWS) Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife
            Restoration Program with language directing at least $2 million
            towards the grant program established by the Great Lakes Fish
            and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1998.
        The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act calls for the
    implementation of proposals to restore the fish and wildlife resources
    in the Great Lakes Basin based on the Great Lakes Fishery Restoration
    Study and authorizes grants to encourage cooperative conservation,
    restoration and management of the fish and wildlife resources and their
    habitat in the Great Lakes Basin. The Fish and Wildlife Service will
    only be able to implement restoration projects and meet the purposes of
    the Act if funding is provided for the continuation of the FWS Great
    Lakes Regional Offices (authorized at $3.5 million) and for the grants
    program to implement restoration projects (authorized at $4.5 million).
    In fiscal year 2006, $1.27 million was appropriated for the FWS
    Regional Offices and $500,000 for the grants program, and the fiscal
    year 2007 budget proposes $1.27 million for the Regional Offices.
      --We request that the Committee provide $25 million for EPA's Great
            Lakes National Program Office.
        The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) is responsible for
    overseeing the U.S. commitment to the U.S.-Canadian Great Lakes Water
    Quality Agreement, establishing a Great Lakes system-wide surveillance
    network to monitor water quality, serving as the liaison with the
    International Joint Commission, and coordinating EPA's Great Lakes
    activities as well as coordinating those activities with other Federal,
    State and Local authorities. Additionally, GLNPO is responsible for
    implementing the Great Lakes Legacy Program, and it has considerable
    responsibility for implementing Executive Order 13340 which was signed
    in an effort to improve coordination of all of the federal Great Lakes
    programs. GLNPO carries out a program that combines research and
    monitoring with education and outreach, and supports grants for
    specific activities to enhance and protect the Great Lakes environment.
    Approximately 60 percent of GLNPO's budget is allocated towards making
    grants and cooperative agreements to organizations in the state,
    tribal, or local sector. GLNPO received $22.072 million in fiscal year
    2006, and the fiscal year 2007 proposed budget provides $20.571, a $1.5
    million decrease. To meet the growing demand for work on the Great
    Lakes, $5 million in additional funding is needed
      --We support the Administration's request for $10 million for the
            BEACH Act.
        Each year state, local and tribal health and environmental
    protection agencies monitor the quality of water at our nation's
    beaches. When measured bacteria levels in the water are too high, these
    agencies notify the public of beach warnings or closings. State and
    local monitoring and notification programs differ across the country
    and provide varying levels of swimmer protection. In an effort to
    improve water quality testing at the beach and public notification when
    water quality problems exist, the Beaches Environmental Assessment and
    Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act) authorizes EPA to award grants to
    states, tribes, and territories to develop and implement beach water
    quality monitoring programs at coastal and Great Lakes recreational
    waters near beaches. These grants also provide support for the
    development and implementation of programs to reduce the risk of
    exposure to disease-causing microorganisms in the water to users of the
    Nation's beaches. There is a great demand for these grants throughout
    the Great Lakes states, and we support the Administration's request for
    funds.
        The work carried out by the EPA, FWS and USGS is of critical
    importance to the sustainability of the Great Lakes' natural resources.
    We urge the Committee to carefully consider these requests and thank
    you for your attention to this matter. If you have questions, please
    contact Joy Mulinex at 224-1211.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Glacier Park, Inc.

        The purpose of this statement is to bring to your attention a very
    unfair amendment inserted into the 2005 Interior Appropriation Bill and
    continues today, and done so in secrecy and without congressional
    hearings, or concessionaires' knowledge. In-other-words, done through
    the back door, undercover, and most importantly, in violation of the
    National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 known as Public Law 105-
    391. The violating amendment is known as the ``De Novo'' Amendment.
    Public Law 105-391 allows for binding arbitration between the National
    Park Service and concessionaires if a dispute arise over the value of
    the concessionaire's assets. With the ``De Novo'' Amendment only the
    park service has the right to take the arbitrators ruling to the Court
    of Federal Claims for another ruling, which violates ``Binding
    Arbitration.'' It is totally unfair that concessionaires must respect
    the law, but the government (National Park Service) has a second chance
    to possibly get a more favorable ruling. This Amendment is one-sided,
    unfair and unethical. This Amendment must be eliminated and prevented
    from happening again. The 2007 Interior Appropriation Bill is underway
    now and I ask that you do all in your power to speak out against this
    type of unfair action and vote against any further ``De Novo''
    Amendment.
        Thanks in advance for your immediate action before it's too late! I
    appreciate your help and your consideration for fairness.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Gallatin Valley Land Trust

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of
    the Gallatin Valley Land Trust, I appreciate the opportunity to present
    this testimony in support of a $1.6 million appropriation from the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund for the second phase of the Bozeman Pass
    (Schmidt) conservation project in the Gallatin National Forest.
        Gallatin Valley Land Trust (GVLT) is a nonprofit land trust that
    serves Gallatin, Park, Madison, Jefferson, Broadwater and Meagher
    counties in Montana. Founded in 1995, GVLT has worked with willing
    landowners to secure conservation easements over 25,000 acres of land
    that provides exceptional habitat, unspoiled scenery, and protection of
    water and soil resources. Additionally, GVLT has been the catalyst
    behind a 45 mile long public trail system in the Bozeman area. In the
    heart of our service area, Gallatin County is the fastest growing
    county in Montana, and still is a vital part of the Greater Yellowstone
    Ecosystem (GYE). Conservation and responsible use of our spectacular
    natural resources is also fundamental to our region's continued
    economic development. I write to seek your support for the permanent
    conservation of a very critical element of that ecosystem and one of
    GVLT's highest priority projects.
        Remarkably diverse, the GYE provides some of the best wildlife
    habitat in the country, including home for one of the last viable
    grizzly bear populations in the lower 48 states. It hosts the largest
    elk and free-roaming bison herds in North America, and provides the
    only U.S. wintering ground for the rare trumpeter swan. Wolverines,
    lynx, fishers, and martens still roam the GYE's mountains, as do
    bighorn sheep, black bears, and mountain goats. Other flourishing
    species include pronghorn antelope, wolves, moose, mountain lions, mule
    deer, beavers, coyotes, osprey, bald eagles, and peregrine falcons. The
    rich biological diversity of the GYE is truly exceptional--nowhere else
    in the lower 48 states can you find a large and relatively intact
    ecosystem containing nearly all the living organisms present in pre-
    Columbian times.
        In addition to its impressive wildlife values, the GYE offers some
    of the best recreational opportunities in North America. Its fisheries
    are world-renowned and attract fly fishers from all over the globe. Big
    game hunting opportunities are abundant. In addition to these sporting
    opportunities, the GYE offers a wide range of backcountry recreational
    opportunities including skiing, snowshoeing, snowmobiling, hiking,
    camping, whitewater rafting, horseback riding, and wildlife viewing.
        Available for acquisition in the GYE in fiscal year 2007 is the
    second phase of the 2,055-acre Schmidt property. Located five miles
    east of downtown Bozeman and straddling Interstate 90 between the Bear
    Canyon and Trail Creek exits, this property has become available for
    protection through a combination of fee and conservation easement
    acquisitions. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MFWP) has called this
    project one of the most unique and important acquisitions for wildlife
    and its habitat to be proposed in the Gallatin Valley, largely due to
    the property's strategic location between the Gallatin Mountains to the
    south and the Bridger/Bangtail Mountains to the north, its close
    proximity to downtown Bozeman and I-90, and its high subdivision value.
        This project conserves important habitat and connects existing
    protected habitat for a wide range of species. A recent study shows
    that one of the most important highway crossing points for wildlife in
    the Bozeman Pass area is located between the Bear Canyon and Trail
    Creek exits and that this area offers the best route for connectivity
    between secure habitats on either side of the interstate. Three large
    properties, covering almost 1,100 acres, have already been protected
    adjacent to the Schmidt property through donated conservation
    easements. Completing this project will ensure that a fivesquare-mile,
    contiguous block of wildlife corridor between the two mountain ranges
    will be permanently protected.
        In the coming months, approximately 250 acres in the first phase of
    the project will be purchased and conveyed to the Forest Service using
    an appropriation of $1.0 million from fiscal year 2006. Another 390
    acres are available for purchase this year in the second phase of the
    project. If these acres are successfully acquired, another 175 acres
    will be donated to the Forest Service outright. An additional 1,240
    acres will also be conserved through a conservation easement to be
    purchased by Gallatin County and conveyed to the Gallatin Valley Land
    Trust for long-term monitoring and enforcement. Sufficient non-federal
    funding for this easement purchase has already been secured. While
    funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund will be used to
    purchase only 640 acres, it will ultimately be responsible for
    triggering the permanent conservation of almost 2,100 acres.
        The project will also provide significant public access benefits. A
    new trail easement is included which would allow a new public trail to
    be built, starting at the Trail Creek Road on the south side of
    Interstate 90 and leading up to the 640 acres that would be conveyed to
    the Forest Service as part of this project and to existing National
    Forest lands beyond. It also includes guaranteed public access to a
    popular local rock climbing area, which would be donated to the Forest
    Service.
        Given its spectacular views of the Gallatin Valley and the Bridger
    Mountains, its gently sloping terrain and its close proximity to
    downtown Bozeman, the Schmidt property is extremely vulnerable to
    development. If full-scale development were ever allowed to occur on
    this property, critical wildlife habitat and scenic open space would be
    lost forever.
        An appropriation of $1.6 million in fiscal year 2007 from the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund will leverage more than $4 million worth of
    additional conservation and recreation benefits (paid for entirely with
    nonfederal dollars) and ensure that 2,055 acres are permanently
    conserved.
        I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $1.6
    million for the final phase of the Bozeman Pass (Schmidt) conservation
    project in the Gallatin National Forest in the fiscal year 2007
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
        Thank you for your attention to this request.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Grand Valley Water Users' Association

        We are requesting your support for the following appropriations in
    fiscal year 2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper
    Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River
    Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as recommended in the
    President's budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Ecological
    Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element;
    $697,000 within the $5,631,000 item entitled ``General Program
    Activities'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS
    to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado River
    Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
        2. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
    Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
    support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
    in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $211,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year
    2007 to meet FWS' Region 2 expenses managing and implementing the San
    Juan Recovery Program.
        We thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee's
    assistance for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Gathering Waterways Conservancy

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to present testimony for you today. On
    behalf of the land trusts of Wisconsin, Gathering Waters Conservancy
    supports the appropriation of $2.5 million from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund for acquisition projects in the Chequamegon-Nicolet
    National Forest in Wisconsin.
        The beauty and ecological importance of this area are impressive.
    And with the number of lakes, and trails, the Chequamegon-Nicolet
    National Forest provides some of the best recreational opportunities in
    the country. We now have the opportunity to acquire two additional
    tracks, totaling 1,390 acres: Venison Creek and Indian Farms. This will
    continue the success of this landscape as an area where people can
    hike, camp, hunt, and ski.
        The protection of this area has been well-supported in the past.
    The Forest Service's Wild Wisconsin Waterways program recognizes the
    special value of Wisconsin's northern forests. This program works to
    protect undeveloped properties along lakes and rivers to enhance
    natural resources and to provide areas for recreation. Congress has
    provided annual funding for land protection through the Wild Wisconsin
    Waterways program through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. So far,
    8,500 acres have been protected. This year, Congress has the
    opportunity to fund the acquisition of two additional parcels of land.
        The acquisition of this property has already been a model of
    private-public partnerships. When Plum Creek decided to sell the land,
    the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation stepped up and agreed to purchase and
    hold the property for one year while funds are secured through the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund. An appropriation by Congress of $2.5
    million will protect these properties in the Chequamegon-Nicolet
    National Forest and ensure the continued success of the Wild Wisconsin
    Waterways program.
        Thank you for your consideration of this testimony! We hope that
    you will help us save special places for the future by funding the
    acquisition of Venison Creek and Indian Farms.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Highlands Coalition

        On behalf of the regional Board of the Highlands Coalition, which
    includes over 150 organizations working together to conserve priority
    lands in the Highlands region of CT, NY, NJ, and PA, we would like to
    thank you for the opportunity to comment on the fiscal year 2007
    Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill.
        Our top priorities include:
      --$11 million for the Highlands Conservation Act, including $10
            million for land conservation partnership projects through the
            U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and $1 million for USDA Forest
            Service technical assistance and research programs in the
            Highlands; and
      --$80 million for the Forest Legacy program, including $1.22 million
            for Skiff Mountain--phase II (CT), $2.1 million for Sparta
            Mountain South--phase II (NJ), and $300,000 for Birdsboro
            Waters (PA).

                           HIGHLANDS CONSERVATION ACT

        In the fall of 2004, Congress enacted and President Bush signed the
    Highlands Conservation Act, recognizing the national significance of
    the more than three-million acre Highlands region as a source of
    drinking water, productive forests and farms, wildlife habitat and
    recreation within an hour of major metropolitan areas including
    Philadelphia, New York City and Hartford. The Act authorized $10
    million annually to assist the Highlands states in conserving priority
    lands from willing landowners, and to continue USDA Forest Service
    research and assistance to private landowners in the Highlands. Under
    the Act, the states are required to match federal funds for land
    conservation partnership projects on an equal basis to greater leverage
    these funds.
        In his budget for fiscal year 2007, President Bush has included $2
    million for the Highlands Conservation Act (HCA), through the Fish &
    Wildlife Service, to support land conservation partnership projects in
    the four Highland states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and
    Connecticut. The Governors of the four Highlands States have jointly
    submitted projects totaling $10 million in need to the Department of
    the Interior for funding in fiscal year 2007, including:
    Litchfield Farms (CT)
        Cost: $10,000,000
        HCA Request: $2,500,000
        Size: 753 Acres
        Matching Funds: State of Connecticut; Town of Litchfield; private
    donations
        Description: The State of Connecticut requests funds for Litchfield
    Farms which contains large areas of wetlands, prime agricultural soils,
    and diverse forests. The site hosts a known state-listed endangered
    species and contains several vernal pools. Litchfield Farms lies within
    both the Bantam and the Naugatuck watersheds. All waterways on the
    property that drain into the Bantam River are AA, or the highest-level
    water quality. Elevations on the property reach up to 1,300 feet making
    it one of the highest points in Litchfield. Preservation of this
    property would provide ridgeline and scenic vista protection for both
    the towns of Torrington and Litchfield.
    Wyanokie Highlands (NJ)
        Cost: $7,700,000 HCA
        Request: $2,500,000
        Size: Four parcels totaling 1,288 Acres
        Description: New Jersey requests funds for this focal area which is
    ranked highly due to its value for water resources and recreation, and
    secondarily for biodiversity and forest land. The Wyanokie Highlands
    form the headwaters of Burnt Meadow and West Brooks that flow into
    North Jersey's Wanaque Reservoir, which provides drinking water for
    nearly two million NJ residents. These acquisitions will help complete
    a critical greenway in the Wyanokies linking Long Pond Ironworks State
    Park with Norvin Green State Forest. These parcels are the largest
    portion of the missing link and include waterways of exceptional
    ecological significance, which drain into the Wanaque Reservoir.
    Oley Hills (PA)
        Cost: $5,000,000
        HCA Request: $2,500,000
        Size: 2,263
        Description: The Oley Hills is a Critical Treasure within the
    Highlands Region. This assemblage of properties is located within the
    Oley Hills core conservation area of the Reading Prong, the geologic
    formation that lies at the heart of the Pennsylvania Highlands. The
    Oley Hills project encompasses three state-designated ``Exceptional
    Value'' streams (the Pine, Oysterville, and Saucony creeks). These
    pristine waterways provide drinking water to the surrounding
    communities, and important water quality protection for the Schuylkill
    River, Pennsylvania's first designated Scenic River and the spine of
    the Schuylkill River Heritage Corridor. The Oley Hills are known to
    provide habitat that supports substantial populations of the endangered
    Bog Turtle. The area also contains sweeping scenic vistas of the
    Highlands Region and woodlands that are exceedingly rare in southeast
    Pennsylvania.
    Great Swamp and Sterling Forest Areas (NY)
        Cost: $10,600,000
        HCA Request: $2,500,000
        Size: 1,300 Acres
        Description.--Great Swamp: New York State requests funds to assist
    in the acquisition of properties that will further protect the Great
    Swamp, one of New York's most important wetland complexes and the
    largest and highest quality red maple hardwood swamp in the State. It
    also contains breeding habitat for more than 80 bird species and
    migratory habitat for more than 150 species of waterfowl and other
    birds. The Great Swamp also contains a south flowing section based on
    the East Branch Croton River, a critical part of New York City's water
    supply system; and a north flow section based on the Swamp River which
    flows into the Housatonic and, ultimately, to Long Island Sound.
        Arrow Park: New York requests funds to assist in the acquisition of
    an addition to Sterling Forest State Park. The Arrow Park property is
    situated adjacent to the northeastern corner of Sterling Forest State
    Park and in close proximity to the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.
    The property contains a highly scenic lake, woodlands and wetlands, as
    well as significant frontage on Orange Turnpike. Portions of the
    property were acquired in 2002 as additions to the Park, while the
    disposition of the remaining 350 acres was being considered by the
    owners.
        The USDA Forest Service has been a valuable partner and catalyst in
    the region and $1 million is needed to allow the Forest Service to
    continue the expansion of the NY-NJ Highlands Regional Study to
    Pennsylvania and Connecticut, and to provide increased technical
    assistance to private landowners and local communities to advance
    stewardship and management of priority lands in the region.

                       FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM AND PROJECTS

        We also support funding for critical Forest Legacy projects in the
    Highlands region including: $1.22 million for Skiff Mountain (phase
    II)--Connecticut, $2.1 million for Sparta Mountain South (phase II)--
    New Jersey, and $300,000 for Birdsboro Waters--Pennsylvania. In order
    to ensure that there is adequate program funding for these critical
    projects in the Highlands, we urge your support for funding Forest
    Legacy at $80 million in fiscal year 2007.
    Skiff Mountain (CT)
        $1.22 million in Legacy funding requested for phase II
        Conservation easement on 510 acres
        $1.2 million provided in fiscal year 2006 for easement on 427 acres
        Innovative project involving 8 contiguous landowners
        Directly abuts Appalachian Trail & 5,000 protected acres
    Sparta Mountain South (NJ)
        $2.1 million in Legacy funding requested for phase II
        Conservation easement on 800 acres, 200 acres in fee
        $1.8 million provided in fiscal year 2006--easement on 1,200 acres
        Key linkage between state parks and wildlife areas
        Recent development on adjacent parcels
    Birdsboro Waters (PA)
        $300,000 requested in the President's budget
        Funding would complete $2.3 million project
        Conservation easement on 1,958 acres
        $500,000 received in fiscal year 2005 from PA startup funds
        Exceptional Value Watershed, Class A trout stream
        Part of larger 12,000 acre block of contiguous forest
        Finally, we are very concerned about the proposed cuts to the Land
    & Water Conservation Fund, which is slated to receive only $85 million
    in the President's budget, which would be the lowest level of funding
    in over three decades. Without adequate funding to the Highlands
    Conservation Act, Forest Legacy Program and Land & Water Conservation
    Fund, precious natural treasures of the Highlands may be developed and
    lost to conservation forever.
        Thank you again for considering our comments on the fiscal year
    2007 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Hualapai Indian Tribe

        As the Chairman of the Hualapai Indian Tribe, I am writing to
    request your immediate attention concerning the inequity which exists
    with respect to the administration of the. Clean Water Act's (CWA's)
    Section 106--Water Pollution Control Program for Indian Tribes. The
    1987 Clean Water Act Amendments (i.e., Section 518 of the Clean Water
    Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) added a new section titled ``Indian
    Tribes'' which authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) to treat Federally recognized Indian Tribes as States for certain
    provisions, including financial assistance under such programs as the
    Water Pollution Control Program. Section 518 is commonly known as the
    ``Treatment as a State (TAS) section'', and it would be an appropriate
    name for this section if in fact Indian Tribes were treated as States
    with respect to equity of funding.
        Currently, once an Indian Tribe qualifies to be treated as a State,
    it can receive Section 106 funds from EPA to administer its own water
    pollution control program. A few examples of the type of activities
    which are funded under Section 106 include:
      --Developing water quality management plans;
      --Hiring staff and purchasing equipment;
      --Conducting water quality monitoring;
      --Establishing water quality standards; and
      --Developing and administering Nonpoint Source and National Pollutant
            Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Programs.
        The inequity exists in the way, the EPA allocates Section 106 funds
    to Indian Tribes and the amount of funding which tribes receive.
        States receive Section 106 funds from EPA through an EPA funding
    formula which establishes funding targets for each state and territory
    of the United States (see Enclosures--Section 106 Funding Targets for
    Fiscal Years 2004-2006). These funding targets do not vary
    significantly from year to year especially since states and territories
    would not be able to maintain staffing levels if program funding were
    to be drastically reduced.
        Individual Indian Tribes on the other hand do not have funding
    targets provided by EPA once they have qualified to be treated as a
    State. Instead, Indian Tribes are required by EPA to play a guessing
    game on how much funding they will receive through Section 106 each
    year.
        The EPA has developed a funding formula which is used to allocate
    funds to each of the appropriate EPA Regional Offices and these
    allocated amounts appear as Tribal Set-Asides (see Enclosures). Region
    9 now has ninety-seven (97) Sec. 106 TAS Tribes. This more than likely
    will mean that my Tribe's Section 106 grant award for the coming fiscal
    year will be significantly reduced which could have severe negative
    impacts upon our Hualapai Water Pollution Control Program such as
    having to lay off key environmental program staff and delaying the
    implementation of the monitoring of our water quality standards
    attainment.
        If we were to be really treated as a state, we would have a funding
    target which would assure us level program funding from year to year
    such that staff and program continuity could be maintained. Indeed,
    each Indian Tribe who has met TAS qualifications should have a funding
    target just as states do. Notice that there are no funding targets for
    the Hualapai Tribe (see Enclosure) or any other of the other 97 Indian
    Tribes within our Nation (see Enclosure) who have qualified to be
    treated as a state, but there should be. This arrangement is definitely
    neither fair nor equitable.
        The amount of Section 106 funding ($260,000 for fiscal year 2007)
    for the Hualapai Tribe is insufficient to administer an adequate water
    pollution program for 1,000,000 acres of reservation. Over a very short
    time span of the last eight to nine years, our Tribe has made
    tremendous strides with respect to our program accomplishments which
    are intended to restore and protect our waters. We believe that these
    accomplishments are significant especially when viewed from the
    perspective that states have been receiving Section 106 funds from EPA
    for over forty years. Some of these accomplishments are as follows:
        1. The hiring and training of our environmental staff.
        2. The identification and assessment of all of the waters within
    our Reservation.
        3. The development of our Nonpoint Source Assessment and Management
    Program.
        4. The development of the Tribe's Water Quality Standards and
    enaction of our Water Resource Ordinance into Law for all Tribal
    Waters.
        5. The restoration of Tribal lands and waters through the
    implementation of nonpoint source projects.
        Four years ago, an EPA workgroup developed the following proposed
    criteria for determining eligibilty of Indian Tribes to receive a
    funding target or to be considered as a Mature Program. The target
    could then be set as a weighted average throughout the EPA Regions. The
    proposed criteria which we heartily endorse follows:
        1. Program Structure: The Tribe has programs, policies, procedures
    in place to develop and implement a water quality program.
        2. Program Management: The Tribe has a demonstrated ability to
    manage a continuing water quality program.
        3. Information Management and Reporting: The Tribe has ability to
    gather, assess and report on the conditions of tribal water quality.
        Our major concern with the Workgroup's effort is that it has not
    addressed the methodology for determining funding targets for Indian
    Tribes. What is even more troubling is that Section 106 budget funding
    for fiscal year 2007 is proposed by the Administration to be reduced
    when the number of applicants within Region 9 is anticipated to
    increase significantly. If this occurs, I fear, many existing tribal
    programs maybe forced out of existence.
        For the Hualapai Tribe to implement an adequate water pollution
    control program, I request that you establish a reasonable funding
    target for us of $297,000 per year. We appreciate the budget
    constraints that Congress has to deal with each year. We only hope,
    however, that Congress appreciates its Trust responsibilities to insure
    that the Tribe's most precious Trust Asset, water, is not polluted and
    if it is, we get your help. This is critically important after the
    events of September 11, 2001 for Hualapai Homeland Security. As you
    probably already know the Tribe's Northern boundary is 108 miles of the
    Colorado River through Grand Canyon. Water Sampling in this reach of
    the reservation to insure compliance of our water quality standards now
    also serves as a critical monitoring exercise for our Homeland Security
    and yours. The cities of Las Vegas, Los Angles and San Diego are the
    downstream users of our water resources and can also be protected by
    our monitoring for pollutants. We are equally certain that other tribes
    are also facing numerous threats from pollution and that there is a
    great need for additional funding to remedy these serious problems.
        I also personally want to thank you for lifting the one-third of
    one percent cap that was on Section 319 Nonpoint Source Funding to
    Tribes again this year. I only hope that this lifting of the cap can be
    permanent next year. Lastly, the Tribe wishes to continue to protect
    it's critical Wetlands. We therefore ask you in your funding of EPA
    Office of Water allocations in 2007 to consider allowing a base amount
    for Tribes as you have in 319 funding to begin to protect these fragile
    environments in the southwest. Any assistance you can give us in this
    matter would be greatly appreciated. If you should have any questions
    or concerns please don't hesitate to call myself or Don Bay, Director
    of Hualapai Natural Resources Department (928) 769-2254.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Health Resources and Services
                                 Administration

        The Friends of the Health Resources and Services Administration
    (HRSA) is an advocacy coalition of more than 100 national
    organizations, collectively representing millions of public health and
    health care professionals, academicians and consumers. Our member
    organizations strongly support the programs at HRSA designed to ensure
    Americans' access to health services.
        Through its programs in thousands of communities across the
    country, HRSA provides a health safety net for medically underserved
    individuals and families, including 45 million Americans who lack
    health insurance; 49 million Americans who live in neighborhoods where
    primary health care services are scarce; African American infants,
    whose infant mortality rate is more than double that of whites; and the
    estimated 850,000 to 950,000 people living with HIV/AIDS. Programs to
    support the underserved place HRSA on the front lines in responding to
    our nation's racial/ethnic and rural/urban disparities in health
    status. HRSA funding goes where the need exists, in communities all
    over America. We support a growing trend in HRSA programs to increase
    flexibility of service delivery at the local level, necessary to tailor
    programs to the unique needs of America's many varied communities. The
    agency's overriding goal is to achieve 100 percent access to health
    care, with zero disparities. In the best professional judgment of the
    members of the Friends of HRSA, to respond to this challenge, the
    agency will require an overall funding level of at least $7.5 billion
    for fiscal year 2007.
        The Friends of HRSA are gravely concerned about the president's
    budget recommendation of a $255 million overall cut for fiscal year
    2007, including over 12 program eliminations. This is in addition to
    the 12 programs that were eliminated in the fiscal year 2006
    appropriations bill and other programs that received deep cuts in both
    years.
        Through its many programs and new initiatives, HRSA helps countless
    individuals live healthier, more productive lives. In the 21st century,
    rapid advances in research and technology promise unparalleled change
    in the nation's health care delivery system. HRSA could be well
    positioned to meet these new challenges as it continues to provide
    needed health care to the nation's most vulnerable citizens.
        The Primary Care Bureau received a $181 million increase, all of
    which is designated for the Community Health Centers. Community-based
    health centers and National Health Service Corps-supported clinics form
    the backbone of the nation's safety net. More than 4,000 of these sites
    across the nation provide needed primary and preventive care to nearly
    13 million poor and near-poor Americans. HRSA primary care centers
    include community health centers, migrant health centers, health care
    for the homeless programs, public housing primary care programs and
    school-based health centers. Health centers provide access to high-
    quality, family-oriented, culturally and linguistically competent
    primary care and preventive services, including mental and behavioral
    health, dental and support services. Nearly three-fourths of health
    center patients are uninsured or on Medicaid, approximately two-thirds
    are people of color, and more than 85 percent live below 200 percent of
    the poverty level. Additional primary care is provided by 2,700
    clinicians in the National Health Service Corps. Corps members work in
    communities with a shortage of health professionals in exchange for
    scholarships and loan repayments.
        The Bureau of Health Professions received $342 million in cuts in
    fiscal year 2007 budget which is 46 percent of its budget. Health
    professions and nursing education programs, authorized under Titles VII
    and VIII of the Public Health Service Act, are essential components of
    American's health care safety net, bringing health care services to our
    underserved communities. An adequate, diverse, well-distributed and
    culturally competent health workforce is indispensable to our national
    readiness efforts. The health professions programs support the training
    and education of health care providers with the aim of enhancing the
    supply, diversity, and distribution of the workforce, filling the gaps
    in the health professions' supply not met by traditional market forces.
    Through loans, loan guarantees, and scholarships to students, and
    grants and contracts to academic institutions and non-profit
    organizations, the Title VII and VIII health professions programs are
    the only federal programs designed to train providers in
    interdisciplinary settings to meet the needs of special and underserved
    populations, as well as increase minority representation in the health
    care workforce. We are concerned that cuts to Title VII health
    professions programs will exacerbate existing provider shortages in
    rural, medically underserved, and federally designated health
    professions shortage areas. While we applaud the $181 million increase
    in the President's budget for Community Health Centers, these cuts to
    the Health Professions raise the question of whether there will be a
    sufficient number of health care providers to staff these clinics.
    These programs provide up-front incentives for dozens of types of
    health professionals--not only physicians, but mental health, public
    health and dental providers as well--encouraging them to pursue health
    careers in areas that would otherwise go unserved. Cuts will also
    impede recruitment of underrepresented minorities and students of
    disadvantaged backgrounds into the health professions. This action will
    have the further consequence of intensifying already problematic health
    disparities. We are also concerned about the impact health professions
    cuts will have on vulnerable populations such as the elderly. Adequate
    funding for HRSA Health Professions Programs under Title VII and VIII
    will help to create a prepared national workforce by reversing
    projected nationwide shortages of nurses, pharmacists, and other
    professionals. In addition to the dismay we have aboutthe Health
    Professions programs that were eliminated this year, we are deeply
    concerned about the program cuts and eliminations proposed in the Title
    VII and VIII programs in fiscal year 2007. We strongly encourage the
    Subcommittee to restore cuts to these vital Health Professions
    programs.
        The Maternal and Child Health Bureau was cut by $36 million to $780
    million. Valuable programs like the Traumatic Brain Injury program,
    Universal Newborn Hearing Screening, and Emergency Medical Services for
    Children were zeroed out and the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant
    was level funded. The Maternal and Child Health Block Grant is a source
    of flexible funding for states and territories to address their unique
    needs, and remains in great need of increased funding. The Title V
    Maternal and Child Health Block (MCH) Grant received a $31 million cut
    in the fiscal year 2006 budget. The president's budget for fiscal year
    2007 proposed level funding for the block grant at the fiscal year 2006
    level. Operating for a second year with less funds than in fiscal year
    2005, and greater needs among more pregnant women, infants, and
    children, particularly those with special health care needs presents
    daunting challenges to the state maternal and child health programs.
    Furthermore, if programs like the Traumatic Brain Injury program,
    Universal Newborn Hearing Screening, and Emergency Medical Services for
    Children program are eliminated, those costs will be borne by the MCH
    Block Grant. Each year, a MCH program serves more than 26 million
    pregnant women, infants and children nationwide. Of the nearly 4
    million mothers who give birth annually, almost half receive some
    prenatal or postnatal service from a MCH-funded program. MCH programs
    increase immunizations and newborn screening, reduce infant mortality
    and developmentally handicapping conditions, prevent childhood
    accidents and injuries, and reduce adolescent pregnancy.
        Nationally there are 1.4 million brain injuries per year, with an
    estimated societal cost of over $60 billion per year, including direct
    care and lost productivity. Research indicates that 50,000 individuals
    die as a result of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) each year in the United
    States and an additional 80,000 survive with residual long-term
    impairments. Today over 5.3 million Americans are living with a TBI-
    related disability. TBI can strike at anyone at any time--from falls,
    vehicle crashes, sports injuries, violence, and other causes. HRSA's
    Traumatic Brain Injury program makes grants to states to coordinate,
    expand and enhance service delivery systems in order to improve access
    to services and support for persons with TBI and their families.
    Despite increasing numbers of soldiers returning from war with head
    injuries, increasing numbers of children being identified as disabled
    due to head injuries, and the release of an Institute of Medicine
    Report stating the importance of the program to brain injury survivors
    and their families, the Administration's fiscal year 2007 budget
    eliminates the TBI State Grant program. We encourage the Subcommittee
    to restore cuts to the TBI State Grant program. Furthermore,
    individuals with traumatic brain injury have an array of protection and
    advocacy needs, including assistance with returning to work; finding a
    place to live; accessing needed supports and services, such as
    attendant care and assistive technology; and obtaining appropriate
    mental health, substance abuse, and rehabilitation services. Very
    often, these individuals are the victims of stigma and discrimination
    because so little is understood about the effects of TBI. In addition,
    many people with TBI--including returning veterans--are forced to
    remain in extremely expensive institutional settings far longer than
    necessary because community-based supports and services they need are
    not available. We encourage the Subcommittee to restore funding for the
    Protection and Advocacy for Traumatic Brain Injury Program.
        The Children's Health Act of 2000 authorized funding for grants and
    programs to improve state-based newborn screening. Newborn screening is
    a public health activity used for early identification of infants
    affected by certain genetic, metabolic, hormonal or functional
    conditions for which there is effective treatment or intervention.
    Screening detects disorders in newborns that, left untreated, can cause
    death, disability, mental retardation and other serious illnesses.
    Parents are often unaware that while nearly all babies born in the
    United States undergo newborn screening tests for genetic birth
    defects, the number and quality of these tests vary from state to
    state. Screening programs coordinated through the HRSA Bureau of
    Maternal and Child health help to ensure that every baby born in the
    United States receives, at a minimum, a universal core group of
    screening tests regardless of the state in which he or she is born.
    However, the Administration again proposes eliminating the universal
    newborn hearing screening program. It goes without saying that more
    disorders will go unnoticed if the affected newborns are not screened.
    We encourage the Subcommittee to restore funding for the newborn
    hearing screening program.
        The proposed elimination of the Emergency Medical Services for
    Children (EMSC) Program is also concerning to us, especially
    considering the many children who are eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP
    but who cannot enroll due to enrollment limits and budgetary pressures.
    The Emergency Medical Services for Children Program, administered by
    HRSA, is a national initiative designed to reduce child and youth
    disability and death due to severe illness and injury. The federal
    funds that are contributed to this program are supplemented by funding
    from private sources, including parents and volunteers. HRSA
    administers the program in partnership with the U.S. Department of
    Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. EMSC
    grants fund States and U.S. Territories to improve existing emergency
    medical services (EMS) systems and to develop and evaluate improved
    procedures and protocols for treating children. Children are not merely
    small adults. They have very unique and specific concerns that this
    programs works to address. We request that the $20 million funding
    level be restored.
        The Healthcare Systems Bureau received a cut of $13 million to $536
    million. We are concerned with the funding level in the hospital
    preparedness program. Although the Administration proposes level
    funding, we are concerned with the $13 million cut the program took in
    fiscal year 2006. In the post 9/11 era, all responders, providers and
    facilities must be ready to detect and respond to complex disasters,
    including terrorism, and HRSA must continue to support these vital
    hospital preparedness programs.
        Furthermore, HRSA's Trauma-EMS Systems Program was eliminated in
    the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill. This program facilitates the
    development of effective and comprehensive statewide trauma systems.
    This program is critical in order to ensure that our response to local,
    state and federal emergencies is effective and reflects the best
    clinical practice in trauma and emergency medicine. We request that the
    $3.5 million funding level be restored.
        The Office of Rural Health Policy was cut by 83 percent in the
    President's budget. HRSA programs improve health care service for the
    more than 61 million people who live in rural America. Although almost
    a quarter of the population lives in rural areas, only an eighth of our
    doctors work there. Because rural families generally earn less than
    urban families, many health problems associated with poverty are more
    serious, including high rates of chronic disease and infant mortality.
    We encourage the Subcommittee to restore funding for rural health
    programs.
        An estimated 163,221 Americans experience out-of-hospital sudden
    cardiac arrests each year. Only an estimated 6 percent of them survive.
    Immediate CPR and early defibrillation using an automated external
    defibrillator (AED) can more than double a victim's chance of survival.
    For every minute that passes without CPR and defibrillation, the
    chances of survival decrease by 7 to 10 percent. The HRSA Rural and
    Community Access to Emergency Devices Program provides grants to states
    to train lay rescuers and first responders to use AEDs and purchase and
    place these devices in public areas where cardiac arrests are likely to
    occur. We encourage the Subcommittee to restore funding for this
    program to the fiscal year 2005 level of $8.927 million.
        The HIV/AIDS Bureau received a $95 million increase. The Ryan White
    CARE Act programs, administered by HRSA's HIV/AIDS Bureau, are the
    largest single source of federal discretionary funding for HIV/AIDS
    health care for low-income, uninsured and underinsured Americans.
    Although we are pleased with the additional funds for comprehensive
    care and early intervention, we are concerned that previous years cuts
    has diminished the reach of the Ryan White CARE Act has been
    diminished. Since fiscal year 2003, funding to the most impacted cities
    has been cut by $15 million and funding to the states has been cut by
    $8 million. These cuts have forced state and local HIV/AIDS programs to
    stretch already thin CARE Act dollars to treat existing clients while
    trying to provide care and treatment to those newly diagnosed as HIV-
    positive. We request an increase of $577 million for CARE Act programs
    in fiscal year 2007.
        In fiscal year 2006 the AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAP)
    received a $2 million increase. Unfortunately, this program, which
    provides life-sustaining treatment to thousands of people living with
    HIV/AIDS, cannot be sustained on such an increase. By the end of fiscal
    year 2006 it is expected that hundreds more individuals will be added
    to ADAP waiting lists and that states will have had to institute other
    cost-containment measures such as reduced formularies, increased cost-
    sharing for ADAP clients and lowered eligibility requirements for
    enrollment. We request an increase of $197 million for the ADAP
    program.
        Title X of the Public Health Service Act was enacted to provide
    high-quality, subsidized contraceptive care to those who need but
    cannot afford such services, to improve women's health, reduce
    unintended pregnancies, and decrease infant mortality and morbidity.
    Title X programs provide comprehensive, voluntary and affordable family
    planning services to millions of low-income women and men--many of whom
    are uninsured--at more than 4,600 clinics nationwide. People who visit
    Title X funded clinics receive a broad package of preventive health
    services, including breast and cervical cancer screening, blood
    pressure checks, anemia testing, and STD/HIV screening.
        A major source of HRSA's strength is its many linkages and
    partnerships with other federal agencies, state, national and local
    organizations. For example, HRSA and the Centers for Medicare and
    Medicaid Services (CMS) are jointly implementing outreach on the new
    State Children's Health Insurance Program in addition to working
    together to improve data sharing and coordination, particularly on
    Medicaid. Work also is ongoing with the Substance Abuse and Mental
    Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to integrate behavioral health
    and substance abuse screening, early intervention, referral and follow-
    up into primary health care settings funded through HRSA grants. HRSA
    and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cooperate on a
    variety of disease prevention and health promotion activities.
        Cross-cutting HRSA programs continually respond to new public
    health challenges. For instance, tooth decay remains the single most
    chronic childhood disease in the nation. However, about 125 million
    Americans have no dental insurance. Lack of access to dental care is
    especially severe among children of poor, rural and minority families.
    A quarter of the nation's school-age children have 80 percent of all
    dental disease, putting them at risk for a host of related illnesses.
    And as new drugs help people with HIV/AIDS live longer, healthier
    lives, their need for regular oral health care will continue to
    increase. HRSA can help both groups by increasing the number of
    dentists in community and school-based centers and by providing greater
    reimbursements to hospital dental clinics and dental schools for the
    growing costs of treating people living with HIV/AIDS.
        Among the programs that were eliminated in the fiscal year 2006
    appropriations bill are Healthy Community Access Program and the State
    Planning Grants program. Each of these programs helps communities and
    states provide access to health care for those who need it most. We
    encourage the Subcommittee to restore funding to these and other
    programs eliminated in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill.
        We urge the members of the Subcommittee to restore the cuts and
    fund the agency at a level that allows HRSA to effectively implement
    these important programs. The members of the Friends of HRSA are
    grateful for this opportunity to present our views to the Subcommittee.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Hoosic River Watershed Association

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate
    the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $1.1 million
    appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the
    acquisition of Broad Brook watershed project in the Green Mountain
    National Forest.
        The mission of the Hoosic River Watershed Association is to protect
    and improve the 750-square-mile Hoosic watershed in Massachusetts,
    Vermont and New York State. Braod Brook is a tributary to the Hoosic.
    The conservation of the Broad Brook watershed property as an addition
    to the Green Mountain National Forest is important to our organization,
    because it protects the property's forests and water quality, excellent
    wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. The Green Mountains
    of Vermont are one of the northeast region's most popular and heavily-
    visited areas, which each year draw millions of tourists attracted to
    its scenic beauty. The Green Mountains region contains outstanding
    natural resources such as wildlife habitat for black bear, deer, and
    neotropical songbirds, as well as extensive timber resources. The area
    boasts excellent trout streams and encompasses the watersheds that
    provide drinking water for many Vermont communities. The acquisition of
    properties in the Green Mountain National Forest protects recreational
    opportunities that have long been important to residents and visitors
    alike, such as camping, hiking, hunting, and cross-country skiing.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 are the final 970
    acres of the 3,921-acre Broad Brook watershed property, located in the
    southernmost portion of the forest just north of the Massachusetts
    border. For many years, the Massachusetts city of North Adams, which
    owns this parcel, used the Broad Brook watershed as a source of
    drinking water for city residents. However, several years ago the city
    ceased depending on Broad Brook for its water and is now interested in
    selling the property. Located within the boundaries of the Green
    Mountain NF in the towns of Pownal and Stamford, the Broad Brook
    property would be an outstanding addition to this forest, known for its
    excellent recreational opportunities and critical wildlife habitat.
        The State of Vermont has mapped this parcel as being entirely
    within black bear production habitat, regions which support high
    densities of cub producing females. On the property there can be found
    a large and healthy population of the state threatened Large Whorled
    Pogonia (Isotria verticillata), and close to 7 miles of pristine
    headwater streams. A portion of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail,
    which in this part of Vermont coincides with the Long Trail, passes
    across the Broad Brook property. The tract is adjacent to other Forest
    Service ownership, the Stamford Meadows Wildlife Management Area--a
    state-owned sanctuary--as well as other conservation lands near the
    town of Pownal.
        Residents and officials in both Vermont and Massachusetts have
    displayed exceptional commitment to completing this important
    transaction. The City of North Adams has agreed to sell the Broad Brook
    property at 25 percent below fair market value, providing significant
    savings to the federal government. On November 2, 2004, Pownal
    residents voted by a margin of two-to-one in favor of purchase of the
    Broad Brook parcel by the Green Mountain NF.
        With that vote of approval and with congressional appropriations in
    fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006 the first phase of the property,
    2,450 acres, has already been completed. An appropriation of $1.1
    million from the LWCF in fiscal year 2007 will permit the Forest
    Service to complete this critical acquisition, allowing for continued
    management of important wildlife species as well as ensuring public
    access to the Appalachian Trail and other recreation opportunities in
    this popular national forest.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of the appropriation for the Broad Brook property
    in Vermont.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Hospital for Special Surgery

        Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to submit testimony to the hearing record regarding
    Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) in New York, New York. Since its
    founding over 140 years ago, HSS has been the hospital of choice for
    countless individuals of all ages--from infants to older adults--
    suffering from musculoskeletal conditions. Today, HSS is considered the
    premier specialty hospital for orthopedics and rheumatology in the
    United States and abroad.
        As you know, funds to support the establishment of the National
    Center for Musculoskeletal Research at Hospital for Special Surgery
    were included in Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations in fiscal year
    2002 and fiscal year 2005. First, I would like to take this opportunity
    to thank the Subcommittee for its support and to report on the
    excellent progress that has been made in achieving this goal.
        With a combination of institutional, private, and government
    support, HSS has transformed its research enterprise over the past six
    years, from the physical plant to the depth and focus of its scientific
    expertise. HSS has conducted the largest recruitment drive in its
    history. Expanded, state-of-the-art laboratories have increased the
    quality and quantity of investigations. Today, 70 percent of HSS' basic
    research activity is federally funded, meeting national benchmarks. Our
    critical mass of expertise is composed of 34 bench scientists and 129
    full-time laboratory fellows, technicians, and support. Of course, the
    most important measure of success is HSS's capacity to improve quality
    of life through treatments derived from a greater understanding of
    disease. This has been fortified by the scientific talent and new
    resources made possible by the Hospital's generous supporters. Today,
    the National Center for Musculoskeletal Research at HSS is an
    internationally recognized leader whose pioneering scientists are
    making significant contributions to understanding diseases like
    arthritis, osteoporosis, and lupus, and advancing progress toward the
    development of better treatments and cures.
        The Hospital's groundbreaking basic, translational, and clinical
    research efforts are unique in that they are informed by its very
    sizeable patient base, which is the largest of any musculoskeletal
    hospital in the world. HSS's surgical techniques, rehabilitation
    practices, orthopedic imaging, anesthesiology and pain management, and
    non-surgical interventions are the ``best practices'' in the field. To
    continue to advance the state-of-the-art, while meeting the needs of
    increasing numbers of patients, HSS is now working to create an
    entirely new platform of patient care for the 21st century. The
    centerpiece of this initiative is the expansion and modernization of
    its clinical facilities to provide the highest level of care to the
    increasing number of patients seeking the expertise of the Hospital's
    extraordinary medical staff. HSS has requested a fiscal year 2007
    Appropriation of $4 million to advance this important project.
        The Hospital last expanded in 1996 when facilities meant for polio
    patients and lengthy hospitalizations were redesigned and modernized.
    In the succeeding years, pioneering advances in musculoskeletal
    medicine have taken place, many of them using biosynthetic materials,
    molecular diagnostics, innovative surgical tools and techniques, and
    computer guidance and modeling. Since 1996, HSS has added 65 medical
    staff and numerous specialized centers dedicated to research and
    clinical care in orthopedics, rheumatology, complementary medicine,
    sports medicine, non-surgical interventions, imaging, and pain
    prevention.
        New medical staff have the opportunity to learn from surgeons and
    physicians who have practiced at HSS for decades, embracing a great
    breadth and depth of experience, historical knowledge of the field, and
    insight into patients' needs, expectations, and potential for recovery.
    Building on experience, we have increased our efficiencies and ability
    to help increasing numbers of patients from all over the world. For
    example, the average length of stay for joint replacement has been
    reduced from 6 days (1996) to less than 4.5 days. For patients who
    qualify for minimally invasive surgery, many can leave the hospital
    within 2-3 days. In the future, we feel certain some joint replacement
    surgery will be carried out on an ambulatory basis.
        The major demographic and sociological trends observed worldwide
    are fueling a demand for care at HSS that is unprecedented. There has
    been an extraordinary increase in the over-sixty population and their
    need for musculoskeletal medicine; and there is a more active, younger
    population desiring to remain mobile and play sports as they grow
    older. From 1996 to 2005, Special Surgery's annual surgical volume rose
    from 10,700 to 17,500 and its annual outpatient visits rose from
    147,000 to 230,000, a total increase of approximately 60 percent.
    Special Surgery is also a magnet referral center for complex surgeries,
    with growing numbers of patients requiring extensive, high-level care.
        Meeting demand is only part of the equation. Bringing improved
    treatments and interventions to patients is of utmost importance. HSS
    continues to be a leader in advancing clinical treatments that enable
    patients to recuperate more quickly and regain mobility. HSS-led
    innovations on the horizon include:
      --Minimally invasive knee, hip, and shoulder implants for younger
            patients. ``Baby boomers'' are our fastest growing patient
            segment.
      --Spinal disc replacement surgery for degenerative disc disease, and
            spinal stabilization without fusion.
      --Effective treatments for early arthritic patients when there is a
            ``window of opportunity'' to slow and perhaps halt the
            progression of disease.
      --Biosynthetic materials that mimic everyday movements to repair
            sports injuries to ligaments, tendons, meniscus, and cartilage.
      --Biological solutions with minimal side effects to treat and prevent
            the progress of a wide range of inflammatory conditions.
      --New diagnostics to predict the efficacy of medical treatments.
      --Advanced imaging techniques that can diagnose disease at the pre-
            clinical stage, enabling earlier and more effective treatment.
      --New medications to intervene before nerve injury and remold pain
            pathways, minimizing post-operative pain.
      --Computer-assisted surgical procedures.
        An expanded clinical facility will enable the countless patients
    who seek our help to have the benefit of these medical innovations.
        Our new clinical facilities and extraordinary volume of patients
    will also provide an unparalleled opportunity to create a robust
    clinical research program. The potential for new knowledge in joint
    replacement is significant, since HSS performs the greatest number of
    hip and knee replacements in the world, more than 4,000 annually. The
    clinical research program will be built on a strong basic research
    foundation, which was strengthened over the past several years with the
    vital support of the Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee.
        In our ``new hospital'' every patient would have an opportunity to
    partner with us as a research patient in the effort to gain a deeper
    understanding of bone and joint disease to perfect treatment for future
    generations. With advanced technology, patients will help create their
    own research records, containing uniform, prospective data on the
    nuances of their treatment and progress. Each specialty service will
    have its own clinical research coordinator, and patients will have
    ``real time'' access to information about clinical trials. Clinical
    research analysis, coupled with our knowledge of disease at the basic
    science level--particularly arthritis and inflammatory disease--will
    provide a powerful resource for advancing musculoskeletal health and
    restoring patients' mobility. We are currently recruiting new
    leadership for this program and developing the required infrastructure
    to successfully launch this initiative in our expanded facilities.
        The Hospital's new facilities will be completed by 2009 and
    encompass 201,000 square feet of new construction and 75,000 square
    feet of renovated existing space. On-site patient services will be
    significantly expanded and redesigned for greater efficiency and
    comfort. Highlights include a modernized, expanded ambulatory surgery
    center; enhanced rehabilitation facilities; new imaging, pain
    management, and minor procedures facilities; and an enhanced sports
    medicine rehabilitation center. In addition, the Hospital is
    refurbishing the lobby of the Main Building to better serve patients
    and their families. HSS took a unique approach to the design of this
    project, forming a collaborative team of physicians, nurses,
    architects, and planners to develop an optimum healing environment that
    flows efficiently for both patients and medical staff.
        Mr. Chairman, the objectives of Hospital for Special Surgery's
    Clinical Facilities Expansion and Modernization Project are consistent
    with those historically funded by the Department of Health and Human
    Services in the Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations Bill. We hope
    that the subcommittee will provide $4 million in fiscal year 2007
    toward this capital expansion, which will benefit countless patients as
    they grow older and seek help for a range of musculoskeletal
    conditions. The chances are, no matter where patients live, they will
    be helped by a medical advance pioneered at HSS or by an HSS-trained
    physician. To keep this promise alive, we must be able to expand
    clinically and lead the way, as we have done since opening our doors as
    America's oldest existing orthopedic hospital.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Humane Society of the United States

        Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the Interior
    and Related Agencies Subcommittee on several funding items of
    importance to The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and its
    9.6 million supporters nationwide. The HSUS urges the Committee to
    address these priority issues in the fiscal year 2007 budget.
           law enforcement division of the fish and wildlife service
        After illegal drugs and arms, trade in wildlife parts is the third
    most lucrative smuggling enterprise in this country. New technology and
    a full complement of Special Agents are essential if law enforcement is
    to have any hope of effectively enforcing the nation's endangered
    species trade laws. We commend the Administration's $1.2 million
    increase for the Law Enforcement Division in fiscal year 2007. The HSUS
    strongly supports an additional increase of $1.3 million over the
    Administration's request for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law
    Enforcement Operations and Maintenance, to better house and equip the
    Wildlife Forensics Laboratory and to hire and train additional new
    Special Agents for proper enforcement of the Captive Wildlife Safety
    Act.
        The Captive Wildlife Safety Act was signed into law in December
    2003, as Public Law 108-191. It passed unanimously in both the House
    and Senate and takes aim at the problem of private ownership of big
    cats as pets. We are pleased that the Service has now proposed
    regulations to implement this important law. According to some
    estimates, there are as many as 15,000 big cats kept as pets in the
    United States. A modest increase of $1.3 million over the President's
    fiscal year 2007 request should be appropriated to hire and train one
    new Special Agent for each of the Fish and Wildlife Service's seven
    regions. This additional funding will allow for better enforcement of
    this and other vital wildlife protection laws.

                    MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND

        The HSUS joins a broad coalition of organizations in requesting an
    increase over the Administration's request for the Multinational
    Species Conservation Fund (MNSCF) and Wildlife Without Borders. The
    MNSCF was established by Congress to benefit African and Asian
    elephants, rhinos, tigers, great apes, neotropical migratory birds, and
    marine turtles. Congress has been very supportive of these programs in
    the past. Unfortunately, the Administration's fiscal year 2007 request
    falls short of the funds necessary to carry out these valuable
    missions. We ask that you continue to support these highly threatened
    mammals and birds in fiscal year 2007 by appropriating $1.6 million
    each for the African Elephant Conservation Fund, the Asian Elephant
    Conservation Fund, and the Great Ape Conservation Fund and $1.2 for the
    Marine Turtle Conservation Fund. We further request $2 million for the
    combined Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, $5 million for the
    Neotropical Migratory Birds Conservation Fund, and $500,000 for
    Wildlife Without Borders. This request totals $13.5 million.
        While there are threats to the long-term survival of elephants,
    rhinos, tigers, great apes, neotropical migratory birds, and marine
    turtles, there have been improvements attributable to funds made
    available through the MNSCF. Grants made from the MNSCF provide a
    stable funding source that has leveraged over four times as much in
    additional contributions from range states, non-governmental
    organizations, and others.
        While The HSUS wholeheartedly supports increased funding for the
    MNSCF, we are concerned about past incidents and future opportunities
    for funds from these conservation programs to be allocated to promote
    trophy hunting, trade in animal parts, and other consumptive uses--
    including live capture for trade, captive breeding, entertainment, and
    public display--under the guise of conservation for these animals.
    Grants made to projects under the MNSCF must be consistent with the
    spirit of the law.

      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY--OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

        In 2000, the ICCVAM Authorization Act (Public Law 106-545) created
    a new paradigm for regulatory toxicology, by promoting chemical testing
    methods that are often faster and more economical than existing
    methods, as well as more responsive to public concerns about the use of
    animals in toxicity testing. The new paradigm requires federal agencies
    to ensure that new and revised animal and alternative test methods be
    scientifically validated prior to recommending or requiring use by
    industry. All 15 federal regulatory and research agencies that compose
    the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative
    Methods (ICCVAM) agree on a common definition of validation as ``the
    process by which the reliability and relevance of a procedure are
    established for a specific use.''
        In recent years, Congress has provided specific funding for
    research, development and validation of non-animal and other
    alternative test methods that replace, reduce, or refine the use of
    animals in toxicity testing. However, EPA has been under-funding
    validation studies of non-animal and other alternative methods.
        For several years, the budget for the Office of Research and
    Development (ORD) has hovered at approximately $500 million. Animal
    protection organizations have supported a request for 1-2 percent of
    this budget to go for research, development and validation of non-
    animal, alternative test methods. Then-Chairman Walsh secured a $4
    million appropriation for research, development and validation of non-
    animal test methods in EPA's fiscal year 2002 budget. While the animal
    protection community is greatly appreciative of that first-ever
    directive, we have yet to receive a detailed accounting of the
    expenditure of funds. The agency has stated that funding has been
    provided for bench science that may have future relevant applications.
    EPA contends it has used monies from the ORD's Science and Technology
    Account to fund research and development of non-animal and other
    alternative test methods, but the funding stops at the stage when a
    test method must be scientifically validated. Consequently, this
    approach does little to support the necessary validation studies for
    non-animal test methods with potential application in reducing costs
    and increasing efficiency in existing EPA programs. Moreover, no
    detailed reporting on the actual expenditure of funds under the
    Computational Toxicology Program to promote alternative methods has
    ever been submitted to the Congress. Therefore, we join with the
    American Chemistry Council, the Procter & Gamble Company, and the Doris
    Day Animal League, in support of including the following report
    language in the appropriations bill:

        ``The Committee recognizes the EPA's commitment to developing a
    Computational Toxicology Program to reduce the use of animal testing
    and the cost of such testing. It is the Committee's expectation that,
    commensurate with Committee support for funding of the Computational
    Toxicology Program for the last several years, EPA demonstrate real
    progress not only in development of computational toxicology methods,
    but importantly, in validation of new and revised test methods, non-
    animal methods, and alternative methods so that these can be utilized
    in regulatory program activities. The Committee encourages EPA to
    develop, integrate, and implement specific plans for validation studies
    of new and revised, non-animal and alternative methods for chemical
    screening and priority setting within the Agency's Computational
    Toxicology Program. The Committee requests that EPA submit an annual
    report, due by March 31 of the following fiscal year, detailing results
    of its Computational Toxicology program, to include a section on EPA's
    overall activities and itemized expenditures in a manner where both
    specific activities and specific expenditures devoted to validation of
    new, revised test methods, non-animal methods, and alternative methods
    are broken out from expenditures on research and development.''

            BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT--WILD HORSE AND BURRO PROGRAM

        The BLM is charged with the management of approximately 32,000 wild
    horses in 10 Western States. The fiscal year 2007 budget for the
    maintenance of this herd is $36.4 million. That is a little over $1,100
    per animal. This inadequate budget is further augmented through the
    unacceptable practice of selling ``unadoptable'' animals to individuals
    who often consider them no more than horsemeat for French and Belgian
    menus. The massive public outcry resulting from sales of wild horses to
    slaughter reflects revulsion Americans feel about the brutality and
    unseemly nature of this practice. The BLM should have only two
    mechanisms for dealing with ``surplus'' wild horses and burros; (1)
    long-term, humane pasturing and (2) adoption.
        The budget for the wild horse and burro program should be increased
    by at least $12 million for a total of $48.4 million or $1,500 per
    animal. This would allow for more intensive herd monitoring and range
    inventory to assist in the continuance of accurate herd censuses and
    the reinstatement of mandatory biennial reports to Congress. These
    additional funds could also contribute to non-lethal methods of horse
    and burro population control including contraception, an approach the
    HSUS is working collaboratively with the BLM to implement. A renewed
    marketing strategy for publicizing the wild horse and burro adoption
    program could also be funded through additional appropriations. This
    supplementary money could be re-appropriated from the energy and
    minerals management line item that includes a funding increase of $12.4
    million ``. . . to support preparation and implementation of an ANWR
    leasing program . . .'' that has yet to be approved by Congress.

                            PROTECTION FOR WALRUSES

        We urge this subcommittee to appropriate $500,000 in fiscal year
    2007 to fund the continuation of much-needed research on the Pacific
    walrus. New promising methodologies for surveying walrus populations
    have been developed and require sustained funding support. A
    comprehensive walrus survey was begun in 2005--the effort must receive
    continued support to maximize the utility of its results. Walruses are
    targeted by Native hunters for subsistence, despite a paucity of data
    regarding their current population status or population structure.
    Hundreds of walruses are killed annually; in some years this number has
    climbed to as many as 7,000. Moreover, in some hunting villages,
    females and their calves are preferentially killed, against the
    recommendation of the USFWS and standard management practice. A portion
    of the research funds could also be used to improve the Walrus Harvest
    Monitor Project, which collects basic management data.

            FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICES--ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAMS

        The President's fiscal year 2007 budget for the FWS endangered
    species program recommends a cut of more than $6 million from fiscal
    year 2006. In addition to this reduction, the President proposes
    transferring over $4 million away from actual species protection
    measures to land owner incentive and stewardship grant programs.
    Overall, these cuts short-change this important legislation which had
    actually experienced an increased budget between fiscal year 2005 and
    fiscal year 2006. This program should not be funded at under $175
    million.
        Candidate Conservation: This portion of the budget would be cut by
    almost $600,000 from fiscal year 2006 funding. These cuts are primarily
    focused on slashing funding for research efforts on the Idaho sage
    grouse and the California fisher. Both of these species' population
    reductions have been primarily due to habitat fragmentation and loss
    which need to be monitored or reversed in order to prevent the listing
    of these species. Additionally, no new programs for any of the 282
    candidate species were added for fiscal year 2007. Reallocating money
    from the general operations budget to the candidate conservation line
    item would assist in the protection of species on the brink of listing.
    The $1.8 million slated to fund ``results-based performance
    management'' training would be better spent on threatened species in
    need of preservation.
        Listing: Although the funding of this element is steady compared
    with fiscal year 2006, additional funds are desperately needed. This
    aspect of the program allows for the designation of critical habitat
    for species to be listed in addition to evaluating petitions to list
    candidate species. Of the 565 listed animals, only about 170 have
    critical habitat designations. Additional funds of at least $5 million
    should be added to alleviate the backlog of animals with no defined
    critical habitats.
        Consultation: This item of the endangered species budget includes
    an increase, but this increase is only to provide for expedited permit
    processing to ``directly support national energy production''. This
    program is designed to foster dialog between different federal and non-
    federal entities under the Habitat Conservation Planning (HCP) program.
    The HCP program is designed to identify and resolve potential species
    conflicts in the early stages of federal project planning and to ensure
    that projects will be implemented in a manner consistent with the
    conservation needs of listed species, not the energy needs of our
    nation. Therefore, funds for this portion of the program should go
    towards conflict management and conservation needs, and not towards the
    approval of permits for natural resource mining and drilling.
        Recovery: This component has been cut over $8.5 million. These
    reductions are primarily aimed at severely diminishing and completely
    terminating funding for a number of endangered species and their
    habitats. Notable among the budget casualties are funds for Yellowstone
    Grizzly Conservation Strategy and wolf monitoring and recovery.
    Although the budget states that the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
    program and the National Park Service (NPS) will take over funding
    these programs, there is only $495,000 for Yellowstone grizzlies and
    $800,000 for wolf monitoring. There is no mention of either of these
    programs in the NPS budget statement.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Housatonic Valley Association

        The Housatonic Valley Association appreciates the opportunity to
    present this testimony in support of a $1.22 million appropriation to
    the State of Connecticut from the Forest Legacy Program for the second
    phase of the Skiff Mountain project. The Housatonic Valley Association,
    founded in 1941, works to conserve the natural character and
    environmental health of our communities in the Housatonic River
    watershed by restoring and protecting our lands and waters for future
    generations. Skiff Mountain is one of our most urgent conservation
    priorities, and we strongly support our local and regional partners
    working for its protection.
        The Highlands region of the East Coast is virtually in the backyard
    of the nation's largest metropolitan area. Located within an hour of
    nearly 25 million Americans, the Highlands form a greenbelt of forests
    and farmland adjacent to the sprawling Hartford-New York-Philadelphia
    urban corridor. Two million acres of glacial bogs, hardwood-conifer
    swamps, rock outcrop communities, and chestnut oak forests stretch from
    western Connecticut across the Lower Hudson River Valley and northern
    New Jersey into Pennsylvania, enticing more than 14 million visitors
    each year--more than Yellowstone and Yosemite National Parks combined.
        The state has identified the Connecticut portion of the Highlands
    as a critical focus area under its Forest Legacy Program. Right now
    there are four separate parcels of land in this focus area that are
    available for protection in fiscal year 2007. These parcels total
    approximately 510 acres of Skiff Mountain Forest in northwestern
    Connecticut. They form a network of forested properties in Litchfield
    County straddling the Kent-Sharon town line, an area under tremendous
    large-lot development pressures. Strategically located among already
    existing conservation lands, part of the Housatonic River Greenway
    corridor of state significance, and immediately adjacent to the
    federally protected and world-renowned Appalachian National Scenic
    Trail, the Skiff Mountain assemblage has been identified by the state
    as its top priority for Forest Legacy funding this year completing the
    second and final phase of this outstanding conservation effort.
        In fiscal year 2007, $1.22 million is needed from the Forest Legacy
    program to help preserve 510 acres of Skiff Mountain, and keep intact
    this conservation corridor of the Housatonic River Watershed and four-
    state Highlands region. Local funding and land value donation will
    match these funds. We hope that you will provide $1.22 million to
    ensure the success of this effort in the fiscal year 2007 Interior
    appropriations bill.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fish and
                               Wildlife Agencies

        On behalf of our America's fish and wildlife agencies, I urge the
    Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies to support funding in the
    amount of $85 million for the State Wildlife Grants Program in the
    fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
        The State Wildlife Grants Program is our nation's core program for
    keeping wildlife from becoming endangered. State fish and wildlife
    agencies enjoy a strong partnership with the federal government in
    managing our nation's wildlife resources. Working together, we are able
    to ensure robust fish and wildlife populations and keep species from
    declining to the point of becoming endangered. State Wildlife Grants is
    an integral element of this partnership, providing the federal
    government's share of support for proactive on-the-ground conservation
    projects aimed at declining fish and wildlife species and their
    habitats. State Wildlife Grants is not just a grants program. It truly
    is a core program of the Department of Interior for advancing a
    pressing national need.
        The President's budget includes $74.7 million, an increase of $5
    million above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $68.5 million. We
    appreciate the Administration's continued support for this program as a
    core component of their collaborative conservation agenda.
        Although the budget is tight, America's fish and wildlife agencies
    are recommending that Congress provide a funding level of at least $85
    million in order to restore this program back up to the highest level
    of funding it has ever received, in fiscal year 2002. Consistent
    funding is essential to the long-term success of this program, and the
    completion of wildlife action plans in every state and territory only
    underscores the need for adequate and reliable resources. A funding
    level of $85 million would send an important message about the
    Congress's commitment to following through on providing the support
    needed to implement the wildlife action plans. We are pleased that 170
    Representatives have already formally signed on to this commitment in
    the form of a ``dear colleague'' and we hope you will match that strong
    demonstration of support.
        We also urge your consideration of additional language to provide
    an incentive for states to cooperate on projects with other states as
    well as federal agencies when implementing the actions in their plans.
    Allowing implementation projects that include several states working
    together to implement actions identified in their comprehensive state
    wildlife strategies at a 75:25 match (vs. 50:50) will provide greater
    benefits to the nation. In addition, allowing federal funds to be used
    as a match for a particular State Wildlife Grants project will
    encourage greater cooperation between a federal entity within that
    state and the state wildlife agency in implementing the strategies/
    plans together. The strategies/plans have the potential to encourage
    everyone to work together resulting in a greater cumulative impact as
    well as avoiding costly duplication and unnecessary overlap.
        The President's budget includes a proposal to set aside $5 million
    of the new funds recommended for State Wildlife Grants for a new
    program of competitive grants. While we appreciate the intent to reward
    effective conservation proposals, we believe that the time is not yet
    right for a new competitive program to be created within State Wildlife
    Grants. The creation of such a program should be predicated on the
    attainment of higher levels of funding. State Wildlife Grants has
    provided a tremendous enhancement to the capacity of every state to
    address wildlife conservation. While we cannot currently support the
    creation of a competitive funding program, we are committed to making
    any programs that are enacted by Congress a success. If Congress deems
    that this is an appropriate course of action, we will work together
    with the Fish and Wildlife Service to make it a success.
        In closing, I again extend the appreciation of America's wildlife
    agencies for your continued support for the state-federal wildlife
    conservation partnership. We sincerely urge you to provide our
    requested level of $85 million for State Wildlife Grants.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Industrial Minerals Association--North
                                    America

        Dear Chairman Burns and Ranking Member Dorgan: The President's 2007
    Budget for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) includes a proposed
    reduction of $22 million in funding for mineral resources programs that
    will discontinue or reduce, among other things, global mineral resource
    assessments of critical mineral commodities. The Industrial Minerals
    Association--North America (IMA-NA) is opposed to reducing
    authorizations and appropriations below current levels of $53 million,
    believing rather that our national capacity regarding economic
    intelligence should be strengthened.
        The proposed reduction will terminate data collection and analysis
    for 100 mineral commodities in 180 countries outside the United
    States.--The budget cuts have the potential to limit severely available
    data on global industrial minerals production and consumption, while
    continuing to make domestic data readily available outside the United
    States. In a globally competitive marketplace, that means that global
    competitors will know more about U.S. production and consumption than
    U.S. producers will know about their global competition.
        IMA-NA believes the United States should promote an environment
    conducive to competition in the global marketplace and collection and
    analysis of mineral commodity data on an international basis serves
    that end.--In today's global environment, the United States must
    maintain its capacity to assess critical mineral resources both within
    and outside the United States. The private sector cannot perform this
    comprehensive assessment itself. To do so collectively could raise
    antitrust issues. The collection, analysis and dissemination of mineral
    commodity data on an international basis are inherently governmental
    functions and USGS is best prepared to continue to perform them.
        IMA-NA believes that the United States should continue industrial
    minerals research to ensure a stable supply of materials essential to
    our national economy and to our way of life.--The United States is the
    world's largest user of mineral commodities. Every year about 25,000
    pounds of new non-fuel mineral materials from the earth must be
    provided for every person in the United States. just to maintain our
    current standard of living. USGS is uniquely situated in the federal
    government to provide scientific information for objective resource
    assessments and unbiased research results on mineral potential,
    production and consumption.
        We respectfully request your support for continued funding of
    collection and analysis of economic intelligence on the broad array of
    mineral commodities produced and consumed outside the United States. We
    also request your support for continued funding of industrial minerals
    research.
        The Industrial Minerals Association--North America (IMA-NA) is a
    trade association organized to advance the interests of North American
    companies that mine or process industrial minerals. These minerals are
    used as feedstocks for the manufacturing and agricultural industries
    and are used to produce such essential products are glass, paints and
    coatings, ceramics, detergents and fertilizers. The IMA-NA membership
    includes producers of ball clay, bentonite, borates, feldspar,
    industrial sand, mica, soda ash (trona), sodium silicate, talc and
    wollastonite. IMA-NA's membership also includes many of the suppliers
    to the industrial minerals industry, including equipment manufacturers,
    railroads and trucking companies, and consultants.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission

        My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I am Executive Director of the
    Interstate Mining Compact Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to
    present this statement to the Committee regarding the views of the
    Compact's member states on the fiscal year 2007 Budget Request for the
    Office of Surface Mining (OSM) within the U.S. Department of the
    Interior. In its proposed budget, OSM is requesting $58.3 million to
    fund Title V grants to states and Indian tribes for the implementation
    of their regulatory programs and $145.4 million for state and tribal
    Title IV abandoned mine land (AML) program grants. Our statement will
    address both of these budgeted items.
        The Compact is comprised of 22 states that together produce some 90
    percent of the Nation's coal as well as important noncoal minerals. The
    Compact's purposes are to advance the protection and restoration of
    land, water and other resources affected by mining through the
    encouragement of programs in each of the party states that will achieve
    comparable results in protecting, conserving and improving the
    usefulness of natural resources and to assist in achieving and
    maintaining an efficient, productive and economically viable mining
    industry.
        OSM has projected an amount of $58.3 million for Title V grants to
    states, an amount which is matched by the states each year. As you
    know, these grants support the implementation of state regulatory
    programs under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)
    and as such are essential to the full and effective operation of those
    programs. For the past few fiscal years, we have seen a very modest
    trend to increase Title V grants in an effort to assist the states in
    meeting their uncontrollable cost increases. This year, in particular,
    OSM has proposed a $2 million increase, the largest over the past five
    fiscal years. Just as with the federal government, state regulatory
    programs are personnel intensive, with salaries and benefits
    constituting upwards of 80 percent of total program costs. States must
    have sufficient staff to complete permitting, inspection and
    enforcement actions needed to protect citizens of the coalfields. When
    funding falls below program needs, states may struggle to keep active
    sites free of offsite impacts, reclaim mined areas, and prevent
    injuries.
        When it comes to funding state programs, we believe it is critical
    to investigate the potential mechanisms for assisting the states to
    meet their financial requirements, either through increased overall
    grant funding or through adjustments to the current funding formula.
    For instance, OSM's budgeted amount does not meet the states' own
    estimates for their projected program operating costs in fiscal year
    2007, which total $63 million. While OSM's estimates will allow us to
    meet our most direct and critical responsibilities for conducting
    regulatory operations to minimize the impact of coal extraction
    operations on people and the environment, the gap of $5 million between
    the two estimates eliminates the cushion for inflation and
    uncontrollable costs. It also undermines our efforts to realize needed
    program improvements and enhancements. This will become increasingly
    important as the federal government is faced with the dilemma of either
    securing the necessary funding for state programs or implementing those
    programs (or portions thereof) themselves--at significantly higher
    costs.
        OSM's own Budget Justification Document acknowledges the importance
    of the states receiving adequate program funding:
        The States have the unique capabilities and knowledge to regulate
    the lands within their borders. Providing a 50 percent match of Federal
    funds to primacy States in the form of Administration and Enforcement
    (A&E) Grants results in the highest benefit and the lowest cost to the
    Federal government. If a State were to relinquish primacy, OSM would
    have to hire sufficient numbers and types of Federal employees to
    implement the program. The cost to the Federal government would be
    significantly higher. [OSM Budget Justification Document,
    ``Environmental Protection'', page 76.]
        The states continue to work cooperatively with OSM to develop
    realistic and meaningful estimates for state regulatory program costs.
    Our recent efforts have focused on insuring that all funds received
    each year are in fact obligated, despite the fact that states often
    face significant challenges related to differences in grant/fiscal year
    cycles and accounting methods. Some of these issues can be addressed
    through regular reviews of grant expenditures. Others require some hard
    choices concerning regulatory program adjustments or enhancements. In
    the end, the states are committed to effectively and efficiently
    managing their programs to accomplish both state and federal outcome-
    based performance goals.
        It must be kept in mind that where there is inadequate funding to
    support state programs, some states will be faced with either turning
    all or portions of their programs back to OSM or, in other cases, will
    face potential lawsuits for failing to fulfill mandatory duties in an
    effective manner. Of course, where a state does, in fact, turn all or
    part of its Title V program back to OSM (or if OSM forces this issue
    based on an OSM determination of ineffective state program
    implementation), the state would be ineligible for Title IV funds to
    reclaim abandoned mine lands. This would be the height of irony, as the
    states have recently worked diligently with the Interior Department,
    OMB and Congress to reauthorize Title IV and to increase funding for
    state AML work.
        With regard to funding for state Title IV Abandoned Mine Land (AML)
    program grants, OSM has proposed a decrease for the fourth year in a
    row for state and tribal AML grants. These grants are separate from
    moneys allocated to the states for the Appalachian Clean Streams
    Initiative (ACSI) and for state-administered emergency programs. The
    non-ACSI, non-emergency state AML grants are the lifeblood of state
    programs and represent the primary source of funding for the majority
    of priority 1 and 2 AML work that is undertaken each year. Over the
    past three fiscal years, and now again this year, we have seen a
    disturbing downward trend in these critical baseline grants: $142
    million in fiscal year 2004; $136 million in fiscal year 2005; $130
    million in fiscal year 2006, and now $127 million for fiscal year 2007.
    These numbers are based on a detailed analysis of information contained
    in OSM's budget justification document.
        We are at a total loss to understand how OSM can, on the one hand,
    advocate a strong position for reauthorization of Title IV (including a
    proposal to extend fee collection through September of 2007 and
    continued support for comprehensive reform of Title IV), while on the
    other hand undercutting the essential annual funding for existing state
    AML programs. We are losing ground in the battle to address high
    priority AML sites that threaten our citizens. It is essential that
    this trend be reversed immediately if we are to accomplish the goals
    and objectives of the AML program. We therefore request that these
    baseline state AML grants be restored to at least their fiscal year
    2004 level of $142 million.
        The future of the AML Fund and its potential impacts on the
    economy, public safety, the land, our Nation's waters and the
    environment will depend upon how we manage the Fund and how we adjust
    the current provisions of SMCRA concerning the Fund. As we draw closer
    to the June 30, 2006 expiration of fee collection authority, we are
    hopeful that we will see Congressional action to finally and
    comprehensively reauthorize the AML program. The states and tribes,
    through IMCC, the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs
    and the Western Governors Association have over the past several years
    advanced proposed amendments to SMCRA that are few in number and scope
    and that reflect a minimalist approach to adjusting the existing
    language in SMCRA and to incorporate only those changes necessary to
    accomplish several key objectives. They are as follows:
      --To extend fee collection authority for at least 12 years.
      --To significantly increase annual allocations to states and tribes
            to address AML problems. This has been one of the greatest
            inhibitions to progress under Title IV of SMCRA in recent years
            and must be addressed if we are to enhance the ability of the
            states and tribes to get more work done on the ground within
            the extended time frame of 12 years or longer.
      --To assure adequate funding for minimum program (under-funded)
            states who have consistently received less than their promised
            share of funding ($2 million) over the past several years,
            thereby undermining the effectiveness of their AML programs. In
            fiscal year 2007, OSM's budget once again funds the minimum
            program states at only $1.5 million.
      --To address a few other select provisions of Title IV that will
            enhance the overall effectiveness of the AML program, including
            remining incentives, handling of liens, and enhancing the
            ability of states to undertake water line projects.
      --Finally, to address how the accumulated, unappropriated state and
            tribal share balances in the Fund will be handled (assuming
            that the interest in the Fund is no longer needed to address
            shortfalls in the UMW Combined Benefit Fund), while at the same
            time assuring that an adequate state share continues for the
            balance of the program to insure that all states and tribes are
            well-positioned and funded to address existing AML problems.
        Mr. Chairman, it is obvious from an assessment of the current
    inventory of priority 1 and 2 sites that there will not be enough money
    in the AML Trust Fund to address all of these sites before fee
    collection is set to expire in June. It is even more obvious that,
    regardless of what the unappropriated balance in the Fund is (currently
    $1.7 billion) and what future fee collections will add to that balance
    over the next year (approximately $300 million), recent Congressional
    appropriations for state and tribal AML program grants have been
    woefully inadequate and have not kept pace with our ability and desire
    to address the backlog of old as well as continually developing high
    priority AML problems. We are therefore faced with a significant
    challenge over the next few months--and that is to reconcile all of the
    various interests and concerns attending the administration of the AML
    program under Title IV of SMCRA in a way that assures the continuing
    integrity, credibility and effectiveness of this successful and
    meaningful program under SMCRA. We welcome the opportunity to work with
    your committee, Mr. Chairman, and with other affected parties to
    address the myriad issues that attend the future ability of the AML
    program to address the needs of coalfield citizens.
        We also urge the Committee to support adequate funding for OSM's
    training program, including moneys for state travel. These programs are
    central to the effective implementation of state regulatory programs as
    they provide necessary training and continuing education for state
    agency personnel. Additionally, the states are key players in OSM's
    training program, providing instructors for many of the courses. IMCC
    also urges the Committee to support adequate funding for TIPS, a
    program that directly benefits the states by providing needed upgrades
    to computer software and hardware. In this regard, we strongly support
    the proposed amounts for the training program and TIPS in OSM's fiscal
    year 2007 budget.
        Finally, IMCC requests continuing support for the Acid Draining
    Technology Initiative (ADTI), a nationwide technology development
    program with a guiding principle of building consensus among Federal
    and State regulatory agencies, universities and the coal industry to
    predict and remediate acid drainage from active and inactive coal and
    metal mines. This collaborative effort receives funding and other
    support from industry and several federal agencies for specific
    projects. OSM has provided ADTI $200,000 for the last several fiscal
    years, which has been a consistent source of funding for activities
    related to acid mine drainage from coal mines and has been instrumental
    in accomplishing ADTI's goals. We support continued funding for this
    vital initiative.
        In conclusion, we want to reiterate that adequate Title V grants
    are the lifeblood of effective state regulatory programs. Should states
    be unable to operate these programs due to funding constraints, the
    federal government will be faced with the burden of operating
    regulatory programs at a substantially increased cost (generally 30 to
    50 percent more). Further, without Title V programs in place, states
    are unable to access Title IV funds. In the final analysis, it behooves
    everyone--OSM, the Congress and the states--to commit the resources
    necessary to assure strong and effective state programs that will
    achieve the purposes and objectives of SMCRA, thereby protecting the
    environment where active mining operations occur and enhancing the
    environment through remediation of past problems associated with
    abandoned mines.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Independent Petroleum Association of America

        On behalf of various stakeholders who collectively play important
    roles in the development of America's domestic energy resources, we are
    writing to you to urge full funding for the ``National Geological and
    Geophysical Data Preservation Program Act of 2005.'' Specifically, we
    would request that the subcommittee fund this program (Section 315 of
    the Energy Policy Act of 2005), at the authorized level of $30 million,
    which is $29 million above the amount included in the Administration's
    Budget Request for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for fiscal year
    2007.
        Geoscience data and collections are critical to government and
    industry's discovery and development of the nation's energy and mineral
    resources. Fundamental to any scientific and engineering endeavor are
    the collection of high quality data. Subsurface data--rock cores,
    cuttings, and geophysical measurements valued in the tens of billions
    of dollars--have been collected and housed by the private oil and gas
    sector for 70 years in the United States. The private sector is now
    clearing out these collections with two end member options: make gifts
    to qualified curation facilities or dispose of the one of a kind
    information permanently. The data must be saved, not just because they
    are unique and irreplaceable, but because they have immeasurable future
    value to oil, natural gas, coal, water, CO2 sequestration
    and other key resource issues facing the United States.
        A key component to domestic energy and mineral resource production
    and security lies in preservation and ready access of samples and data.
    Volumes of expensive and difficult to obtain subsurface information
    (cores, cuttings and geophysical data) are currently being disposed of
    by oil, gas and mineral exploration companies: these rock samples are
    like one of a kind rare books; once lost they can never be replaced.
    These subsurface data, however, are critical to efficient exploration
    and production of the nation's energy resources. In addition to being
    applied toward conventional oil, gas and mineral production, subsurface
    data are now being applied in the areas of non-conventional energy
    development, CO2 sequestration, and mineral exploration as
    well as the preservation of water supply, and the training of a new
    generation of geologists and geophysicists. Additionally, geoscience
    data and collections support sound decisions on resource utilization,
    environmental protection, and disaster preparedness. In addition, data
    and collections perform a critical role in the academic research and
    education of both informed citizens and future geoscientists.
        Over the course of many years, significant financial investments
    have been made to compile geoscience data and collections. As an
    example, core reposited at the USGS's Core Research Center in Colorado
    is estimated to have a current replacement value of $10 billion and
    seismic data sets represent tens of billions of dollars of geophysical
    data. The acquisition costs of maintaining and preserving is minimal to
    that of replacement costs, if indeed cores can ever be replaced.
    Through preservation, existing geoscience data and collections can be
    utilized again and again as new technologies are developed and new
    scientific hypothesis are tested.
        State geological surveys have historically collected geoscience
    data, typically consisting of geological, geochemical, geophysical and
    engineering data; maps; well logs; and samples of rocks, minerals, and
    fossils that are representative of a particular state's geology.
    Consequently, state geological surveys have substantial experience in
    the cataloging, preserving and archiving of both physical and digital
    data that characterize surface and subsurface geology in each state,
    and are experienced in providing ready access to others for
    examination, study, and sampling of these data and Earth materials.
        In authorizing legislation (Section 315 of the Energy Policy Act of
    2005), also known as the National Geological and Geophysical Data
    Preservation Program Act of 2005, funding would go towards the
    establishment of regional geoscience data and collection centers with a
    mission of: (1) preserving and improving access to domestic geoscience
    data through Federal, State and private-sector partnerships; (2)
    supporting development of a comprehensive, integrated, long-term
    management plan to ensure preservation of geoscience information, and
    (3) encouraging all stakeholders in geoscience data utilization to
    coordinate their efforts and provide access to data.
        The breadth of effort that can be undertaken in the states to
    secure these important data and collections is extensive. The budget
    request represents a small down payment on a significant task.
    Therefore, we ask the subcommittee to consider full funding this
    important program at the authorized level of $30 million for fiscal
    year 2007.
        The Independent Petroleum Association of America, the U.S. Oil and
                Gas Association, the International Association of Drilling
                Contractors, the International Association of Geophysical
                Contractors, the National Stripper Well Association, the
                Petroleum Equipment Suppliers Association, the Association
                of Energy Service Companies, Public Lands Advocacy,
                California Independent Petroleum Association, Colorado Oil
                & Gas Association, East Texas Producers & Royalty Owners
                Association, Eastern Kansas Oil & Gas Association, Florida
                Independent Petroleum Association, Illinois Oil & Gas
                Association, Independent Oil & Gas Association of New York,
                Independent Oil & Gas Association of Pennsylvania,
                Independent Oil & Gas Association of West Virginia,
                Independent Oil Producers Association Tri-State,
                Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States,
                Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico, Indiana
                Oil & Gas Association, Kansas Independent Oil & Gas
                Association, Kentucky Oil & Gas Association, Louisiana
                Independent Oil & Gas Association, Michigan Oil & Gas
                Association, Mississippi Independent Producers & Royalty
                Association, Montana Oil & Gas Association, National
                Association of Royalty Owners, Nebraska Independent Oil &
                Gas Association, New Mexico Oil & Gas Association, New York
                State Oil Producers Association, Northern Alliance of
                Energy Producers, Ohio Oil & Gas Association, Oklahoma
                Independent Petroleum Association, Oklahoma Commission on
                Marginally Producing Oil and Gas Wells, Panhandle Producers
                & Royalty Owners Association, Pennsylvania Oil & Gas
                Association, Permian Basin Petroleum Association, Petroleum
                Association of Wyoming, Tennessee Oil & Gas Association,
                Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, Texas Independent
                Producers and Royalty Owners, Virginia Oil & Gas
                Association, and Wyoming Independent Producers Association.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative

                           INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

        My name is Ervin Carlson, a member of the Blackfeet Nation of
    Montana and President of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative (ITBC).
    Please accept my sincere appreciation for this opportunity to submit
    written testimony to honorable members of the Appropriation
    Subcommittee on Interior. ITBC is a Native American non-profit
    organization, headquartered in Rapid City, South Dakota, comprised of
    fifty-seven (57) federally recognized Indian Tribes within a 19 state
    region. On behalf of these members of ITBC, I would like to address the
    following issues: (1) request an appropriation of $4,150,000 for fiscal
    year 2007, to continue our restoration effort, implement our marketing
    initiative and to continue our health initiative, utilizing buffalo to
    treat and prevent diet related diseases among Native Americans, (2)
    explain to the committee ITBC's unmet funding need of $28 million, and
    (3) update the committee on ITBC's present initiatives.
        Buffalo thrived in abundance throughout North America for many
    centuries before they were hunted to near extinction in the 1800's.
    During this period of history, buffalo were critical to survival of the
    American Indian. Buffalo provided food, shelter, clothing and essential
    tools for Indian people and insured continuance of their subsistence
    way of life. Naturally, Indian people developed a strong spiritual and
    cultural relationship with the buffalo that has not diminished with the
    passage of time.
        Numerous tribes that were committed to preserving the sacred
    relationship between Indian people and buffalo established the ITBC as
    an effort to restore buffalo to Indian lands. ITBC focused upon raising
    buffalo on Indian Reservation lands in order to foster sustainable
    economic development in a manner compatible with each of the Tribal
    cultures. Significant portions of Indian Reservations consist of poor
    quality lands for farming or raising livestock. Although a large
    portion of these reservation lands are unproductive for typical farming
    practices, most are ideal for raising buffalo. ITBC began actively
    restoring buffalo to Indian lands after receiving funding in 1992 as an
    initiative of the first Bush Administration.
        Federal appropriations have allowed ITBC to successfully restore
    buffalo to numerous Indian Reservation lands, thereby preserving the
    sacred relationship between Indian people and buffalo. The respect that
    Indian tribes have maintained for buffalo has fostered a serious
    commitment by ITBC member Tribes for successful buffalo herd
    development. With healthy, viable buffalo herds, opportunities now
    exist for Tribes to utilize buffalo for treatment and prevention of
    diet related diseases among Native American populations and for tribal
    economic development efforts. The primary focus of ITBC is to help
    develop and assure economic sustainability of bison herds and the
    promotion of buffalo as a healthy food source, thus allowing Tribes to
    utilize a culturally relevant resource as a means to achieve self-
    sufficiency.

                                FUNDING REQUEST

        The InterTribal Bison Cooperative respectfully requests an
    appropriation for fiscal year 2007 in the amount of $4,150,000. This
    amount would maintain the fiscal year 2006 appropriation for ITBC and
    is greatly needed to successfully accomplish our goals and objectives.
    This request will help balance our continuing growth in membership with
    our funding level. The $4,150,000 funding level would restore vital
    funding that has been cut from the administration's fiscal year 2007
    budget. Our requested funding level of $4.15 million will allow our
    member Tribes to continue their successful restoration effort, to
    implement our marketing initiative, and to continue the health
    initiative for the treatment and prevention of diet related diseases
    among Native American populations, while simultaneously building
    economic sustainability to the Tribal projects.

                         FUNDING SHORTFALL & UNMET NEED

        In fiscal year 2006, the ITBC and its member tribes were funded
    through appropriations at $4,150,000. The President's budget for fiscal
    year 2007 recommends a decrease of funding in the amount of $4,150,000,
    which would eliminate our funding, just as many Tribes are recovering
    from a long lasting drought, and just as we are beginning the health
    initiative to address diet related health problems that are epidemic on
    most of our reservations.
        Without the restoration of funding at last years level ITBC new
    member tribes will not receive adequate funding to begin buffalo
    restoration efforts. Other tribes that have successfully restored
    buffalo to Tribal lands will not receive adequate technical assistance
    and resource development funds to ensure the sustainability of existing
    herds. Furthermore, the investment made by Congress in fiscal year 2006
    towards ITBC's health care initiative would need to be discontinued.
    This was designed to utilize buffalo for treatment and prevention of
    diet related diseases among Native American populations.
        ITBC is structured as a member cooperative and 100 percent of the
    appropriated funds are expended on the development and support of
    Tribal buffalo herds and buffalo product business ventures. ITBC
    funding is distributed to ITBC member Tribes via a proposal review
    process developed by the consensus of members. ITBC surveys member
    tribes, annually, to determine unmet project needs and currently the
    total unmet need for ITBC member projects is $28,000,000.

                            ITBC GOALS & INITIATIVES

        The immediate goal of ITBC is restoration of buffalo to Indian
    lands for Tribes to utilize for sustainable economic development in a
    manner that is compatible with their Tribal culture. ITBC's ultimate
    goal is for Tribal buffalo herds to achieve self-sufficiency and once
    again become a daily part of Tribal cultures.
    Economic Development
        In 1991, seven Indian tribes had small buffalo herds, with a
    combined total of 1,500 animals. The buffalo provided little or no
    economic benefit to the tribal owners. ITBC has proven extremely
    successful at buffalo restoration during its relatively short 10-year
    history. Today, with the support and technical assistance of ITBC, 57
    Indian Tribes are engaged in raising buffalo or developing plans to
    raise buffalo, with approximately 15,000 animals owned and managed by
    ITBC member tribes.
        Many of these tribal buffalo programs have developed herds large
    enough to justify and develop plans for marketing products as a step
    toward self-sufficiency. Of great significance for Indian reservation
    economies, buffalo production has resulted in a new industry creating
    hundreds of direct and indirect jobs relating to the buffalo management
    and production. As a result, a significant amount of revenue derived
    from buffalo products is beginning to circulate through Indian
    reservation economies.
        However, Tribes must have the resources to build solid foundations
    for this new industry to become fully self-sufficient and maintain
    sustainable buffalo herds. ITBC provides critical technical assistance
    to member Tribes that have developed sustainable management and
    infrastructure development plans. Additionally, ITBC provides training
    curriculum for the newly created jobs and marketing plans as Tribal
    herds reach marketing capabilities. ITBC has begun implementation of a
    marketing initiative to provide member Tribes with viable marketing
    options for utilization of buffalo as economic development efforts.
    This marketing initiative is in an infancy phase and continued funding
    is critical to achieve success.
    Tribal Buffalo Marketing Initiative
        When the tribal buffalo are ready for market, ITBC member tribes
    face another obstacle to economic success. Few meat processing plants
    exist that are willing to process range-fed buffalo. Shipping buffalo
    far distances to be processed increases operating costs and reduces the
    quality of the meat by introducing unnecessary and harmful stress to
    the animals. Further compounding the problem, existing processing
    plants often will not process buffalo unless the buffalo are finished
    in feedlots, which compromises the objective of ITBC to provide a
    healthy range-fed product. ITBC believes the development of tribally
    owned processing facilities that will process range fed buffalo will
    provide a solution to the processing plant obstacle.
        ITBC has assisted the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes of the
    Fort Belknap Indian Community in northern Montana with the development
    of a meat packing facility acquired by the Tribe in Malta, Montana.
    ITBC also assisted the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in South Dakota with
    the expansion of their USDA approved meat packing facility. As a part
    of the ITBC marketing initiative, ITBC is also working with other
    member Tribes to develop Tribally owned processing plants in strategic
    regions in order to provide the infrastructure for member Tribes to get
    their buffalo processed and develop a cooperative market for the
    Tribally produced range fed buffalo. Development of Tribally owned
    processing facilities would create the necessary infrastructure to
    ensure the sustainability of Tribal buffalo production. Additionally,
    ITBC hopes to provide technical assistance in areas of meat processing,
    cold storage facility development, processing plant enhancement,
    development of distribution systems for Buffalo meat and by-products,
    and develop a cooperative brand name with standards and labeling
    guarantees for Native American produced buffalo. It is our firm belief
    that Tribally owned buffalo processing plants are necessary to maintain
    the integrity of the buffalo meat as a healthy food source, and provide
    culturally appropriate processing methods and jobs to our member
    Tribes.
    Preventive Health Care Initiative
        ITBC is committed to providing buffalo meat to Indian reservation
    families both as an economic development effort for Native American
    producers and, more critically, as a healthy food to reintroduce into
    the diets of Native American populations. Current research indicates
    that the diet of most Indian reservation families includes large
    amounts of high cholesterol, processed meats that contribute to
    diabetes, heart disease and other diet related illnesses.
        ITBC member Tribes are just beginning to implement a preventive
    health care initiative with fiscal year 2006 year's funding, which will
    provide easy access to buffalo meat on Indian reservations and will
    educate more Indian families of the health benefits of range fed
    buffalo meat in their daily diets. Generally, buffalo meat is not sold
    in small quantities at the Indian reservation grocery and convenience
    stores leaving Native American families with few alternatives to the
    high fat, high cholesterol processed meats stocked in reservation
    stores.
        ITBC seeks to remedy this concern by providing buffalo meat in
    family sized quantities to Indian reservation markets and interact with
    Federal Food programs. So far ITBC has purchased approximately 300
    buffalo from our member Tribes to be used for the health initiative.
    ITBC is currently developing a distribution plan to be coordinated with
    Trial health officials at participating Tribes. A scientific study is
    also being planned, that will provide scientific data and support
    regarding the benefits of buffalo meat to the Native American diet.

                                   CONCLUSION

        ITBC has demonstrated success over the years by assisting its
    member tribes restore buffalo to their native lands for cultural
    purposes and economic development. ITBC will continue to provide
    technical assistance and funding to its member tribes to facilitate the
    development of sustainable buffalo herds.
        ITBC and its member tribes have created a successful new Indian
    reservation industry, tribal buffalo production, resulting in new money
    for reservation economies. In addition, ITBC continues to support
    methods to market buffalo meat by providing easy access on the
    reservation and education efforts to the health benefits of buffalo
    meat in the Native diet. The ultimate goal is to restore the Tribal
    herds to a size large enough to support the local health needs of their
    Tribal members and also generate enough revenue through a cooperative
    marketing effort to achieve economic self-sufficiency.
        ITBC and its member tribes are appreciative of past and current
    support from the Congress and the Administration. I urge the committee
    to consider restoring ITBC funding to the fiscal year 2006 level of
    $4.15 million, which will allow ITBC to continue, without interruption,
    the important and successful efforts of buffalo restoration and
    development of buffalo production as viable Reservation based economic
    development efforts.
        I would like to thank this Committee for the opportunity to present
    testimony and the members of ITBC invite the honorable members of the
    Committee to visit our Tribal buffalo projects and experience first
    hand their successes.
        Questions and/or comments regarding any of the issues presented
    within this testimony may be directed to Mr. Ervin Carlson, President
    or to Mr. Fred DuBray, Executive Director at (605) 394-9730.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Federation

        Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the more than 4 million members and
    supporters of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), thank you for the
    opportunity to provide funding recommendations for Department of the
    Interior and U.S. Forest Service programs for fiscal year 2007. The
    purpose of our testimony is to recommend levels of funding for a few
    specific programs that are vital to NWF's mission to inspire Americans
    to protect wildlife for our children's future.
        In addition to the following funding recommendations, NWF would
    also like to take this opportunity to respectfully urge the members of
    the subcommittee to reject the legislative proposals in the President's
    budget to sell hundreds of thousands of acres of BLM and USFS land to
    secure revenues to reduce the federal budget deficit and to fund the
    Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. The National
    Wildlife Federation and our state affiliates are in strong and
    unanimous opposition to these land sales proposals. The President's
    budget fails to recognize the incredible value of the nation's public
    lands. Public lands encompass a wonderful diversity of fish and
    wildlife habitats, and provide millions of Americans opportunities to
    fish, hunt, hike, camp, observe wildlife and otherwise experience
    nature. Every year, these lands become more valuable and more
    important, and to propose selling them off in order to secure one-time
    solutions for budget shortfalls is to rob this, and future, generations
    of a great national legacy.

                                    U.S. FWS

    State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
        The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program is the nation's core
    program to prevent wildlife from becoming endangered in every state. It
    is a mission-critical element of the Interior Department's budget as no
    other federal program is focused on this goal. It provides states and
    their partners a broad suite of conservation tools early enough to
    allow for meaningful and cost-effective species conservation. When
    Congress created the program in fiscal year 2001, every state wildlife
    agency was asked to complete a state wildlife action plan. These action
    plans, many of which have now been completed and approved, were
    developed by scientists, sportsmen, environmentalists, private
    landowners, and communities who worked together to identify the actions
    that are needed to prevent species from becoming endangered. The state
    wildlife agencies and their many conservation partners are already
    moving ahead with implementing their wildlife action plans. Congress
    needs to honor its commitment to this effort by providing the federal
    share of support for this program as it enters this new phase of
    implementation. The Administration's request for $74 million is an
    increase in funding for this program from the 2006 enacted level, but
    is insufficient to meet the large and growing needs of this program. We
    respectfully request that the subcommittee provide $85 million, an
    increase of $11 million over the President's request.
    National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance
        The President's budget calls for a $763,000 cut to the National
    Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance budget. We note with
    concern that when inflation and increases in salaries, rents, cost-of-
    living adjustments, energy prices, and increasing levels of visitor
    services and wildlife management requirements are taken into account,
    this would be an effective cut in refuge funding of approximately $17
    million, and thus a significant decrease in refuge services. NWF
    supports the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE)
    recommendation of $415 million, which would equal the fiscal year 2004
    Refuge System budget ($406.5 million) when adjusted for inflation. This
    level of funding would ensure a ``no-net-loss'' budget which would
    allow the Refuge System to avoid layoffs and reductions in services,
    maintain protections for wildlife and habitat, and provide for
    addressing the backlog in coming years.
    Endangered Species Program
        The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is one of our nation's most
    important environmental laws and we are disappointed that the
    Endangered Species Program has not been funded at the level needed to
    carry out its critical purpose of preventing extinction and recovering
    our irreplaceable wildlife. In fact, the Presidents budget proposal is
    seeking to cut funding for the endangered species program by $6.7
    million, or over 4.5 percent. Out of the four core endangered species
    programs, the species recovery program was hit the hardest again, with
    cuts of more then 10 percent. Funding for candidate conservation also
    faces significant reductions--over 6 percent. All told, President
    Bush's budget will allot only $141.4 million to ESA protection,
    although FWS's needs are demonstrably much greater. We urge the
    subcommittee to appropriate at least $212 million toward the Endangered
    Species Program (an increase of $71 million) for the following critical
    activities:
      --Listing Program.--While the President proposes a $129,000 (less
            then one percent) increase in the listing and critical habitat
            account, that amount will not begin to cover the backlog of
            species awaiting action on proposed listings and critical
            habitat designations. More than 280 candidate species--i.e.,
            species deemed by FWS to be at risk of extinction and
            warranting ESA protection--have been denied the benefits of the
            ESA due to lack of resources. The Fish and Wildlife Service has
            estimated a need of at least $153 million to alleviate the
            backlog. The President's budget requested $17.75 million. This
            is well below the actual need. To begin to address the backlog,
            the Listing line item should be funded at no less than $30
            million for fiscal year 2007.
      --Recovery Program.--Recovery funding faces the biggest reduction.
            Under the President's budget it would be reduced by $7.68
            million, or 10.4 percent below fiscal year 2006, even though
            FWS has said that more than 200 species currently listed under
            the Act are on the verge of extinction, primarily because not
            enough funds are available for recovery activities. Recovery
            should be funded at no less than $113.6 million.
      --Consultation Program.--Consultation is an important part of the
            checks and balance system to ensure that endangered species are
            protected on the ground. Consultation was increased by only
            $1.3 million, or 2.8 percent, even though it is projected that
            FWS will review approximately 77,000 federal actions under
            Section 7 in 2007. On top of this, FWS is responsible for
            monitoring nearly 400 approved Habitat Conservation Plans and
            will be reviewing 250 more that are currently in the pipeline.
            Consultation should be funded at $55.5 million.
      --Candidate Conservation.--Candidate species are plants and animals
            for which the Service has sufficient information on their
            biological status and threats to propose them for listing as
            endangered or threatened, but for which listing is precluded
            due to lack of resources and other higher priority listing
            activities. The President has also proposed reducing the
            Candidate Conservation program by $556,000, or 6.5 percent,
            despite the fact that efforts to protect candidate species at
            an early stage are cost-effective, reducing the difficulty and
            expense of species recovery. Candidate Conservation should be
            funded at $13.6 million.
    Multinational Species Conservation Fund
        NWF is concerned to see that the President's budget reduces total
    funding for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund by $2 million.
    For fiscal year 2007, we ask the subcommittee to again support these
    successful programs by appropriating $2 million each for the African
    Elephant, Asian Elephant, Great Apes and Marine Turtle Conservation
    Funds, $3 million for the combined Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation
    Funds, and $5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
    Fund, for a total of $16 million, or an increase of $7.7 million above
    the President's request. These funds will enable the Department of
    Interior to expand critical support for these imperiled species in
    their natural habitats. We also urge the subcommittee to continue to
    treat the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund as a separate
    account.

               BLM NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM (NLCS)

        The NLCS is an American treasure that consists of 26 million acres
    of BLM's most spectacular lands. Since its creation in June 2000,
    however, the System has been chronically under-funded, and starved for
    adequate resources to meet its core responsibilities and manage the
    growing number of visitors. The President's budget slashes $5.7 million
    from NLCS operations. This cut will cause mission critical needs to go
    unmet, such as contending with increases in illegal and irresponsible
    off-road vehicle traffic, the spread of invasive species, and the
    vandalism of ancient artifacts. We note with concern that when
    inflation and increases in salaries, rents, cost-of-living adjustments,
    energy prices, and increasing levels of visitor services and management
    requirements are taken into account, the President's budget represents
    an effective cut of approximately $8 million. This will result in a
    significant decrease in NLCS services. We respectfully request an
    increase of $3 million in operations and planning funding for the NLCS
    over the fiscal year 2006 enacted budget, for a total of $46 million.
    This funding level would enable the BLM to maintain services at the
    fiscal year 2006 enacted level, including restoring $1.2 million for
    law enforcement in the Four Corners region, while also providing
    capacity for the following activities:
      --Law Enforcement and Visitor Management--$1.5 million.--The NLCS
            faces a serious shortage of law-enforcement rangers and
            outreach/public education specialists. In many units,
            individual NLCS rangers must patrol hundreds of thousands of
            acres. We suggest an additional $1.5 million in funding to
            cover the cost of hiring fifteen additional law enforcement
            rangers and public education outreach specialists.
      --Science and Natural Resource Monitoring--$1.5 million.--It is
            essential for the BLM to obtain adequate information on the
            health of flora and fauna, riparian conditions, water quality,
            and other critical natural resources. Yet the BLM does not have
            adequate science personnel to collect and assess quality data
            for decision-making, a problem recently highlighted by the
            Heinz Center and a Government Accountability Report. We
            strongly suggest funding to enable BLM to hire seven natural
            resource specialists to expand biological monitoring and
            partnerships with other agencies and research institutions.
        NLCS LWCF Projects.--We support the President's fiscal year 2007
    request for Land and Water Conservation Fund projects for California
    Wilderness, and the Chain of Lakes Recreation Management Area/Lewis and
    Clark National Historic Trail (Montana). We recommend that the
    President's request for $750,000 for Sandy River/Oregon National
    Historic Trail be increased to $1 million, and we support $4.9 million
    for six additional projects:
      --Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, Colorado: $1.1 million
            to acquire inholdings.
      --McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area, Colorado: $1.1 million
            to purchase properties within and adjacent to this NCA.
      --Carrizo Plain National Monument, California: $500,000 to acquire
            inholdings.
      --Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, Oregon: $700,000 to acquire
            Soda Mountain inholdings.
      --Pacific Crest Trail, Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, Oregon:
            $1.5 million to acquire the Sky King Cole Ranch.

                   U.S. FOREST SERVICE FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM

        NWF is concerned by the President's request of $61.5 million for
    the Forest Legacy Program, almost $20 million less than last year's
    request. The needs of this program are much larger and growing, so we
    ask the subcommittee to appropriate $100 million for the program, or an
    increase of $38.5 million. Forest Legacy protects environmentally
    important forests that are threatened with conversion to non-forest
    uses, while protecting local communities and their way of life. The
    program has been especially important in states where there are few
    federal land holdings and timber companies are in the process of
    consolidating and selling their lands.

                    LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF)

        NWF is concerned to see that the President's budget slashes federal
    LWCF funding to only $83.6 million, the lowest request in more than
    three decades. LWCF has been cut by more than 75 percent since 2001. We
    urge the subcommittee to provide at least $220 million for total
    federal LWCF funding, with at least $5 million for the Pinhook Swamp
    project in Florida and $16.2 million for the Swan Valley project in
    Montana.
        We are extremely disappointed to see that the Administration's
    budget cuts all funding for stateside LWCF. State-side LWCF provides
    matching funds for state and local recreation and conservation
    programs. Eliminating this fund would seriously impact locally
    sponsored recreation projects that provide opportunities for youth,
    seniors and the physically challenged. We ask the subcommittee to
    restore $100 million for Stateside LWCF.
        Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to testify on the
    budget requests for the Interior Department and U.S. Forest Service.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Kansas Arkansas River Basin Interstate
                                   Committee

        The critical water resource projects in the Kansas portion of the
    Arkansas River Basin are summarized below. The projects are safety,
    environmental and conservation oriented. In addition, we state our
    unanimous support for the fiscal year 2007 request of $40 million to
    maintain the channel depth on the McClellan-Kerr Navigation System to
    12 feet as authorized by Public Law 108-137.
        We are encouraged about water resource development opportunities in
    the Arkansas River. In addition to traditional uses, we also support
    the promotion of economic development around Corps reservoirs. While
    encouraged, we are also concerned that funding levels will not support
    the needs. Therefore, we encourage your continued investment in our
    infrastructure with enhanced funding.
        We request your continued support for this important Bureau of
    Reclamation project:
        1. Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project--continuation of
    a City of Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2 and State of
    Kansas project to construct storage and recovery facilities for a major
    groundwater resource supplying water to more than 20 percent of Kansas
    municipal, industrial and irrigation users. The project will capture
    and recharge in excess of 100 million gallons per day and will also
    reduce on-going degradation of the existing groundwater by minimizing
    migration of saline water. Federal authorization of the project through
    House Bill 1327 introduce last year or through similar legislation this
    year. Construction Phase One is scheduled for completion in 2007.
    Continued federal funding is requested for fiscal year 2007 consistent
    with this legislation which will authorize funding for 25 percent of
    the project cost up to a maximum of $30 million during the construction
    phases.
        We request your support of these equally important Corps of
    Engineers projects:
        1. Walnut River (El Dorado Lake) Watershed Feasibility Study--
    feasibility study is needed to fully understand and recommend
    restoration strategies to reduce sedimentation and meet TMDL issues to
    preserve the El Dorado public water supply. Funding is requested in the
    amount of $80,000 for fiscal year 2007.
        2. Grand (Neosho) Basin Reconnaissance Study--to address watershed
    and reservoir restoration issues in the Grand Lake Watershed. Funding
    request is for $450,000 in fiscal year 2007 to continue the study.
        3. Grand Lake Feasibility Study--follow-on flood control study to
    determine the most cost-effective solution to real estate inadequacies
    of federal flood control easements around Grand Lake. Funding request
    in the amount of $500,000 for fiscal year 2007.
        4. Continuing Authorities Program--Wichita and many small Kansas
    communities including Kinsley, Newton, Parsons, Arkansas City, Augusta,
    Butler County and Coffeyville are requesting Corps of Engineers
    assistance through the Small Flood Control Projects, Aquatic Ecosystem
    Restoration, Ecosystem Restoration and the Emergency Streambank
    Stabilization programs. The CAP limits have been held level for many
    years and the federal funds are not available when a community has a
    need. We request increased annual program limits so that the
    communities who are willing to cost-share have the opportunity to do
    so.
        Finally, we are very grateful that the Corps of Engineers and
    Bureau of Reclamation have the expertise needed for the development and
    protection of water resources infrastructure. It is essential to have
    the integrity and continuity these agencies provide. Your continued
    support of these vital agencies, including funding, will be
    appreciated.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife
                                   Resources

        We are seeking your support for the President's fiscal year 2007
    Budget Request of $3 million to support the National Fish Habitat
    Initiative (NFHI) and, furthermore, we ask you to support an additional
    $3 million to be appropriated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
    Southeast Fisheries Program for the Southeast Aquatic Resources
    Partnership (SARP). The NFHI, lead by the International Association of
    Fish and Wildlife Agencies in partnership with the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, is a nationwide fisheries habitat restoration plan
    modeled on the successful North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The
    SARP is developing a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan that will guide the
    implementation of the NFHI on a regional scale and serve as a model for
    other regions of the country. The Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan will
    identify and establish Fish Habitat Partnerships that will deliver the
    objectives of the NFHI in the Southeast.
        The SARP was initiated in 2001 to better address the conservation
    and management of aquatic resources in the Southeastern United States.
    This partnership developed because: (1) the Southeast has the highest
    diversity of aquatic species and habitats of any region in the country,
    (2) these resources are facing serious threats to their future
    existence, and (3) no single State or Federal agency has the necessary
    resources and authority to address this impending aquatic crisis. It is
    only by working together through partnerships that we will make a
    difference. SARP includes the fish and wildlife agencies from 13 States
    (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
    Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and
    Texas), the Gulf and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commissions, the
    Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries.
        This unique and focused effort is poised to deliver a new regional
    approach to aquatic conservation for future generations. Securing $3
    million in additional funding for the SARP is critical for the
    successful implementation of the Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan.
        Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you should
    have any questions or need further information, please contact my
    Fisheries Division Director, Benjy Kinman, at (502) 564-3400.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of Kennebunkport Conservation Trust

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On Behalf of
    the Kennebunkport Conservation Trust, I appreciate the opportunity to
    present this testimony in support of a $650,000 appropriation from the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund for land acquisition within the Rachel
    Carson National Wildlife Refuge.
        The Rachel Carson NWR plays a critical role in land protection
    efforts in southern Maine, serving as an anchor around which numerous
    local conservation organizations focus their efforts to protect land
    along the river corridors that flow through the refuge to the sea. The
    refuge and its supporters are working to effectively stitch together
    conserved properties into a greenbelt for habitat and water quality
    protection and public enjoyment.
        Previous years' appropriations have allowed the USFWS to conserve
    several properties within the refuge at Biddeford Pool and Parson's
    Beach, providing an important buffer between the intense development
    pressure along the southern Maine coast and its fragile coastal
    estuaries. While significant acreage within the refuge is protected
    today, additional areas of concern remain in need of protection.
        Available for immediate acquisition from a willing landowner in
    fiscal year 2007 is the 49-acre Parsons Woods property, located in the
    Parson's Beach area of the refuge near Kennebunkport. Consisting of
    wooded uplands, the property lies immediately adjacent to existing
    refuge lands and land being acquired with previously appropriated
    funds. The Parson's Woods tract contains the headwaters of a tributary
    of the Little River, the bulk of which flows through existing refuge
    lands and empties into the Atlantic between Laudholm and Crescent Surf
    beaches. If acquired, this parcel will allow the refuge to protect
    important wildlife habitat and link it to already protected refuge
    lands. Located in a rapidly developing part of Maine, this acquisition
    offers the refuge an outstanding opportunity to conserve southern
    Maine's coastal landscape and further consolidate the fragile habitat
    that exists on the marshes, uplands, creeks, and the estuaries of the
    coast.
        The Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge is the
    longest standing Friends of the National Wildlife Refuge system groups
    in the northeast, voicing support for the acquisition and protection of
    lands vital to the health of the refuge and the communities of southern
    Maine. We are a 501c3 organization, and our board leadership represents
    all ten of the refuge's districts. Our local roots recognize and speak
    for the benefits the refuge brings to our southern Maine communities,
    the critical plant and animal habitat of our unique coast, and the
    generations of visitors to the Rachel Carson Wildlife Refuge.
        We are fast approaching the 100th anniversary of Rachel Carson's
    birth in May 2007, and urge you to ensure that her legacy of protection
    for critical coastal areas is honored through an appropriation to the
    refuge. Given the development pressures in this part of the state, the
    opportunity to permanently protect the Parsons Woods property only
    exists for a limited time. An appropriation of $650,000 for the Rachel
    Carson NWR in fiscal year 2007 will yield enormous public benefits for
    generations to come.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Carl and Dinni Fabiani

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: We
    appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony pertaining to an
    appropriation of $5 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    to acquire 800 acres at Mount Rainier National Park in Washington.
        I am a lifelong resident (59 years) of the Town of Wilkeson a small
    community which has for many years labeled itself as ``The Gateway to
    the Carbon Glacier''. My wife and I have been nearly lifelong users of
    the Carbon River area of Mount Rainier National Park.
        While we strongly support the addition of lands along the Carbon
    River to Mount Rainier National Park, we feel as strongly that the
    rationale often quoted for this boundary expansion will have a very
    negative impact on the many thousands of people who currently use the
    ``Carbon River area'' of the Park. A reason given for the expansion is
    that the government will save money by not having to make expensive
    repairs to the 5 mile road from the Carbon River Entrance to the Carbon
    Glacier trailhead.
        The obvious implication is that the road will no longer be
    repaired. The Trust for Public Lands has in fact stated in their
    literature that the road will be converted to a hiking and biking
    trail. Currently the hike to the Carbon Glacier is a 7 mile round trip
    of moderately easy walking. If driving access is eliminated this
    popular hike will become a 17 mile trip which effectively eliminates 90
    percent of the users of this trail. 17 miles is not a day hike for most
    people, especially those with young families and those with limited
    abilities. The greatest majority of people using this area do so on a
    day-use basis.
        Much of the literature supporting the boundary expansion has stated
    that new roads, campgrounds and trails would be built which will
    improve visitor access to the Park. However these proposed new
    facilities are planned to be built in the newly added lands and will in
    no way improve access to what is currently considered the ``Carbon
    River area''. The slight odor of ``red herring'' here.
        The Carbon Glacier Trail is a very special place in Mount Rainier
    National Park. Every year the trail takes thousands of visitors of all
    ages and a wide range of abilities through dense old growth forest,
    along a raging glacial river, through a rugged rock walled canyon to
    the lowest glacier terminus in the 48 states. Along the trail are views
    of Mount Rainier, many wildflowers through the summer, clear streams
    cascading off the mountains and a variety of wildlife. This trail is
    the epitome of what National Parks are supposed to be, some of the most
    unique places on Earth.
        If Mount Rainier Park boundaries are extended at the expense of the
    current Carbon River road from the Carbon River Ranger Station to the
    Carbon Glacier trail as an excuse to save a few tax dollars, you will
    be doing the people of this country a disservice that far outweighs any
    gains made through the boundary expansion.
        We have attended a number of public hearings in recent years
    regarding the Carbon River corridor. Maintaining the current access to
    the area has always been heavily supported at these hearings and has
    been a primary topic of interest among attendees of the hearings.
        In addition people have been vocal about protecting the very rural
    and in some areas even pristine character of the Carbon River corridor.
    Land development is happening at a rapid rate in this part of the
    country and even now Forest Lands along the Carbon River are being
    developed for home sites.
        Adding 800 acres along Carbon River to the Park for the long term
    protection of the Carbon River with its Marbled Murrelet, Northern
    Spotted owl and salmon habitat is reason enough to add these lands. Do
    not base the expansion on the excuse of expensive road repairs. The
    repairs are not as expensive as presented and the real loss to people
    would be priceless.
        Thank you for the opportunity to express these views.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Litchfield Hills Greenprint Program

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: The Litchfield
    Hills Greenprint Program appreciates the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of a $1.22 million appropriation to the State of
    Connecticut from the Forest Legacy Program for the second phase of the
    Skiff Mountain project. The Litchfield Hills Greenprint is an
    initiative sponsored by the Housatonic Valley Association (HVA), the
    Trust for Public Land (TPL), and area land trusts to conserve the
    ecological integrity of this landscape and the rural character of its
    communities. A greenprint is a land use plan created by community
    leaders and residents that identifies and prioritizes important lands
    and those most vulnerable to development at local and regional scales.
    The Litchfield Hills Greenprint has identified Skiff Mountain in Kent,
    CT as one of the area's top conservation priorities
        Skiff Mountain lies within the Highlands region of the East Coast,
    virtually in the backyard of the nation's largest metropolitan area.
    Located within an hour of nearly 25 million Americans, the Highlands
    form a greenbelt of forests and farmland adjacent to the sprawling
    Hartford-New York-Philadelphia urban corridor. Two million acres of
    glacial bogs, hardwood-conifer swamps, rock outcrop communities, and
    chestnut oak forests stretch from western Connecticut across the Lower
    Hudson River Valley and northern New Jersey into Pennsylvania, enticing
    more than 14 million visitors each year--more than Yellowstone and
    Yosemite National Parks combined.
        The state has identified the Connecticut portion of the Highlands
    as a critical focus area under its Forest Legacy Program. Right now
    there are four separate parcels of land in this focus area that are
    available for protection in fiscal year 2007. These parcels total
    approximately 510 acres of Skiff Mountain Forest in northwestern
    Connecticut. They form a network of forested properties in Litchfield
    County straddling the Kent-Sharon town line, an area under tremendous
    large-lot development pressures. Strategically located among already
    existing conservation lands, and immediately adjacent to the federally
    protected and world-renowned Appalachian National Scenic Trail, the
    Skiff Mountain assemblage has been identified by the state as its top
    priority for Forest Legacy funding this year completing the second and
    final phase of this outstanding conservation effort.
        In fiscal year 2007, $1.22 million is needed from the Forest Legacy
    program to help preserve 510 acres of Skiff Mountain, and keep intact
    this conservation corridor of the Housatonic River Watershed and four-
    state Highlands region. Local funding and land value donation will
    match these funds. We hope that you will provide $1.22 million to
    ensure the success of this effort in the fiscal year 2007 Interior
    appropriations bill.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Missoula County Commissioners

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The Missoula County
    Commissioners are in strong support of the conservation initiatives
    being implemented in the Swan Valley. Over the past seven years,
    constituents in the Valley have been working together with landowners,
    public resource and land management agencies and non-governmental
    organizations to address issues of concern. This effort has included
    identification of community values, science-based assessments of
    natural resources and development of a strategy to conserve resource
    values important to the community.
        The Swan Valley forest landscape provides for a rich diversity of
    wildlife and fisheries habitat, outdoor recreation opportunities and
    variety of forest-based livelihoods. Its location between the Bob
    Marshall Wilderness complex and the Mission Mountains Wilderness
    provides a critical link between natural areas in our State.
    Maintaining the connectivity between these areas and avoiding habitat
    fragmentation are critical to a variety of wildlife species. Avoiding
    residential development within rural forestlands reduces the potential
    for property loss, human injury and wildfires.
        As part of a collaborative effort, the Plum Creek Timber Company
    has made available a portion of its land in the Swan Valley for
    conservation sale to the public. Missoula County lends its support to
    the U.S. Forest Service's fiscal year 2007 request for a $16.2 million
    appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). This
    would allow the Flathead National Forest (FNF) to acquire lands in the
    southern part of the Valley (within Missoula County), which are
    important for wildlife habitat and public recreation. Such acquisitions
    would reduce fragmentation and lead to more effective and efficient
    land management. The Swan Valley request is a high priority for the
    U.S. Forest Service-Northern Region this year.
        Of particular interest to the County is an emergency communications
    facility located on the Pierce Lake property, east of Highway 83. This
    site is leased by Missoula County Emergency Services and provides
    important public safety benefits. Use of the site will be continued
    under a special use permit with the Flathead NF.
        Additionally, the Condon Creek properties include a critical
    portion of a grizzly bear linkage zone, wetlands and riparian areas,
    big game winter range and about a mile of Swan River frontage. The
    local community places a high value on these parcels, which are
    adjacent to or near Highway 83, important for public access, and
    susceptible to subdivision and development. Conversion of these
    forestland parcels would lead to habitat fragmentation, conflicts with
    forest management of the Flathead NF, reduction of public recreation
    opportunities, and the creation of a residential/wildland interface
    zone.
        The LWCF funding is one of several complementary efforts being
    implemented to achieve community goals in the Valley, including an
    impressive array of both public and private funding resources.
        We recognize the Committee's support over the past few years to
    secure LWCF funding, and we encourage complete funding of this high-
    priority Swan Valley project. We appreciate your support for this
    funding request, which will promote our rural forest-based economies
    and provide recreational opportunities for the residents of the County
    and State--as well as visitors from elsewhere--for generations to come.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide our support.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources

        The Mississippi Department of Marine Resources wishes to join the
    list of agencies seeking your support for the President's fiscal year
    2007 Budget Request of $3 million for the National Fish Habitat
    Initiative (NFHI) program and a supplemental appropriation of $3
    million to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Southeast Fisheries
    Program for the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP).
        The NFHI, lead by the International Association of Fish and
    Wildlife Agencies in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, is a nationwide fisheries habitat restoration plan modeled on
    the successful North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The SARP is
    developing a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan that will guide the
    implementation of the NFHI on a regional scale and serve as a model for
    other regions of the country. The Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan seeks
    to identify and establish Fish Habitat Partnerships to meet the
    objectives of the NFHI.
        The SARP was initiated in 2001 to better address the conservation
    and management of aquatic resources in the Southeastern United States.
    This partnership developed because (1) the Southeast has the highest
    diversity of aquatic species and habitats of any region in the country,
    (2) these resources are facing serious threats to their future
    existence, and (3) no single State or Federal agency has the necessary
    resources and authority to address these threats. It is only by working
    together through partnerships that this issue can be effectively
    resolved. SARP includes fish and wildlife agencies from Alabama,
    Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
    North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas as well
    as the Gulf and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commissions, the Gulf
    of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries.
        This unique and focused effort is poised to deliver a new regional
    approach to aquatic conservation for future generations. Securing $3
    million in additional funding for the SARP is critical for the
    successful implementation of the Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan.
        We thank you for your valuable time and consideration.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries
                                   and Parks

        We are seeking your support for the President's fiscal year 2007
    Budget Request of $3 million to support the National Fish Habitat
    Initiative (NFHJ) and, furthermore, we ask you to support an additional
    $3 million to be appropriated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
    Southeast Fisheries Program for the Southeast Aquatic Resources
    Partnership (SARP). The NFHI, lead by the International Association of
    Fish and Wildlife Agencies in partnership with the U.S. dish and
    Wildlife Service, is a nationwide fisheries habitat restoration plan
    modeled on the successful North American, Waterfowl Management flan.
    The SARP is developing a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan that will guide
    the implementation of the NFHI on a regional scale and serve as a model
    for other regions of the country. The Southeast Aquatic Habitat plan
    will identify and establish Fish Habitat Partnerships that will deliver
    the objectives of the NFHJ in the Southeast (Attachment).
        The SARP was initiated in 2001 to better address the conservation
    and management of aquatic resources in the Southeastern United States.
    This partnership developed because (1) the Southeast has the highest
    diversity of aquatic species and habitats of any region in the country,
    (2) these resources are facing serious threats to their future
    existence, and (3) no single State or Federal agency has the necessary
    resources and authority to address this impending aquatic crisis. It is
    only by working together through partnerships that we will make a
    difference. SARP includes the fish and wildlife agencies from 13 States
    (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
    Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and
    Texas), the Gulf and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commissions, the
    Gruff of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries.
        This unique and focused effort is poised to deliver a new regional
    approach to aquatic conservation for future generations. Securing $3
    million in additional funding for the SARP is critical for the
    successful implementation of the Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan.
        Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you should
    have any questions or need further information, please contact Mr.
    Walter Hubbard, 601-432-2208.
        Attachments.

                    SOUTHEAST AQUATIC RESOURCES PARTNERSHIP

        With partners, protect, conserve, and restore aquatic resources
    including habitats throughout the Southeast, for the continuing
    benefit, use, and enjoyment of the American people.
        The Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP) supports the
    President's fiscal year 2007 Budget Request of $3 million for the
    National Fish Habitat Initiative (NFHI) and, furthermore, recommends
    that an additional $3 million be allocated to the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service's Southeast Fisheries Program for implementation of
    the SARP Aquatic Habitat Plan.
        Recognizing the Southeast's unique biological diversity, looming
    threats to critical habitats and limited resources to meet the immense
    challenges, States and Federal agencies and organizations with
    management authority for fisheries and aquatic resources in the
    Southeast joined forces to form a ground-breaking partnership five
    years ago. The Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP) includes
    fish and wildlife agencies from 13 States (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
    Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina,
    Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas); the Gulf and Atlantic
    States Marine Fisheries Commissions; the Gulf of Mexico and South
    Atlantic Fishery Management Councils; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service; and NOAA Fisheries. These entities have signed an
    unprecedented Memorandum of Understanding pledging to work together for
    the conservation and management of aquatic resources in the Southeast.
    The SARP also involves a number of other Federal agency partners and
    non-governmental organizations.

             THE SOUTHEAST--AQUATIC DIVERSITY OF GLOBAL IMPORTANCE

        The people of the Southeastern United States live in an area that
    has more aquatic freshwater species (62 percent of the freshwater
    fishes and 75 percent of the freshwater mussels) than any region of the
    country. The Southeast has the most aquatic diversity in the country,
    more than 70 major river basins, more miles of coastal shoreline
    (26,000 miles), the highest economic return on recreational fishing
    ($17 billion in total economic output), and thebulk of thecountry's
    wetlands important to fisheries and other aquatic organisms (45 percent
    of the country's wetlands and 78 percent of its coastal marsh).

                       THE SOUTHEAST--A CRISIS UNFOLDING

        Human populations in the Southeastern United States are projected
    to grow by about 25 percent between 2005 and 2025. Five of the top 10
    most sprawling U.S. metropolitan areas of 1 million people or more are
    in the Southeastern United States--Nashville, Charlotte, Greensboro,
    Atlanta, and Memphis. Nine Southeastern States are among the top 20
    States that lost the most open space and farmland to urban sprawl
    during the 1990's. New and expanding communities will exhaust water
    supplies and place increased threats to fishery habitats in rivers,
    lakes, and coastal waters. Water resource needs that support outdoor
    recreational pursuits will compete with agricultural interests,
    waterborne transportation interests, and water supply needs for more
    and more communities. The challenge will be to develop sustainable uses
    of fresh water and aquatic resources. The predictable increase in
    public recreation will require everyone to work even closer together to
    ensure that economic vitality and human health are not at odds with
    fisheries and aquatic resource conservation, but rather are seen as the
    results of healthy aquatic resources.

                              SARP ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        Since its inception in 2001, the SARP has realized significant
    accomplishments. The SARP has achieved more than $700,000 in grants, as
    well as substantial contributions from the SARP members to begin laying
    the foundation for the creation of a Southeast Region Aquatic Habitat
    Plan--which will be the first regional component completed under the
    National Fish Habitat Plan, and the national plan's primary delivery
    mechanism for--the Southeast Region. Successful steps in this process
    have included:
      --Pilot Rivers Aquatic Habitat Planning Project.--The SARP worked
            with The Nature Conservancy to complete pilot aquatic habitat
            plans for 4 priority watersheds in the Southeast Region--
            Roanoke River (NC), Altamaha River (GA), Pascagoula River (MS),
            and Duck River (TN). This project was supported by a $75,000
            grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) and
            a $75,000 matching grant from the SARP partner agencies.
      --SARP Coordinator.--The SARP coordinator's position was filled in
            Fall 2005. This was supported by the Southeastern Association
            of Fish and Wildlife Agencies who committed funding for the
            position and by a $40,000 grant from the NFWF.
      --Regional Integration of State Wildlife Action Plans.--The SARP is
            conducting a southeastern regional assessment of aquatic
            species identified in recently completed State Comprehensive
            Wildlife Conservation Strategies as being of the greatest
            conservation need, developing a process for integrating the
            aquatic elements of the plans, and identifying areas of
            regional importance for aquatic diversity. This project was
            supported by a $90,000 grant from the NFWF.
      --Aquatic Nuisance Species Coordinator.--The SARP is developing
            aquatic nuisance species (ANS) management plans for all SARP
            States. State plans are scheduled to be completed in late 2007.
            Development and implementation of these plans will enhance the
            capabilities of the States to detect and respond to ANS
            introductions. This was supported by a $232,500 Multi-state
            Conservation Grant from the International Association of Fish
            and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA).
      --Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan.--The SARP is developing a regional
            Aquatic Habitat Plan. With the completion of the pilot rivers
            project, the results and planning methodologies developed in
            that process will be employed in the development of the
            regional plan. The Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan will be
            completed in 2007, and will be the regional component of the
            National Fish Habitat Plan. This project was supported by a
            $257,000 Multi-state Conservation Grant from IAFWA.
        The Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan will identify the highest
    priority aquatic habitat needs and how to better address the
    conservation and management of aquatic resources across the region.
    Securing $3 million in additional funding for the SARP is critical for
    the successful implementation of the Southeast plan. The SARP's efforts
    at regional planning will serve as a model for other regions identified
    in the NFHI and as components of the national plan itself. Through this
    process, the SARP will identify and establish Fish Habitat Partnerships
    that will deliver the objectives of the NFHI in the Southeast.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks

        Montana has a great deal of interest in locating and developing
    wild rainbow trout strains, that has some significant level of
    resistance to the whirling disease parasite Myxobolus cerebralis.
    Montana's management of its salmonid fisheries differs somewhat from
    other western states in that it manages most of its cold-water salmonid
    streams as wild fisheries and stocking of hatchery strains of rainbow
    trout is not allowed in these waters. Because of this management
    philosophy, it would be essential that any whirling disease resistant
    strain(s) of rainbow trout developed through strain resistant research
    would fit the wild trout management strategy. Rainbow trout which show
    some ability to resist whirling disease infections would have to be
    capable reproducing and surviving in the wild environment, plus they
    would have to be compatible with the other wild salmonids, such as
    native cutthroat trout, residing in these streams.
        Whirling disease research conducted over the last several years has
    uncovered two wild strains of rainbow trout, which has shown some
    significant resistance to the whirling disease parasite, Myxobolus
    cerebralis. The first strain is primarily found in lake environments
    with the only source being in Harrison Reservoir located 50 miles west
    of Bozeman, MT. The strain was introduced into Harrison Reservoir in
    late 1970's from Lake DeSmet, Wyoming. A four-year imprint series from
    1977-81 established a self-sustaining wild rainbow trout population,
    which sustained itself on wild reproduction until the whirling disease
    parasite was introduced in the mid 1990's. Initially, the introduction
    caused a large (50 percent) decline in this wild population. Early
    whirling disease research at the Pony Whirling Disease Lab showed that
    this strain of rainbow trout (DeSmet) had a measurable resistance to
    the parasite even without any known previous contact with the WD
    parasite. Early tests showed that approximately 50 percent of the
    Harrsion/DeSmet rainbow trout were resistant to the parasite. More
    recent research has shown the strain has increased its level of
    resistance after 10 years of exposure to the WD parasite to where
    nearly 90 percent are resistant to infection. Montana has decided that
    this WD resistant strain of rainbow trout is a very valuable stock and
    may play an important role in solutions to whirling disease, especially
    in lake environments. In partnership with the USFWL Service, Montana is
    beginning the development a Harrison/DeSmet rainbow brood stock to be
    maintained and held by the Ennis National Fish Hatchery. This strain
    should have wide spread use in areas where whirling disease is a
    problem in lake environments.
        A second wild rainbow trout strain has been identified, as
    partially resistant to the whirling disease parasite and is found in
    the upper Madison River. Initially when the parasite was introduced
    into the Madison River in the late 1980's, this strain had almost no
    resistance to whirling disease infections resulting in large (90
    percent) losses in the wild population. After approximately 15 years of
    exposure to M. cerebralis, this strain appears to have developed enough
    resistance to the parasite to allow some survival to the second and
    third year of life. Prior to this development of whirling disease
    resistance, young-of-the-year wild Madison River rainbow trout
    experienced a 95 percent or greater loss during their first year of
    life. While this is good news for the upper Madison River fisheries,
    some disturbing problems have accompanied this new resistance. The
    resistant offspring has a much slower growth rate than observed
    previously measured and appears to have a very high mortality rate
    during its third year of life. Because of these two problems with the
    WD resistant offspring, there has been little improvement in the number
    of larger wild rainbow trout in the upper Madison River. More research
    needs to been done on this resistant stream rainbow trout to determine
    if this problem can be resolved or is this condition of the new found
    resistance. To date this is the only instance where whirling disease
    resistance has developed in a wild stream strain of rainbow trout after
    10-20 years of exposure to the parasite. Development of salmonid
    strains resistant to whirling disease infections may be one of the most
    promising areas of research and may offer solutions to this problem in
    some wild trout waters. The rainbow trout resistant strain research may
    offer an important insight to whirling disease resistance in other
    susceptible salmonid species.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Mountain Group Sierra Club

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: The Mountain
    Group Sierra Club appreciates this opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of a $800,000 appropriation from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund for the Wild Horse Creek conservation project
    in the San Bernardino National Forest.
        The Mountain Group Sierra Club has over 200 members and represents
    the mountain communities from Crestline to Green Valley Lake. All the
    communities are within the San Bernardino National Forest.
        For over a hundred years, the San Bernardino National Forest has
    protected portions of the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and
    Santa Rosa mountains. The nearly 660,000 acres of the national forest
    located about 60 miles east of Los Angeles provide a wide variety of
    climates, vegetation, scenery, and wildlife. Nearly two million people
    visit the forest each year for activities such as hiking, camping,
    horseback riding, fishing, and skiing. This high rate of use is
    steadily increasing due to the close proximity of large and rapidly
    growing metropolitan areas in and around the greater Los Angeles Basin.
    More than half of the state's population lives within a two-hour drive
    of this popular forest.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 is the 273-acre
    Wildhorse Creek property, located in the San Gorgonio Ranger District
    on State Highway 38. The property is the last significant remnant of an
    old cattle ranch and is surrounded on three sides by the national
    forest and on the fourth side by the state highway. This key inholding
    in the forest has nesting habitat for the California spotted owl and
    the southwestern willow flycatcher. It also provides critical wintering
    range for western mule deer, and supports mountain lions, bears,
    weasels, and other species typically found in the San Bernardino
    National Forest. There are willows located along the creek at the lower
    end of the property where Wildhorse Creek meets the Santa Ana River. In
    the more forested portions of the property, there are Jeffrey pines and
    western juniper.
        A historic trailhead is located where Wildhorse Creek crosses
    Highway 38. The Wildhorse Meadow Trail was a main thoroughfare for the
    indigenous people of the area before the first wagon trails were built.
    Later, when the early homesteaders moved into Big Bear Valley, it
    became a major cattle route. Over the years, gold miners, deer hunters,
    and equestrians have used the trail. Since the property has been in
    private ownership and there are alternative routes into the upper Santa
    Ana Mountains, the Forest Service has blocked access to the Wildhorse
    Meadow Trail. Public acquisition of this property would allow the
    Forest Service to reopen this popular trail, which wanders through
    picturesque granite boulders. This historic trail would take hikers and
    equestrian visitors to Sugarloaf Mountain for overnight camping. A
    proposed wilderness area, Sugarloaf Mountain is not far from Big Bear
    Lake and would provide a less visited alternative to the nearby San
    Gorgonio Wilderness. The Heart Bar Recreation Area lies to the south of
    the parcel and the Barton Flats Recreation Area is to the west. Once
    acquired by the Forest Service, the Wildhorse Creek property would be
    accessible to family campers, day users, and organization campers from
    these recreation areas. With its convenient location on Highway 38 and
    its moderately sloping lower portions, the Wildhorse Creek property is
    highly developable due to the easy access and suitable topography. In
    addition, some of the development proposals have been related to the
    export of water from the area, which contains the headwaters of the
    Santa Ana River. Such proposals pose a threat to the management and
    resources of the surrounding USFS lands and have made this acquisition
    a priority for the forest.
        An fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $800,000 from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund is needed for the Forest Service to acquire
    this key property. Federal acquisition is essential in order to avoid
    development and protect this property's excellent wildland character.
        The Mountain Group Sierra Club urges you to include this project in
    the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
        Thank you for considering this request.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I write on
    behalf of the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust to urge your support of
    an appropriation of $1.7 million for the Cascade Checkerboard Program
    in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) in Washington. The
    Greenway Trust is the private, non-profit conservation organization
    that has successfully protected over 130,000 acres of farm and forest
    land along Interstate 90, a National Scenic Byway, that gives millions
    of people access to outdoor recreation in the MBSNF.
        For over a century, the central Cascades have been marked by the
    checkerboard land patterns resulting from the 19th century land grant
    system. This mix of public and private forest lands has made coherent
    and efficient management for forestry and wildlife habitat difficult
    for both public and private landowners.
        Two important land parcels proposed for acquisition in fiscal year
    2007, in the vicinity of Stampede Pass and Dandy Pass along the crest
    of the Cascade Mountains. Located less than 50 miles from Seattle,
    these proposed acquisitions are primarily within the boundaries of the
    Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF, with a corner of the Stampede Pass parcel
    lying in the adjacent Wenatchee NF. In addition to their key role in
    providing wildlife connectivity, they are important for recreational
    assets.
        The 618-acre Stampede Pass parcel, which is available for $975,000,
    contains two miles of the internationally famous Pacific Crest Scenic
    Trail (PCT) running from Mexico to Canada along the spine of Western
    mountains. This project is a top priority of the Pacific Crest Trail
    Association and its acquisition will provide permanent protection for
    this segment of the trail.
        The 640-acre Dandy Pass parcel lies just south of the PCT and is
    available for $725,000. Its acquisition will provide additional
    protection for the landscape surrounding and visible from the trail. In
    addition to hiking, visitors can enjoy camping and cross-country
    skiing. Public ownership will also ensure public access to adjacent
    Forest Service lands.
        Acquisition of these parcels is part of an ongoing program of
    consolidating lands in the central Cascades, which has long been a
    Forest Service priority. The acquisitions of the Stampede Pass and
    Dandy Pass parcels will improve forest management, enhance recreational
    activities, and secure vital wildlife migration corridors. An fiscal
    year 2007 appropriation of $1.7 million from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund for the Forest Service Cascade Checkerboard program
    is necessary to bring these lands into protected public ownership.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity to present this testimony
    and for your consideration of this request.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Mack Taylor, Geologist

        This is to request that you maintain current funding for the
    Mineral Resources Program of the U.S. Geological Survey.
        The Mineral Resources Program produces Mineral Industry Surveys and
    Mineral Resource Assessments which are used by the mining and mineral
    resource industries throughout the world as the only authoritative
    source of fundamental data on the changing status of the world`s
    mineral resources. Those of us in the mining industry use these reports
    constantly in planning and assessment of development and production
    activities.
        There is no other source, anywhere, for these basic studies. The
    research and assessments produced by this group, derived from a
    baseline stretching back over a century, could not be equaled by any
    other agency, public or private, anywhere in the world.
        This is one of the most efficient and effective groups in the U.S.
    Government. Without the studies and information that this small group
    of people provide on a continuing basis, it would be very difficult to
    maintain the current relatively highly efficient balance between
    resource supply and demand.
        I'm a geologist not an economist, but it seems evident that severe
    dislocations in resource supply will be felt fairly quickly throughout
    U.S. industry, and shortly thereafter in increased inflation. Nominal
    funding by the U.S. Government supports a program with a very large
    positive impact.
        Please reconsider the proposal to greatly reduce or eliminate
    funding for the Mineral Resources Program.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
                                   California

        The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is writing
    in support of the following federal programs, in priority order, under
    the Bureau of Land Management and Environmental Protection Agency's
    budgets, that we believe are deserving of your Subcommittee's support
    during the fiscal year 2007 budget process:
    California Bay-Delta Program
        EPA funding for CALFED related programs: water quality, ecosystem
    restoration, watershed protection, water use efficiency, science and
    coordination.
    Soil, Water, and Air Management Subactivity
        $5.2 million designation for Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
    Program.
        The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is a public
    agency that was created in 1928 to meet the supplemental water demands
    of people living in what is now portions of a six-county region of
    southern California. Today, the region served by Metropolitan includes
    approximately 18 million people living on the coastal plain between
    Ventura and the international boundary with Mexico.
        Included in our region are more than 300 cities and unincorporated
    areas in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San
    Bernardino, and Ventura. We provide over half of the water used in our
    5,200-square-mile service area and help our members to develop local
    supplies through increased water conservation, recycling, storage and
    other resource-management programs. Metropolitan's imported water
    supplies come from the Colorado River via our Colorado River Aqueduct
    and from northern California via the State Water Project's California
    Aqueduct.
        We are sensitive to the magnitude of these program requests during
    tight budget times. We are also committed to supporting these federal
    programs as they are critical to meeting the challenges of water
    resources management and source water quality protection throughout
    California. These programs help to ensure long-term water security and
    meet the water quality requirements necessary to provide our member
    agencies with a safe, reliable water supply. We strongly urge your
    support for these funding requests.

                          CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA PROGRAM

        Metropolitan strongly supports Environmental Protection Agency
    funding needed to supplement the State of California's cost share of
    implementing the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, including water quality,
    ecosystem restoration, watershed protection, water use efficiency,
    science and coordination. In particular, we support funding for
    implementation of key water quality activities, including the San
    Joaquin River drainage and salinity management, source control programs
    in the Delta and its tributaries, and water treatment demonstration
    projects.

                         SOIL, WATER AND AIR MANAGEMENT

        The BLM 2007 General Statement providing budget justifications
    includes five long-term vision components for the Soil, Water and Air
    Management Program (Subactivity). One of these components is meeting
    state water quality standards in all stream miles flowing on BLM
    managed lands. Included in one of the means and strategies for
    achieving BLM's performance goals is tracking compliance with BLM
    obligations to maintain state water quality standards under the Clean
    Water Act and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. Reducing
    saline runoff to meet the interstate, federal, and international
    agreements to control the salinity of the Colorado River is a critical
    element of the Soil, Water and Air Management Program. Metropolitan
    supports the Administration's funding request of $32.053 million for
    the Soil, Water and Air Management Subactivity under the Land Resources
    Activity. BLM riparian restoration treatments were in part responsible
    for the retention of about 90,000 tons of salinity in six Colorado
    River Basin states, assisting with the objective of preventing further
    degradation of water quality in the Colorado River. As such,
    Metropolitan urges that BLM target $5.2 million to activities that help
    control salt contributions from BLM managed lands in the Colorado River
    Basin. Of that amount, $1.5 million should be distributed based on
    proposals submitted by BLM staff to BLM's salinity control coordinator
    for consideration for funding. Basin states' monies have been utilized
    to cost share a 2006 BLM proposal stretching the federal funding
    provided this fiscal year.
        Much of the land that is controlled and managed by BLM in the
    Colorado River Basin is heavily laden with salt. Past management
    practices, which include the use of lands for recreation; for road
    building and transportation; and for oil, gas, and mineral exploration
    have led to man-induced and accelerated erosion processes. When soil
    and rocks heavily laden with salt erode, the silt is carried along for
    some distance and ultimately settles in the streambed or flood plain.
    The salts, however, are dissolved and remain in the river system
    causing water quality problems downstream.
        Rangeland management can bring about some of the most cost-
    effective salinity control actions available. BLM's control of erosion
    from public lands, and thus salt contributions to the Colorado River
    and its tributaries, is essential to the success of the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Program. Acceleration of BLM salinity control
    efforts will result in very significant economic benefits to Colorado
    River water users. Concentrations of salts in the river cause hundreds
    of millions in damage in the United States.
        We look forward to working with your office to further advance
    sound water management activities in California. Please contact me, at
    (213) 217-6211, if I can answer any questions or provide additional
    information.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
                                    Programs

        As the President of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
    Programs (NAAMLP), I submit this statement on the proposed fiscal year
    2007 Office of Surface Mining budget.
        The NAAMLP is a tax-exempt organization consisting of 29 states and
    Indian tribes with histories of coal mining and coalmine related
    hazards. These states and tribes are responsible for 99.5 percent of
    the Nation's coal production. Each NAAMLP member administers an
    abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation program funded and overseen by
    the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) pursuant to Title IV of SMCRA,
    Public Law 95-87.
        This statement reflects the NAAMLP position on the proposed fiscal
    year 2007 budget for the Office of Surface Mining, which requests
    $185.9 million for the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program.
        We strongly feel that the future of the AML program should continue
    to focus on the underlying principles and priorities upon which SMCRA
    was founded--protection of the public health and safety, environmental
    restoration, and economic development in the coalfields and mining-
    impacted areas of America. Over the past 29 years, tens of thousands of
    acres of mined land have been reclaimed, thousands of mine openings
    have been closed, and safeguards for people, property and the
    environment have been put into place.
        Please remember that the AML program is first and foremost designed
    to protect public health and safety. The bulk of state and tribal AML
    projects directly mitigate AML features that threaten personal safety
    or welfare. While state and tribal AML programs complete significant
    projects that benefit the environment, the primary focus has been first
    on eliminating health and safety hazards and the OSM inventory of
    completed work reflects this fact.
        What the AML inventory of completed work over time, also reflects,
    at least to some degree, is the escalating cost of addressing these
    problems as they continue to go unattended due to insufficient
    appropriations from the AML Trust Fund for state and tribal AML
    programs. Un-reclaimed sites tend to get worse over time and this
    results in increased reclamation costs. Inflation combined with
    increased fuel and material costs, further increases the cost of
    reclamation. The longer reclamation is postponed, the less reclamation
    will be accomplished and it will cost more.
        The AML inventory is dynamic. We believe the dynamic nature of the
    inventory was anticipated from the AML program's inception. States and
    tribes find new high priority problems each year. This is especially
    true where new communities develop in rural areas formerly used for
    mining. New sites also manifest themselves due to time, weather and the
    forces of nature. As a result, new landslides and mine subsidence
    events will develop and threaten homes, highways, and the health and
    safety of our nation's residents. This underscores the need for
    continual updates to the inventory, as well as constant vigilance to
    protect citizens.
        In the end, the real cost of addressing Priority 1 and 2 AML
    hazards exceed $3 billion. The cost of remediating all mining-related
    AML problems, including acid mine drainage (Priority 3 sites), could be
    5 to 10 times this amount and far exceeds available funds.
        These funds also promote development in economically depressed
    areas. Since grants were first awarded to the states and tribes for AML
    reclamation, over $3 billion has been infused into the local economies
    of mining-impacted communities. These are the same communities that
    have been at least partially depressed by the same abandoned mine land
    problems that the program is designed to correct. In fact, those
    dollars spent in economically depressed parts of the country, such as
    Appalachia, could be considered part of an investment in the
    redevelopment of those regions. The AML program translates into jobs,
    additional local taxes, and an increase in personal income. According
    to a United States Forest Service 1992 IMPLAN study, for each $1 spent
    on reclamation construction, $1.23 returns to the nation's economy, and
    for each $1 million in construction, 48.7 jobs are created. The AML
    expenditures over the past 29 years have returned over $4 billion to
    the economy and have created some 150,000 jobs.
        The ability to accomplish the high priority reclamation identified
    in the current inventory is being severely constrained by a declining
    level of funding for state and tribal AML programs.
        While we are aware of the Administration's budgetary efforts to
    meet other priorities related to Homeland Security, the War on
    Terrorism, and Hurricane Katrina, we believe it is vital to release AML
    money that has already been statutorily dedicated for protecting the
    nation's citizen's health and safety from the threats associated with
    past mining.
        Lack of adequate funding has been and continues to be the greatest
    barrier to progress under Title IV of SMCRA in recent years and this
    issue must be addressed if we are to enhance the ability of the states
    and tribes to get more work done on-the-ground within the foreseeable
    future.
        Although OSM's budget overview, seen at the following link, (http:/
    /www.osmre.gov/news/OSM%20FY07%20Budget%20Highlights.pdf) shows $145.2
    million for state and tribal reclamation grants, that figure is
    misleading, as it does not account for money that will go to Clean
    Streams and Emergency programs. Assuming that OSM will fund Emergency
    programs at the same level as last year and the Clean Streams program
    at the projected amount of $6.9 million, the funding for state and
    tribal AML reclamation grants will be cut from $145.4 million down to
    the projected $127.2 million as shown above.
        The OSM proposed budget for fiscal year 2007 includes an increase
    over the fiscal year 2006 budget of $688,000 to cover increases in
    OSM's fixed costs. These include and cover expenditures such as vehicle
    purchases, building rent, increased fuel costs, etc. States and tribes
    have also seen dramatic increases in these expenses, yet our grants
    show no increase to cover these costs.
        This reduced level of funding will result in falling far short of
    meeting the needs AML programs have to correct health and safety
    hazards in the coalfields. Less reclamation will be completed and
    citizens living near these hazards will remain at risk.
        The NAAMLP firmly believes that the two most important factors in
    combating the nation's AML problems are reauthorizing the AML program
    and guaranteeing state and tribal reclamation grants at a level similar
    to those seen in fiscal year 2001. In addition, we support a return of
    the state share balances to certified states.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present the NAAMLP's perspective.
    Please contact me if the NAAMLP can provide more information or assist
    the subcommittee in any way.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the National Alternative Fuels Training
                                   Consortium

        Chairman Burns and Members of the Interior and Related Agencies
    Subcommittee on Appropriations: The National Alternative Fuels Training
    Consortium (NAFTC) requests funding of $2.5 million for fiscal year
    2007 to continue the important work of our organization in supporting
    the use of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) and alternative technology
    vehicles. The benefits of our program include improved air quality and
    decreasing dependence on foreign oil. The NAFTC is funded in fiscal
    year 2006 for $2 million in the Science and Technology account in the
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency budget.
        I am Al Ebron, Executive Director of the NAFTC, a consortium of 27
    educational institutions listed in the attached table. Our programs are
    dedicated to the use of AFVs and advanced technology vehicles (such as
    hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles). The NAFTC supports our nation's
    energy independence and assists in improving our air quality by: (1)
    Developing curricula for AFVs and advanced technology vehicles; (2)
    Conducting training for technicians, fleet managers, government
    officials, students, instructors and others to maintain AFVs/advanced
    technology vehicles; and, (3) Conducting education and awareness events
    to educate the American public about AFVs/advanced technology vehicles.
    The NAFTC is the only nationwide organization that develops curricula
    and disseminates training for AFVs and advanced technology vehicles.
    The NAFTC is headquartered at West Virginia University.
        Our continued dependence as a nation on foreign oil, largely to
    fuel our transportation systems, is a major weakness in our National
    Security. The demand for oil drives our foreign policy and strains our
    relationships both with other countries and with our environment.
    President Bush, in his State of the Union Address on January 31, 2006,
    stated, ``Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And
    here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is
    often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break
    this addiction is through technology.'' The United States Congress
    passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 on July 29, 2005 to establish a
    comprehensive, long-range energy policy. The Act provides incentives
    for newer and more efficient energy technologies, as well as
    conservation.
        In the transportation sector, important energy-saving options
    include using AFVs and advanced technology vehicles. According to the
    Energy Information Administration, 20 percent of the millions of
    vehicles to be sold over the next 20 years will be AFVs and advanced
    technology vehicles. Traditional AFVs have increased dramatically in
    the 1990s. With more hybrid models being offered by automobile
    manufacturers, thousands of hybrids are now being sold each year.
        As the number of AFVs/advanced technology vehicles increases in the
    United States, the need for properly trained technicians and fleet
    managers will increase. AFV/advanced technology vehicle trained
    technicians have greater job opportunities with the promise of higher
    salaries. The NAFTC has been a catalyst in providing the curricula and
    training to support this need.
        As vehicle technologies change, the NAFTC will revise and develop
    new curricula and training to support these vehicles. The NAFTC is
    currently developing programs for hybrid and hydrogen-powered vehicles
    to support the use of these advanced transportation technologies to
    reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil. In addition, the NAFTC
    is developing training programs for First Responders to instruct these
    personnel on how to safely address accidents involving hybrid vehicles.
    We will expand this program to other alternative fuels and Homeland
    Security issues.
        The NAFTC has developed AFV/advanced technology vehicle training
    for CNG, LPG, Electric, Hybrid, Fuel Cell, Biodiesel, Ethanol and
    Hydrogen vehicles. Deployment and use of these vehicles will ensure a
    clean and affordable diversity of options to meet our transportation
    needs. Trained technicians will ensure the continued use of these
    vehicles rather than shunting them aside when service or repairs are
    needed.
        Many in the automotive industry predict a shortage of between
    250,000 and 300,000 technicians over the next ten years. The training
    conducted by the NAFTC's National Training Centers is directly
    impacting the shortage of technicians to maintain AFVs/advanced
    technology vehicles. NAFTC training programs provide workforce
    development opportunities in the regional areas of the member National
    Training Centers.
        The NAFTC is making a difference. Some highlights are as follows:
      --The NAFTC conducted over 40 classes with over 500 attendees last
            year. The NAFTC has delivered over 700 courses and trained over
            7,000 technicians, students and others nationwide in AFVs/
            advanced technology vehicles. Many class participants are
            themselves trainers who in turn train others on AFVs/
            alternative technology vehicles.
      --The NAFTC completed a Biodiesel Training Manual, revised our AFV
            Overview Manual and conducted nine workshops last year. The
            NAFTC has developed 20 major curricula and workshop programs
            for AFVs/advanced technology vehicles.
      --The NAFTC has conducted over 750 workshops and education/outreach
            events with over 160,000 attendees. The highlight of these
            outreach activities has been National AFV Day Odyssey, a
            biennial event held in 2002 and 2004. This nationwide event was
            established to bring awareness and to promote the use of AFVs
            and advanced technology vehicles to policymakers, instructors,
            students, fleet managers and the general public. The 2004 event
            had nearly 25,000 attendees at 54 different sites in 34 states
            across the country and 2 sites in Canada. Over 24 million
            individuals were reached through media outlets across the
            country.
        The NAFTC will accomplish the following goals with fiscal year 2006
    funding:
      --Continue to conduct training on AFVs and advanced technology
            vehicles across the country. An additional 10 educational
            institutions will be added to the consortium, enhancing the
            number of qualified faculty to train students and in-service
            technicians.
      --Develop a new Hybrid Vehicle Training Manual, highlighting the
            changes in hybrid technology and providing technicians new
            information on available vehicles.
      --Complete the development of the First Responders Safety Training
            Course. Coordination with Homeland Security, State Fire
            Marshals, Rescue Organizations, Police and Sheriff Departments,
            U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy,
            U.S. EPA and other organizations for dissemination of this
            vitally important training has already started.
      --Conduct National AFV Day Odyssey 2006. This nationwide event will
            continue to build on the success of the 2002 and 2004 events.
            Efforts will be made to reach even more educators, policy
            makers, fleet managers, students and the general public than
            previous events. A concentrated effort will be made to ensure
            the maximum possible media coverage to spread the message of
            the benefits of AFVs/advanced technology vehicles.
        The funding for fiscal year 2007 will be used to:
      --Continue to build the program's success, conducting AFV and
            advanced technology vehicle training across the United States.
            An additional 10 NTCs will be targeted for addition to the
            consortium.
      --Develop curricula in support of AFV and advanced technology vehicle
            needs. Heavy-duty hybrid vehicles, such as municipal buses, are
            being developed and put into service. Training for these
            vehicles will be developed for the large group of municipal
            fleet technicians. The Hybrid Vehicle Training Manual will be
            updated to include new vehicles released by Vehicle
            Manufacturers.
      --Follow-on educational and awareness events will be conducted to
            reinforce the message of the 2006 National AFV Day Odyssey on
            the merits of AFVs and advanced technology vehicles in
            improving air quality and decreasing U.S. dependence on foreign
            oil.
        Fiscal year 2007 funds will support between 35 and 45 schools, as
    new schools are joining the NAFTC monthly. The NAFTC is at the front of
    the effort to clean the air of our nation and reduce its dependence on
    foreign oil. We have taken the initial steps to bring these options to
    those who work on our cars and to the general public. The Subcommittee
    should continue the NAFTC program to continue the benefits that our
    unique nationwide organization can provide in stimulating the increased
    deployment of AFVs and advanced technology vehicles.
        The NAFTC and all of its current and projected members ask that you
    support a continued appropriation of $2.5 million in the fiscal year
    2007 Science and Technology account of the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency budget.
        Thank You,

                                            CURRENT NATIONAL TRAINING CENTERS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      State                             Educational Institution                      City
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Arizona.................................  Gateway Community College.................  Phoenix
    California..............................  Cypress College...........................  Cypress
                                              Rio Hondo College.........................  Whittier
    Connecticut.............................  Gateway Community College.................  North Haven
    Florida.................................  Traviss Career Center.....................  Lakeland
    Illinois................................  Morton College............................  Cicero
    Indiana.................................  Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana.....  Gary
    Iowa....................................  Des Moines Area Community College.........  Ankeny
    Louisiana...............................  Louisiana Technical College...............  Baton Rouge
    Maryland................................  Com. Col. of Baltimore County               Baltimore
                                               (Catonsville).
    Massachusetts...........................  Wentworth Institute of Technology.........  Arlington
    Michigan................................  Lansing Community College.................  Lansing
                                              Kalamazoo Valley Community College........  Kalamazoo
    Missouri................................  Ranken Technical College..................  St. Louis
    Nebraska................................  Central Community College.................  Columbus
    Nevada..................................  Community College of Southern Nevada......  North Las Vegas
    New York................................  Onondaga Community College................  Syracuse
    North Carolina..........................  Wake Technical College....................  Raleigh
    Ohio....................................  University of Northwestern Ohio...........  Lima
                                              Ohio Technical College....................  Cleveland
    Oregon..................................  Portland Community College................  Portland
    South Carolina..........................  York Technical College....................  Rock Hill
    Tennessee...............................  Nashville Auto-Diesel College.............  Nashville
    Texas...................................  Tarrant County College....................  Ft. Worth
    Washington..............................  Shoreline Community College...............  Shoreline
    West Virginia...........................  West Virginia University..................  Morgantown
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                         PROPOSED NEW NATIONAL TRAINING CENTERS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      State                           Educational Institution \1\                    City
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alaska..................................  University of Alaska......................  Anchorage
    Utah....................................  Salt Lake Community College...............  Salt Lake City
    Vermont.................................  Vermont Technical College.................  Randolph Center
    Virginia................................  Northern Virginia Community College.......  Alexandria
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Additional training centers are being recruited in Alabama, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota,
      New Mexico, New York, North & South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.

                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Association of Local Government
       Environmental Professionals; U.S. Conference of Mayors; Northeast-
      Midwest Institute; National Association of Counties; International
     Council of Shopping Centers; International City Managers Association;
      Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC; The Trust for Public Land; Local
       Initiatives Support Corporation; Real Estate Roundtable; and the
             National Association of Industrial & Office Properties

        As your Subcommittee prepares the fiscal year 2007 Interior and
    Environment Appropriations bill, we urge you to include the full $250
    million for the U.S. EPA Brownfields Program, which was authorized by
    the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act
    of 2001 (the ``Brownfields Revitalization Act'').
        The EPA Brownfields Program has broad-based, bipartisan support as
    evidenced by the 99-0 Senate vote and the unanimous consent House vote
    to pass the Brownfields Revitalization Act in 2001. Funds under this
    program are used to assess and clean up brownfields such as abandoned
    or under-utilized warehouses, inactive factories, gas stations, salvage
    yards, vacant lots, contaminated properties, and other eyesores that
    plague virtually every community. These properties cause blight to
    neighborhoods, inhibit economic development, pose risks to public
    health and the environment, and erode the tax base of communities.
        The undersigned coalition of organizations represents thousands of
    communities and tens of millions of Americans who have been working
    during the past decade to promote the reuse of contaminated properties.
    Our coalition together with Federal and state government agencies have
    demonstrated that a strategic combination of public and private
    investment can return brownfield properties to productive use. The U.S.
    EPA Brownfields program has been critical to helping hundreds of
    communities clean up and redevelop these properties, creating thousands
    of jobs, increasing local tax revenue, creating urban green space, and
    bringing new vitality to struggling neighborhoods.
        By any measure, the EPA Brownfields program has been tremendously
    successful. EPA has invested about $800 million in the assessment and
    cleanup of brownfields since 1995. According to EPA, this relatively
    modest investment has leveraged more than $9 billion in cleanup and
    redevelopment monies--a return of more than 10 to 1. In addition, this
    investment has resulted in the assessment of more than 8,000 properties
    and helped to create more than 35,000 new jobs.
        While the EPA Brownfields Program has helped numerous communities,
    much remains to be done. Experts estimate there remain as many as 1
    million brownfield properties nationwide. These sites continue to
    blight neighborhoods, discourage new investment, and undermine economic
    progress in many communities. Moreover, at current funding levels, EPA
    can only fund about one-third of the applicants for Federal brownfields
    grants. Attachment 1 shows that EPA has turned away approximately 800
    applicants over the past 2 years. Without these critical seed funds,
    thousands of sites will continue to remain idle, blighting
    neighborhoods and undermining local revitalization.
        Despite the tremendous success of the program and the compelling
    need in communities across the country, the Administration and Congress
    have significantly under-funded the brownfields program during the past
    four years. Attachment 2 shows that Congress has only appropriated an
    average of $165.6 million a year for the period of fiscal year 2003
    through fiscal year 2006 for the Brownfields program. This represents a
    34 percent reduction from the $250 million per year authorized for the
    overall program under the Brownfields Revitalization Act. Moreover,
    between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006, Congress has only
    appropriated an average of $90.2 million for brownfields assessment and
    cleanup grants to local communities--the most critical component of the
    brownfields program. This funding level represents a 45 percent
    reduction from the $165 million authorized for assessment and cleanup
    grants under the Brownfields Revitalization Act.
        Consequently, we request that the Subcommittee fully fund EPA's
    Brownfields program at the authorized level of $250 million for fiscal
    year 2007. This modest investment will help hundreds of additional
    communities clean up and reuse thousands of contaminated properties,
    thereby bringing new hope and vitality to millions of Americans
    nationwide.
        We also ask that you resolve a technical problem with the
    Brownfields Revitalization Act, which prevents brownfield grant
    recipients from using a small portion of their grant to cover
    reasonable administrative costs such as rent, utilities and other costs
    necessary to carry out a project. This limitation makes it extremely
    difficult for local governments, community organizations and non--
    profit entities to effectively develop and implement their site
    assessment and cleanup programs and projects. All other EPA programs
    (Clean Water, Drinking Water, Superfund, RCRA, etc) and virtually all
    Federal grant programs allow a portion of grant funds to be allocated
    to cover reasonable administrative costs.
        State agencies that receive brownfield funding from EPA are
    permitted to pay administrative costs with their grants. Only local
    governments and non-profit organizations are penalized by this
    prohibition and only the Brownfields program is singled out for this
    unfair treatment. As a result, many localities and organizations are
    unable to use brownfields funds. We have heard from a number of
    communities--especially small and rural communities--who have indicated
    that they are unable to apply for EPA brownfield funding due to the
    prohibition on the use of funds for administrative costs.
        The fiscal year 2006 Senate appropriations bill for EPA eliminated
    this prohibition on the use of brownfield grants to cover reasonable
    administrative costs. Unfortunately, this important provision was
    dropped during Conference Committee consideration of the bill.
    Therefore, we ask you to include this provision again in the fiscal
    year 2007 appropriations bill.
        Finally, we thank you for your leadership in eliminating a
    significant barrier to brownfields redevelopment. Your language in the
    August 2005 SAFETEA-LU legislation made innocent landowners, who
    purchased property before the enactment of the Brownfields law,
    eligible for EPA brownfields grants. This technical correction will
    enable hundreds of additional localities to assess, clean up and
    redevelop blighted property, but it will also increase the demand for
    EPA's brownfields grants.
        Thank you for considering our request to enhance EPA's Brownfields
    Program. The Program is making a critical difference to communities
    across the country, and fully funding this program would enable more
    communities to return blighted property to productive use. The
    technical fix would open the door to hundreds of additional communities
    who could apply for a brownfield grant and see the benefits of
    revitalization.
        If you have questions or want additional information, please
    contact Paul Connor of the National Association of Local Government
    Environmental Professionals at 202-638-6254, Judy Sheahan of the U.S.
    Conference of Mayors at 202-861-6775, or Ken Brown of the Ferguson
    Group at 202-331-8500.

             ATTACHMENT 1.--UN-FUNDED BROWNFIELDS GRANT APPLICATIONS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal                               Grants       Grants      Un-Funded
     year        Type of Grants         received   awarded \1\  applications
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      2004Assessment                        325          153           172
          Cleanup                           370           77           293
          RLF                                61           15            46
                                   -----------------------------------------
                Total                       756          245           511
                                   =========================================
      2005Assessment                        362          170           192
          Cleanup                           267          100           167
          RLF                                44           13            31
                                   -----------------------------------------
                Total                       673          283           390
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          \1\ The awarded grants in 2005 are approximate numbers.

    ATTACHMENT 2.--ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THE U.S. EPA BROWNFIELDS
                         PROGRAM: FISCAL YEAR 2003-2007

                                   BACKGROUND

        The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency established the federal
    brownfields program in 1995 as a demonstration program, which provided
    seed funding to several types of demonstration pilots across the
    country. The brownfields pilots helped demonstrate how federal funding
    for assessment and cleanup could leverage billions in private sector
    investment to help bring contaminated properties back into productive
    use. In 2002, Congress enacted the Small Business Liability Relief and
    Brownfields Revitalization Act, which provided the brownfields program
    with a Congressional mandate, new liability tools to promote reuse, and
    increased funding at a level of $250 million per year.
        Specifically, the law authorizes $200 million a year for
    brownfields assessment and clean-up grants to local communities. The
    $200 million a year includes direct grants for assessment and clean-up,
    as well as funding for EPA to administer the program (see table below).
    The law also authorizes $50 million a year in grants to States and
    Indian tribes to help them implement state brownfields programs.
        By any measure, the federal brownfields program has been a
    tremendous success. The EPA has invested approximately $800 million in
    brownfields site assessment and cleanup since 1995. According to EPA,
    the program's relatively modest investment has leveraged $9 billion in
    cleanup and redevelopment monies--a more than ten to one return on
    investment. In addition, this investment has resulted in the assessment
    of more than 8,000 properties and helped to create more than 35,000 new
    jobs nationwide.
        Unfortunately, both the Administration and the Congress have
    consistently under-funded the EPA Brownfields Program during the past
    four years. The result is that hundreds of thousands of brownfields
    sites remain idle and continue to blight neighborhoods across the
    country. Below is a summary of EPA Brownfields funding for the period
    of fiscal year 2003-fiscal year 2007, since the new law was enacted.

                                                          EPA BROWNFIELDS FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 2003-2007
                                                                    [In millions of dollars]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Fiscal year
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Law \1\    2003     2003     2004     2004     2005     2005     2006     2006     2007     2007
                                                                    request  enacted  request  enacted  request  enacted  request  enacted  request  enacted
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Assessment, cleanup grants...........................  \1\ 165    120.5     89.9    120.5     92.9    120.5     89.3    120.5     88.7     89.1        ?
    EPA Administration expenses..........................   \1\ 35     30.5     27.0     29.5     27.3     28.0     24.3     29.5     24.5     24.6        ?
    State Grants.........................................       50     60.0     49.7     60.0     49.7     60.0     49.6     60.0     49.3     49.5        ?
                                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total..........................................      250      211    166.6      210    169.9    208.5    163.2      210    162.5    163.2        ?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The federal brownfields law authorizes $200 million a year for brownfields assessment and clean-up grants to local communities. The $200 million a
      year includes direct grants for assessment and clean-up, as well as funding for EPA to administer the program. The $165 million for direct assessment
      and clean-up grants and the $35 million for EPA administrative expenses represent EPA estimates for those categories if the Brownfields Program were
      fully funded at the level authorized by the brownfields law.

     THE ADMINISTRATION IS EPA BROWNFIELDS BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR
                                   2003-2006

        The Administration requested only $120.5 million a year for
    brownfields assessment and cleanup grants to local communities--the
    most critical component of the brownfields program. This represents a
    27 percent reduction from the $165 million per year authorized for
    assessment and cleanup grants under the Brownfields Revitalization Act.
        The Administration requested only $210 million a year for the
    overall Brownfields program, including grants for assessment and
    cleanup, grants to the States, and administrative expenses for EPA to
    administer the program. This represents a 16 percent reduction from the
    $250 million per year authorized for the overall program under the
    Brownfields Revitalization Act.

     THE ADMINISTRATION IS EPA BROWNFIELDS BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR
                                      2007

        The Administration has requested only $89.1 million in fiscal year
    2007 for brownfields assessment and cleanup grants to local
    communities--the most critical component of the brownfields program.
    This represents a 46 percent reduction from the $165 million authorized
    for assessment and cleanup grants under the Brownfields Revitalization
    Act. It also represents a 26 percent reduction from the Administration
    request for fiscal years 2003-2006.
        The Administration requested only $163.2 million in fiscal year
    2007 for the overall Brownfields program, including grants for
    assessment and cleanup, grants to the States, and administrative
    expenses for EPA to administer the program. This represents a 35
    percent reduction from the $250 million per year authorized for the
    overall program under the Brownfields Revitalization Act. It also
    represents a 22 percent reduction from the Administration request for
    fiscal years 2003-2006.

     CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR EPA BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR
                                   2003-2006

        Congress has appropriated an average of $90.2 million for
    brownfields assessment and cleanup grants to local communities--the
    most critical component of the brownfields program. The funding has
    ranged from a high of $92.9 million in fiscal year 2004 to a low of
    $88.7 million in fiscal year 2006. This funding level represents a 45
    percent reduction from the $165 million per year authorized for
    assessment and cleanup grants under the Brownfields Revitalization Act.
        Congress has appropriated an average of $165.6 million a year for
    the overall Brownfields program, including grants for assessment and
    cleanup, grants to the States, and administrative expenses for EPA to
    administer the program for the period of fiscal year 2003 through
    fiscal year 2006. The funding has ranged from a high of $169.9 million
    in fiscal year 2004 to a low of $162.5 million in fiscal year 2006.
    This represents a 34 percent reduction from the $250 million per year
    authorized for the overall program under the Brownfields Revitalization
    Act.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the National Association of Service and
                           Conservation Corps (NASCC)

        The National Association of Service and Conservation Corps (NASCC)
    urges you to fully fund, at $12,000,000, the Public Lands Corps Healthy
    Forests Restoration Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-154) which was signed
    into law on December 30, 2005.
        When funded, the Act will enable the Departments of Agriculture and
    Interior to engage Service and Conservation Corps in projects: ``(A) To
    reduce wildfire risk to a community, municipal water supply, or other
    at-risk Federal land; (B) To protect a watershed or address a threat to
    forest and rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire; (C) To
    address the impact of insect or disease infestations or other damaging
    agents on forest and rangeland health'' and for other purposes. Funding
    the Public Lands Corps will enable federal land managers to cost-
    effectively complete critical backlogged maintenance projects on
    federal lands.
        NASCC is the voice of the nation's 108 Service and Conservation
    Corps. Currently there are Corps operating in 40 states and the
    District of Columbia that annually enroll more than 23,000 young people
    who contribute about 13 million hours or service to their communities.
        NASCC Corps are direct descendents of the Civilian Conservation
    Corps (CCC) of the Depression-era that provided work and vocational
    training for unemployed single young men through conserving and
    developing the country's natural resources. Between 1933 and 1941 when
    it was disbanded, the CCC had employed almost 3.5 million men who
    planted an estimated 2.5 billion trees, protected 40 million acres of
    farmland from erosion, drained 248,000 acres of swamp land, replanted
    almost a million acres of grazing land, built 125,000 miles of roads,
    fought fires, and created 800 state parks and 52,000 acres of
    campgrounds. But the biggest legacy of the CCC may have been the hope
    it provided both the young men and their families.
        Today's Corps are a proven strategy for giving young men and women,
    many of whom are economically or otherwise disadvantaged and out-of-
    work and/or out-of-school, the chance to change their own lives and
    those of their families, as well as improve their communities. Of the
    23,000 Corpsmembers enrolled in 2004-2005, 55 percent had no High
    School diploma, 64 percent reported family income below the federal
    poverty level, 30 percent had previous court involvement and, at least
    10 percent had been in foster care. Contemporary Corps provide
    thousands of 16-24 year olds the In return for their efforts to restore
    and strengthen their communities, Corpsmembers receive: (1) a living
    allowance, (2) classroom training to improve basic competencies and, if
    necessary, to secure a GED or high school diploma, (3) experiential and
    environmental service-learning based education, (4) generic and
    technical skills training, and (5) a wide range of supportive services.
        Research has shown that youth who complete Corps programs have
    higher rates of employment and earn more than their counterparts.
    Corpsmembers also score higher on measures of personal and social
    responsibility and are more likely to earn a college degree. Corps
    generate a positive return for every dollar invested.
        Public Law 109-154 authorizes $12 million for the Secretaries of
    Agriculture and Interior to contract with qualified youth and
    conservation Corps to carry out projects on public lands that are
    consistent with the goals of the Healthy Forests Act. It authorizes $8
    million for priority projects and $4 million for other appropriate
    conservation projects.
        The Act creates two preferences; one for projects and the other for
    Corps. With regard to contracts and cooperative agreements to work on
    ``appropriate'' conservation projects, the Secretaries ``may give
    preference to qualified youth or conservation Corps located in a
    specific area that have a substantial portion of members who are
    economically, physically, or educationally disadvantaged to carry out
    projects within the area.'' With regard to priority projects as defined
    by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, the Secretaries ``shall to the
    maximum extent practicable, give preference to qualified youth or
    conservation Corps located in that specific area that have a
    substantial portion of members who are economically, physically, or
    educationally disadvantaged.'' The Secretaries may also authorize
    projects to be carried out on Federal, State, local, or private land as
    part of a Federal disaster prevention or relief effort.
        Thus, the purposes of the Public Lands Corps Healthy Forests
    Restoration Act are twofold: to participate in the fight against
    wildfires, invasive species, other threats to our public lands and
    other disaster prevention and relief activities, and to engage young
    people, particularly those who are disadvantaged, in these efforts. A
    third benefit of the PLC is that the government may not pay more than
    75 percent of the cost of any project. The remaining 25 percent may be
    provided in cash or in-kind from nonfederal sources.
        According to Congressional testimony provided by the Department of
    the Interior on April 5, ``the 2006 fire season started early this
    year, and fire activity has been well above normal in the Southern and
    Eastern areas of the United States. The National Interagency Fire
    Center (NIFC) Predictive Service Office expects fire potential to be
    significantly higher than normal across most of the Southwest, southern
    California, portions of the Rocky Mountain area, Texas, Oklahoma, and
    central Alaska. . . . Overall, we anticipate a very active fire season
    for the remainder of 2006.'' According to the NIFC, so far this year 18
    states have reported fires that consumed at least 10,000 acres.
        In 2004 the National Fire News noted that ``as firefighters control
    wildland fires, another group of quiet heroes move into the area to
    start the healing. After a wildland fire, the land may need
    stabilization to prevent loss of topsoil through erosion and prevent
    the movement of dirt into rivers and streams. Land management
    specialists and volunteers jump start the renewal of plant life through
    seeding and planting with annuals, trees, and native species that help
    retain soils and fight invasive weeds. It's a long term process that
    comes alive as the wildland fires die down.''
        This is the kind of work at which Corps excel and can play an
    increasingly important role. Service and Conservation Corps are an
    experienced, cost-effective, and valuable resource in the fight against
    fires and infestation. Corps do fuels reduction work, create firescapes
    around new communities as cities spread into previously rural areas,
    provide logistical support to firefighters, remove invasive species
    like Tamarisk, Leafy Spurge and Russian Olive, combat agricultural
    pests and insects such as the Bark Beetle and Pine Beetle, and educate
    homeowners and others about how to prevent fires. They also partner
    with community-based organizations in disaster preparedness and relief
    activities.
        Some examples of the work performed by Corps are:
      --Eleven Corps have sent more than 300 young people and staff to the
            Gulf Coast. Corps from California, Minnesota, Montana, New
            York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Alaska, Vermont, Florida and
            Washington State are helping residents rebuild their homes and
            their lives by clearing debris, repairing roofs in Mississippi,
            managing a supply warehouse in Louisiana, serving displaced
            residents aboard ships in Alabama, and installing temporary
            ``hard roofs'' on historic buildings in New Orleans.
      --In 2004, the Montana Conservation Corps (MCC) completed over 600
            acres of wildfire fuels reduction projects in partnership with
            national parks, state agencies on private lands, and local
            conservation districts. Its priority has been to create
            defensible space around historic buildings in the national
            parks and around campgrounds. In West Yellowstone, MCC
            partnered with the Chamber of Commerce to remove 300 hazardous
            trees lining the popular Rendezvous Ski Trails, site of
            national ski races, and an important economic asset in a
            community trying to diversify from the traditional snowmobile-
            based economy.
      --The Western Colorado Conservation Corps (WCCC) has done work in the
            urban interface in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
            Park housing area to insure safe passage for emergency response
            workers. Corpsmembers have been trained in firescaping around
            new suburban neighborhoods as cities spread into rural areas.
            They help to provide both visually aesthetic and fire resistant
            landscape around structures and along the avenues of emergency
            response.
      --The California Conservation Corps (CCC) is the nation's oldest,
            largest and longest-running Conservation Corps. Nearly 90,000
            young men and women have worked more than 50 million hours to
            protect and enhance California's environment and communities
            and have provided six million hours of assistance with
            emergencies like fires, floods and earthquakes.
      --The Coconino Rural Environment Corps located in Flagstaff, Arizona,
            thins hundreds of acres of federal, state, county, city, and
            private lands every year. The Corps has created multiple
            partnerships in local communities to mitigate the hazards of
            catastrophic wild fires including one to provide local Native
            American communities with more than 400 cords of fire wood. The
            Corps has increased community awareness to the dangers of
            wildfire and the risks associated with living in one of the
            most fire prone forests in the world, thus creating a more fire
            wise community. The CREC thins more than 500 acres a year and
            returns more than 4000 acres to native grasslands.
        Invasive species are another large and growing threat to our public
    lands. Almost half of the plants and animals listed as endangered
    species by the federal government have been negatively affected by
    invasive species. Purple loosestrife, for example, diminishes waterfowl
    habitats, alters wetland structure and function, and chokes out native
    plants. The Asian long horned beetle destroys valuable city trees and
    could spread. Invasive plants are estimated to infest 100 million acres
    in the United States. A Bureau of Land Management study (1996)
    estimated that 4,600 acres of additional Federal public natural areas
    in the Western United States are negatively affected by invasive plant
    species every day. One report indicates that invasive species cost the
    United States an estimated $137 billion a year.
        Corps have also been mobilized in California, Montana, Colorado,
    New Mexico, Washington, Utah and elsewhere to fight invasive species; a
    growing problem on our public lands. For example:
        The Montana Conservation Corps is partnering with the National
    Forest Foundation, Gallatin National Forest, and Gallatin/Big Sky Weed
    Management Area Committee to undertake an extensive invasive weed
    mapping and removal project in the Lee Metcalf Wilderness. In 2003,
    partnering with the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, MCC
    floated sections of the Missouri Breaks Wild and Scenic River to
    inventory and map patches of invasive Leafy Spurge using hand-held GPS
    units and data loggers. The crews collected thousands of Flea Beetles,
    a tested and successful biological control method for leafy spurge, and
    returned to the surveyed sites to release the flea beetles in the most
    sensitive areas.
      --The Rocky Mountain Youth Corps (RMYC), based in Taos and the
            Western Colorado Conservation Corps (WCCC), based in Grand
            Junction, Colorado, have been actively involved in tamarisk
            removal for several years. The WCCC has partnered with the
            Colorado State Parks Department and the state Division of
            Wildlife, the Audubon Society, and the Tamarisk Coalition to
            control acres of Tamarisk and Russian Olive, Hounds Tongue,
            Canada Thistle and other species, as well as 15 miles of
            Salsafy, Russian Thistle, and Storks Bill.
        The Public Lands Corps will provide work experience to low-income,
    disadvantaged youth between the ages of 16-24 who are enrolled in the
    Corps, giving them the chance to develop the skills and habits they
    will need to become employed and productive citizens. This experience
    will help them help themselves, their families, and their communities.
    It will also enable federal land managers to cost-effectively complete
    critical backlogged maintenance projects. We urge you to provide $12
    million to support this program and we appreciate your attention to
    this request.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the New York State Energy Research and
      Development Authority and the National Association of State Energy
                                   Officials

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Peter Smith of
    New York, and Chair of the National Association of State Energy
    Officials (NASEO). NASEO represents the energy offices in the states,
    territories and the District of Columbia. NASEO is submitting this
    testimony in support of funding for the Energy Star program (within the
    Climate Protection Division of the Office of Air and Radiation) at the
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NASEO supports funding of
    at least $15 million above the Administration's fiscal year 2007
    request of $45 million, to a level of $60 million, including specific
    report language directing that the funds be utilized only for the
    Energy Star program.
        The Energy Star program is focused on voluntary efforts that reduce
    the use of energy, promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy, and
    works with states, local governments and business to achieve these
    goals in a cooperative manner. NASEO has worked very closely with EPA
    and over thirty-five states are Energy Star Partners. In 2005, EPA and
    NASEO announced a new Clean Energy and Environment State Partnership
    program, which already has approximately fifteen state members. We are
    working closely with EPA on a new Energy Efficiency Action Plan and the
    Energy Star Challenge. On October 5, 2005 we worked with EPA to have
    over half the states declare ``Change a Light'' Day. With very limited
    funding, EPA's Energy Star program works closely with the state energy
    offices to give consumers and businesses the opportunity to make better
    energy decisions, without regulation or mandates. As we are facing an
    energy emergency, these programs are even more urgently needed today.
        Energy Star focuses on energy efficient products as well as
    buildings. In 2005, 175 million Energy Star products were purchased.
    The Energy Star label is recognized across the United States. It makes
    the work of the state energy offices much easier, by working with the
    public on easily recognized products, services and targets. In order to
    obtain the Energy Star label a product has to meet established
    guidelines. Energy Star's voluntary partnership programs include Energy
    Star Buildings, Energy Star Homes, Energy Star Small Business and
    Energy Star Labeled Products. The program operates by encouraging
    consumers, working closely with state and local governments, to
    purchase these products and services. Marketplace barriers are also
    eradicated through education.
        In addition to the state partners, the program has more than 8,000
    company partners. More than 500,000 families now live in Energy Star
    homes, saving $110 million annually. We are working with EPA, DOE and
    HUD on the development of a ``Home Performance'' with Energy Star
    activity. This allows us to focus on whole-house improvements, not
    simply a single product or service. This will be extremely beneficial
    to homeowners. Pilots have already been undertaken in New York,
    Illinois and Wisconsin. We are also working closely with EPA in the
    implementation of the new Energy Star Challenge, which is encouraging
    businesses and institutions to reduce energy use by 10 percent or more,
    usually through very simple actions. We will work with the building
    owners to identify the level of energy use and compare that to a
    national metric, establish goals and work with them to make the
    specified improvements. Again, this is being done without mandates.
        The state energy offices are very encouraged with progress made at
    EPA and in our states to promote programs to make schools more energy
    efficient, in addition to an expanding Energy Star business partners
    program. This expansion will continue. EPA has been expanding the
    technical assistance work with the state energy offices in such areas
    as benchmark training (how to rate the performance of buildings),
    setting an energy target and training in such areas as financing
    options for building improvements and building upgrade strategies.
        The state energy offices are working cooperatively with our peers
    in the state environmental agencies and state public utilities
    commissions to ensure that programs, regulations, projects and policies
    are developed recognizing both energy and environmental concerns. We
    have worked closely with this program at EPA to address these issues.
    The level of cooperation from the agency has been extraordinary and we
    encourage these continued efforts.

                                 STATE EXAMPLES

        In the examples noted below, the state energy offices have been
    active program participants and promotion agents for Energy Star. We
    can provide a myriad of other state examples at your request.
        Alaska.--Thirty companies and public entities in the State are now
    working with the Energy Star program, with 7,200 homes already earning
    the Energy Star label. With high energy costs, the evaluation tools
    prepared by Energy Star have been very helpful in assessing building
    performance and recommending and implementing improvements. For
    example, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District has upgraded
    lighting, installed programmable thermostats and taken other measures
    to reduce energy usage.
        California.--More than 1,850 companies and public entities are
    participating in the program, with 202 manufacturers of Energy Star
    products located in the State. More than 21,100 homes have already
    earned the Energy Star label (D.R. Horton Homes built 1,049 homes in
    2005 to Energy Star standards). The State is focusing on a new homes
    program, there is a State ``Energy Star'' purchase requirement and
    companies as varied as Intel Corporation and Hilton Hotels have been
    program participants.
        Colorado.--Energy Star initiatives and projects have been
    implemented throughout the State. Some notable examples include the:
    (1) Poudre School District in Fort Collins, which completed 95 projects
    saving over $300,000/year; (2) Jefferson County Public Schools in
    Golden, which are saving $2.8 million each year; and (3) 26 different
    homebuilders constructing Energy Star homes (Aspen Homes now builds 100
    percent of its homes to Energy Star standards). Hundreds of companies
    and public entities are participating in the program.
        Idaho.--Twenty-eight companies are building Energy Star homes in
    the State. Western Window in Caldwell is producing Energy Star windows
    for use in the southern part of the State. Utilities are actively
    participating in the program, including both investor-owned and
    municipal utilities. The State's ``GemStar'' program is promoting the
    use of high performance homes. Over 100 companies and other public
    entities are involved in the program.
        Maryland.--Almost 800 companies and public agencies are involved in
    Maryland. Over 4,000 homes have earned the Energy Star label. State
    legislation has promoted the use of Energy Star appliances, including
    making some energy efficient models tax free. Partners include such
    diverse entities as Harley-Davidson, Howard County Public Schools and
    Archstone Smith Realty.
        Mississippi.--With 60 companies and public entities, numerous
    manufacturers and many homes participating in Energy Star and earning
    the Energy Star label, Mississippi is moving aggressively to promote
    the program. Retailers stocking Energy Star products include Wal-Mart,
    Best Buy, Circuit City, Home Depot, Lowe's, Sam's Club and Sears. Five
    companies are now building Energy Star homes. This has taken on added
    urgency in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
        Montana.--Over 50 companies and public entities are participating
    in the program, with 210 retail locations selling Energy Star products.
    Executive Order 03-01 has directed that Energy Star be included in
    state procurement. Active partners include the Northwest Energy
    Efficiency Alliance, Montana State University, hospitals, schools
    districts, etc. The State has forcefully promoted the program.
        Nevada.--Over 100 companies and public entities are program
    participants. The state energy office and the public utility commission
    are working together to promote a variety of activities, including a
    recent Energy Star appliance rebate program for utilities. The Nevada
    Energy Star Partners Campaign has increased consumer awareness to 90
    percent. The Clark County School District has reduced annual utility
    costs by $4 million through energy efficiency efforts across 147
    schools. The City of Las Vegas has saved 4.8 million kWh through
    aggressive energy efficiency measures. Thirty-three companies are now
    building Energy Star homes. 3,600 homes built by Astoria Homes have now
    earned the Energy Star label.
        New Hampshire.--Over 110 companies and numerous public entities are
    program participants. Hundreds of retail locations are selling Energy
    Star products. Rebates for Energy Star products are now offered by the
    utilities as a result of regulatory actions. The State initiated a
    master lease program to promote performance contracting for energy
    efficiency initiatives. Over 500 State-owned buildings are either being
    evaluated or undergoing modifications.
        New Mexico.--Over 80 companies and public entities are
    participating in the program, with over 2,200 homes already receiving
    the Energy Star rating. Active participants thus far include Two Park
    Square in Albuquerque, the federal buildings in Gallup and Roswell, the
    Albuquerque Indian Hospital and the VA Health Center and scores of
    schools in Albuquerque. Six companies are now building Energy Star
    homes, led by Artistic Homes.
        North Dakota.--Thirty companies and public entities are
    participating, with 3 manufacturers of Energy Star products located in
    the State. Numerous schools have been involved, including, for example,
    Grand Forks West Elementary School, Grand Forks Winship Elementary
    School, Cavalier Public Schools and Walhalla Public Schools. A variety
    of retailers sell these products and Thermal Line Windows in Mandan
    sells Energy Star windows in 12 states.
        Utah.--Over 110 companies and public entities are program
    participants, with over 170 retail outlets selling Energy Star
    products. For example, more than 1,800 Energy Star homes have been
    constructed by Ence Homes (St. George). Thirty-two companies are now
    building Energy Star homes. Amsco Windows of Salt Lake City is a major
    seller of Energy Star windows. The University of Utah has now
    retrofitted 81 buildings with significant energy efficiency
    improvements.
        Vermont.--Over 150 companies and public entities are program
    participants, with 5 manufacturers of Energy Star products located in
    the State. Over 1,900 homes have already earned the Energy Star rating,
    with active promotion of the program accelerating market penetration
    and acceptance. The State has created three Energy Star Retail Centers
    with associated training programs. The state energy office, the Vermont
    Energy Investment Corporation (operating public benefit programs),
    Efficiency Vermont (composed of 20 utilities and others), Green
    Mountain College, Killington Ski Resort and the University of Vermont
    are all aggressive program participants. Vermont is also part of the
    Northeast Energy Star Lighting and Appliance Initiative that has saved
    8 billion kWh in a five-state region.
        West Virginia.--Seventy companies and public entities are
    participating in the program. The state energy office has provided
    technical assistance to industries, public institutions and local
    governments to promote Energy Star products and services, including
    over 100 energy audits leading to significant improvements. Individual
    participants have included Royal Vendors, Inc. (Kearneysville),
    Simonton Windows (Parkersburg) and Marion County Schools (Fairmont).
    Expanded public information initiatives focus on Energy Star.
        Wisconsin.--Almost 800 companies and public entities are
    participating in Energy Star. For example, over 1,900 homes constructed
    by Veridian Homes have earned Energy Star status. In addition, 45
    schools, 6 office buildings, 4 supermarkets and 3,000 existing homes
    have now earned Energy Star recognition. In addition to active
    promotion work by the state energy office having spearheaded the
    implementation of 22 facility upgrades leading to $2.6 million in
    annual savings, 350 builders are constructing Energy Star homes.
    Johnson Controls, based in Milwaukee, has been an industry leader in
    promoting Energy Star through their performance contracting activities.
    A new promotional campaign has led to the sale of more than 900,000
    Energy Star qualified products.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Increases in funding for the Energy Star Programs are justified.
    NASEO endorses these activities and the state energy offices are
    working very closely with EPA to cooperatively implement a variety of
    critical national programs.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Foresters

                                  INTRODUCTION

        The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) is pleased to
    provide testimony on the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) budget request for
    fiscal year 2007. Representing the directors of state forestry agencies
    from all fifty states, eight U.S. territories, and the District of
    Columbia, our testimony centers around those program areas most
    relevant to the long-term forestry operations of our constituents.
    State and Private Forestry programs multiply the public benefits of
    federal funding by leveraging in-kind contributions through cost-share
    programs and matching funds from states. These programs assist private
    landowners in providing society with such public benefits as clean
    water, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, and flood control.
    Wildland Fire Management supports essential State and Private Forestry
    and federal programs that address wildland fire.
        Our recommendations include restoring funding to our top three
    priorities (State Fire Assistance, Cooperative Forest Health
    Management, and Urban and Community Forestry) and discussing other
    opportunities for Congress to further the advancement of sustainable
    management on both public and private forestlands nationwide.

    NASF FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USDA FOREST SERVICE IN FISCAL YEAR 2007
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    President's
                                           2006       proposed     Proposed
                                         Enacted        2007      2007  NASF
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State Fire Assistance:
        State and Private Forestry...         32.9         27.0         35.0
        Wildland Fire Management.....         45.8         29.1         55.0
                                      --------------------------------------
          Total......................         78.7         56.1         90.0
                                      ======================================
    Cooperative Forest Health
     Management:
        State and Private Forestry...         46.9         34.6         48.0
        Wildland Fire Management.....          9.9          4.6         10.0
                                      --------------------------------------
          Total......................         56.8         39.2         58.0
                                      ======================================
    Urban and Community Forestry.....         28.5         26.8         36.0
                                      ======================================
    Forest Inventory and Analysis:
        Research and Development.....         59.4         59.3         60.0
        State and Private Forestry...          4.6  ...........          5.0
                                      --------------------------------------
          Total......................         64.0         59.3         65.0
                                      ======================================
    Forest Stewardship...............         34.2         33.9         37.0
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY PROGRAMS

    State Fire Assistance (SFA)
        State Fire Assistance (SFA) provides crucial financial and
    technical assistance to states and local fire departments for wildland
    fire management. SFA helps to ensure preparedness of local resources,
    which serve as the first line of defense for their forests and
    communities. These fire fighting resources function as both ``first
    responders'' for local incidents and as ``ready reserves'' for large
    federally managed catastrophic fires. Further, SFA is the only federal
    program that currently provides funding for fuel reduction work on non-
    federal lands, regardless of their proximity to federal lands. It is
    also one of the few programs that helps communities develop Community
    Wildfire Protection Plans, which are an important component of the
    Healthy Forests Restoration Act. SFA also helps prepare states for
    dealing with non-fire emergencies, such as hurricane recovery and other
    all-hazard events.
        SFA provides the flexibility to meet different state needs, which
    may include firefighting preparedness, firefighter training, fire
    suppression, and hazardous fuel reduction, Community Wildfire
    Protection Plans, as well as prevention activities. SFA is funded under
    both Cooperative Fire Protection (State and Private Forestry) and
    Wildland Fire Management in the Forest Service budget. Funds under
    State and Private Forestry are used to help states increase
    preparedness at the local level through training, coordination, and
    communication to local firefighters. Funding under Wildland Fire
    Management is used for both preparedness and hazard mitigation.
    Reducing these funds would seriously hamper the states' ability to
    treat hazardous fuels on private lands and to work with communities to
    complete Community Wildfire Protection Plans.
        NASF recommends increased funding for State Fire Assistance at $35
    million under Cooperative Fire Protection and $55 million under
    Wildland Fire Management. Increasing funding for these line items will
    provide continued protection for local communities from catastrophic
    wildland fires, many of which originate on federal lands.
    Cooperative Forest Health Management
        The Cooperative Forest Health Management program provides funding
    assistance to address forest health issues on non-federal forestland.
    Cooperative Forest Health Management activities include prevention,
    detection, and suppression of damaging insects, diseases, and plants.
    Every year, the American public loses billions of dollars to damage by
    invasive species and the cost of insect and disease detection and
    control. To illustrate the extent of the cost, the potential losses
    from damage by one insect pest, the emerald ash borer, are $25 million
    in ash timber and an additional $20 to $60 billion in street tree
    losses across the nation. The Cooperative Forest Health Management
    program assists in the development and application of new technologies
    that mitigate these forest health concerns and reduce public expenses.
    Forest pests know no land ownership boundaries and often move to and
    from federal lands. These funds, from both State and Private Forestry
    (S&PF) and Wildland Fire Management, are critical to the maintenance of
    healthy and sustainable forests.
        Funding for Cooperative Forest Health Management under Wildland
    Fire Management is used primarily for forest insect and disease
    mitigation in high hazard areas, such as forests at high risk of fire
    or those recently burned and susceptible to insect and disease attack.
    Funding under State and Private Forestry provides states with support
    for prevention, detection, and suppression of harmful insects and
    diseases.
        NASF recommends funding S&PF Cooperative Forest Health Management
    at the fiscal year 2006 level of $48 million to provide the tools
    needed to address forest health issues across the many non-federal
    forest types and ownerships in the United States.
        NASF also recommends $10 million to continue level support for
    Cooperative Forest Health Management under Wildland Fire Management to
    address forest health problems that increase the risk of catastrophic
    wildland fire. Cooperative Forest Health Management funds help states
    achieve the goals of the Healthy Forests Initiative by restoring
    healthy forests across ownership types.
    Urban and Community Forestry
        The Urban and Community Forestry program provides technical and
    financial assistance to promote the stewardship of urban and community
    trees and forest resources. The program leverages existing local
    efforts that help urban areas and rural communities manage, maintain,
    and improve their tree cover and green spaces. Such efforts emphasize
    the vital connection between human and natural environments, and create
    social and aesthetic benefits. These efforts also reduce energy
    consumption, create healthier human environments, and reduce the
    prevalence and severity of flooding in our communities.
        NASF worked with the Forest Service to develop a new allocation
    formula to distribute funding among the states and territories. This
    new formula more closely aligns state funding allocation with program
    goals and objectives.
        NASF recommends funding the Urban and Community Forestry program at
    the fiscal year 2003 level of $36 million to enhance the quality of
    life for communities in urban and rural areas.
    Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
        The Forest Inventory and Analysis program provides crucial forest
    information to policy makers and land managers, enabling them to make
    informed decisions about our nation's forested lands. FIA data provides
    users with relevant information on the condition, extent, use, and
    health of forests across ownerships. Because of this benchmark
    accomplishment, FIA must continue to provide essential inventory data
    for addressing long-term forest management needs. Funding for FIA from
    State and Private Forestry is essential for supporting state inventory
    crews, an integral component of the program. NASF recommends funding
    FIA at $60 million through Research and Development and $5 million
    through State and Private Forestry, for a total of $65 million. The
    program must continue to advance toward full implementation in all
    states. Together with a well-funded research program, FIA will continue
    to provide essential inventory data for addressing long-term forest
    management needs.
    Forest Stewardship Program
        The Forest Stewardship Program continues to serve as the primary
    program for promoting sustainable forest management on family forest
    lands. Since its inception in 1991, the Forest Stewardship Program has
    turned out 240,000 Stewardship Plans covering 30 million acres. By
    expanding the sustainable management of private forest land, the public
    receives an array of benefits including increased water quality,
    improved plant and animal habitat, carbon sequestration, and wood
    products that support local economies. NASF recommends increasing
    funding to meet the President's fiscal year 2006 request of $37 for the
    Forest Stewardship Program. We encourage efforts to better target the
    delivery of the Forest Stewardship Program in order to focus on
    priority resources concerns.

                             OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS

    Federal Wildland Fire Management
        NASF recommends continued funding of federal wildland fire
    management at the 10-year average. Funding is integral to rapid
    suppression of small fires before they grow into large and costly
    fires. The increasing costs of wildfires--due mainly to drought, fuel
    accumulation, and the rapid expansion of the wildland-urban interface--
    makes adequate suppression funding critical. We support continued
    funding for preparedness, fire operations, and hazardous fuels
    treatment on federal land, including the $15 million provided under
    State and Private Forestry appropriations that may be used on non-
    federal land to protect communities at risk from adjacent USFS lands
    where hazard reduction activities are planned.
    DOI conservation grant programs
        NASF supports the Department of the Interior conservation grant
    programs for private landowners to manage their land for a variety of
    public benefits. Continued funding will ensure these programs remain
    viable.

                                   CONCLUSION

        NASF seeks the Subcommittee's support for a Forest Service fiscal
    year 2007 budget that will ensure the continued delivery of a broad
    range of public benefits from privately owned forest lands.
    Collaboration among stakeholders across the landscape--federal, state,
    and local government agencies, private landowners, industry, and non-
    profit organizations--is necessary to manage for the wide range of
    forest resources found on all ownerships and the values derived from
    those lands. Cooperative Forestry, State and Private Forestry (S&PF),
    and Wildland Fire Management provide these links. The federal share
    leverages private dollars and provides an important catalyst for
    collaboration in order to take the work far beyond the usual boundaries
    of federal land management.
        We realize that the Subcommittee will be faced with some difficult
    funding decisions this year and will have to make sacrifices and
    tradeoffs to some programs. NASF encourages you to keep our priorities
    in mind when making these decisions.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide our testimony.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Universities
                       and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC)

        On behalf of the NASULGC Board on Natural Resources, we thank you
    for your support of science and research programs within the United
    States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA). We appreciate the opportunity to provide detailed
    recommendations for: $788 million for the EPA Office of Science &
    Technology, and the efforts of the American Competitiveness Initiative
    (ACI); $100 million for the EPA Science to Achieve Results program; and
    $1.2 billion for the USGS.
        NASULGC Supports the American Competitiveness Initiative and the
    Administration's request of $788 million for the EPA Office of Science
    and Technology.--State universities and land-grant colleges truly
    welcome and are excited by the President's American Competitiveness
    Initiative (ACI) and the renewed national focus on scientific research
    and education. Education and scientific research have served as the
    infrastructure and foundation for much of Nation's economic and
    national security. We feel targeted federal investments in our top
    priority programs, will provide America with secure economic,
    environmental, and homeland security. $788 million of the EPA of
    Science and Technology would provide small increases to maintain
    ongoing programs. Without sound science, EPA will be unable to
    correctly identify and develop sound management and mitigation
    strategies for critical environmental problems. Any cuts to EPA S&T
    would result in drastic reductions in essential extramural research
    funded by the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and education
    and outreach carried out by the Office of Education. Within the EPA we
    further recommend:
        The NASULGC Board on Natural Resources requests that the Committee
    restore EPA STAR funding to $100 million for competitive grants and $10
    million for graduate fellowships.--One of the most effective programs
    for improving the agency's science capabilities is the Science to
    Achieve Results (STAR) program. The investment EPA ORD makes in STAR is
    especially significant and effective because STAR is not a stand-alone
    grants program. It is coordinated with EPA program and regional
    offices, and targeted at high-priority needs that support the agency's
    mission. The program is leveraged by the participation of other federal
    agencies and the private sector, and involves thousands of research
    scholars in universities.
        NASULGC universities have used STAR extramural research funding to:
      --Develop evaluations of U.S. estuarine and coastal water quality
            degradation,
      --Analyze ecosystem health and impairment,
      --Establish effective multi-university research collaborations, and
      --Develop techniques to assess the risks to fish in the Great Lakes
            associated with exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals.
        Grants from the STAR program have provided financial support for
    several of the top graduate students. These students are now working at
    colleges and universities to educate others in society about
    sustainable management of the Earth's natural resources and maintenance
    of the ecological services that support all life.
        STAR graduate fellowships help move America towards becoming more
    competitive by investing in the next generation of scientists and
    engineers, and providing opportunities for students to develop the
    skills needed to enhance this nation's environmental science expertise.
    Moreover, these grants are often a way to get minority graduate
    students engaged in high-level scientific research. STAR investigator-
    initiated research grants are a very important tool to address future
    workforce needs and are significantly expanding the number of
    scientists conducting EPA-related research and enhancing the overall
    quality of EPA Science and Technology.
        NASULGC recommends $1.2 billion for the United States Geological
    Survey, an increase of $200 million above the fiscal year 2006
    conference report. This increase would restore cuts proposed in the
    President's budget; cover rising fixed costs such as salaries and rent;
    accomplish core tasks that have been under-funded for years; and keep
    up with inflation.
        NASULGC supports this amount in coordination with the USGS
    Coalition an alliance of organizations united by a commitment to the
    continued vitality of the unique combination of biological,
    geographical, geological, and hydrological programs of the United
    States Geological Survey.
        In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the United States Geological
    Survey (USGS) was praised for quickly arriving on the scene and
    providing reliable data that assisted recovery teams. As members of
    academic community that have partnered with the USGS for the past
    several decades, we were very pleased with their performance during
    this catastrophe. We have worked with the USGS to provide the public
    and private sector, as well as policymakers, with crucial information
    about natural resources, natural hazards and wildlife diversity.
    Furthermore, the USGS provides geospatial data, from maps to satellite
    images, for improved land and wildlife management. Our universities
    provide necessary expertise to complement the USGS workforce, and the
    land-grant missions of our universities dovetail appropriately with the
    resource development and conservation missions of the Department of
    Interior. We further recommend that part of the $1.2 billion request be
    used to support:
        The NASULGC Board on Natural Resources requests $8,775,000 for the
    Water Resources Research Institutes, an increase of $2,275,000 over the
    fiscal year 2006 appropriation. This request is based on:
      --$7,000,000 in base grants for the water resources research
            institutes as authorized by Section 104(b) of the Water
            Resources Research Act, including state-based competitive
            grants;
      --$1,500,000 to support activities authorized by section 104(g) of
            the Act, a national competitive grants program, and
      --$275,000 for program administration.
        The Administration's proposal to eliminate funding for this
    excellent partnership with state governments and universities is
    unjustified. Federal funding for the water resources research institute
    program is the catalyst that moves states and cities to invest in
    university-based research to address their own water management issues.
    The added benefit is that research to address state and local problems
    often helps solve problems that are of regional and national
    importance. Many of the projects funded through this program provide
    the knowledge for state or local managers to implement new federal laws
    and regulations. Perhaps most important, the federal funding provides
    the driving force of collaboration in water research and education
    among local, state, federal and university water professionals.
        This program is essential to solving emerging and future state,
    regional and inter-jurisdictional water resources problems. Institutes
    in Louisiana, California and North Carolina, made major contributions
    in emergency planning and hurricane recovery, protecting groundwater
    aquifers from sea water intrusion and reducing water treatment costs.
    The institutes also provide training for the next generation of water
    resource managers and scientists.
        The water resources research institute program is constantly
    striving for efficiency in research administration and collaboration.
    State water resources research institutes take the relatively modest
    amount of federal funding appropriated by this Subcommittee, match it
    2:1 with state, local and other funds and use it to put university
    scientists to work finding solutions to the most pressing local and
    state water problems that are of national importance. The Institutes
    have raised more than $15 in other funds for every dollar funded
    through this program.
        The NASULGC Board on Natural Resources supports $61 million for the
    Mineral Resources Program (MRP), which would restore cuts made over the
    past 5 years, and is a modest increase of about $7 million above fiscal
    year 2006. Our request should set aside $5 million for the creation of
    a Mineral Education and Research Initiative (MERIT), a peer-reviewed
    external grants program for applied research and education in mineral
    resources and material flows analysis conducted by universities, state
    organizations, and individuals in the private sector. Last year, the
    Senate appropriated and the USGS committed $1,000,000 toward Mineral
    Resources External Research, but additional funds are needed to expand
    upon this first step. Apart from this small program, there is virtually
    no funding to sustain applied science research and education related to
    mineral resources.
        The establishment of a consistently well-funded MERIT would follow
    the recommendations of three recent National Research Council reports
    and would help arrest the dramatic decline of minerals expertise in the
    United States. Funding levels of $5 million in fiscal year 2007, and $8
    million in fiscal year 2008, is an appropriate ramp-up for the external
    grants program, which ideally should reach a level of $20 million per
    year. Modest levels ($1,000,000) of external research funding by the
    MRP in fiscal year 2005 to six universities supported graduate student
    research and education.
        The NASULGC Board on Natural Resources supports funding the USGS
    National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program at a level of $31.5
    million.--This is a $6.1 million increase above the Administration's
    request. Universities are involved in this program through competitive
    grants for both the training of scientists. These scientists posses
    special skills needed in geologic mapping and the production of new
    geologic maps to meet needs in stewardship of water, energy, and
    mineral resources; risk reduction from natural hazards; and
    environmental protection.
        The NASULGC Board on Natural Resources supports $17.5 million for
    the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Program of the USGS.--
    This is a $2.6 million increase above the Administration's request. The
    additional funds will be critical in filling the many vacant scientist
    positions in the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Program
    throughout the nation. This program has proven to be a remarkably
    successful investment. Unit scientists also play a vital role in
    practical, real-world training of the next generation of natural
    resource managers, who will be needed soon to replace a significant
    professional workforce component that is nearing retirement.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share our views with the
    Committee.
    About NASULGC
        NASULGC is the nation's oldest higher education association.
    Currently the association has over 200 member institutions--including
    the historically black land-grant institutions--located in all fifty
    states. The Association's overriding mission is to support high quality
    public education through efforts that enhance the capacity of member
    institutions to perform their traditional teaching, research, and
    public service roles.
    About the Board on Natural Resources
        The Board's mission is to promote university-based programs dealing
    with natural resources, wildlife, ecology, energy, and the environment.
    Most NASULGC institutions are represented on the Board. Present
    membership exceeds 500 scientists and educators, who are some of the
    nation's leading research and educational experts in environmental and
    natural-resource disciplines.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the National Cooperators' Coalition

                                    SUMMARY

        The National Cooperators' Coalition (NCC) urges Congress to
    increase the budget of the U.S. Geological Survey's Cooperative Fish
    and Wildlife Research Units to $17.5 million in fiscal year 2007. This
    increase of $2.6 million above the fiscal year 2007 request is
    essential to fill the growing number of vacant scientist positions in
    the USGS program and restore the program's integrity.
        The National Cooperators' Coalition is an alliance of more than 60
    nonfederal CRU program cooperators and other supporters of the CRU
    program. Its members include state wildlife agencies, universities, and
    non-governmental organizations. The mission of the NCC is to build a
    stronger and more coordinated base of support to serve research,
    education, and technical assistance needs of the nonfederal CRU program
    cooperators.

                    FUNDING SHORTFALL AND LOSS OF SCIENTISTS

        The NCC requests your support in providing $17.5 million in fiscal
    year 2007 to fill the many vacant scientist positions in the
    Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Program of the U.S.
    Geological Survey (USGS). We greatly appreciate your past efforts in
    behalf of the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units, especially
    given difficult budgetary constraints.
        As you know, the 40 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units
    across the country provide very important and cost-effective products
    and services to state and federal agencies, universities, and private
    landowners in the form of management-oriented research, graduate level
    education, and technical assistance. Unlike other programs, this one
    co-locates substantial numbers of federal scientists at universities
    who serve as graduate research/teaching faculty. These federal
    scientists understand (and communicate to their students) the nature of
    conducting research within a government agency to address real-world
    problems.
        Full funding and scientist staffing for the Cooperative Fish and
    Wildlife Research Units, which was achieved through your support in
    fiscal year 2001, resulted in unparalleled cooperation, productivity,
    and service in the management of our natural resources. Unfortunately,
    The $14.938 million requested by the Administration for fiscal year
    2007 is $2.6 million less than the amount needed to fill the vacant
    Unit scientist positions and meet congressionally mandated increases in
    federal salaries and benefits, and is only $861,000 more than the
    amount appropriated 6 years earlier. During that same time the
    Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units will have been required to
    absorb $3.0 million in uncontrollable salary and benefit costs, while
    being directed to establish and staff a new Unit. The result is that a
    record number of Unit scientist positions (22) will need to be vacant
    by the end of fiscal year 2007 in order to meet the funding level in
    the current budget request. For the cooperators in any given affected
    state, these vacancies have caused an enormous 25 percent to 67 percent
    reduction in the number of Unit scientists and their contributions to
    research, education, and technical assistance.

        The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units have been a
    remarkably successful investment. Unit scientists leverage the USGS
    base funding provided by Congress more than 3:1 with funds from other
    sources. Unit scientists also play a vital role in practical, real-
    world training of the next generation of natural resource managers, who
    will be needed soon to replace a significant professional workforce
    component that is nearing retirement. Scientist vacancies hamper the
    ability of the program to leverage funding from state, federal, and
    private sources for addressing key natural resource problems and
    training tomorrow's managers.
        The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit program is a
    synergistic one that requires each cooperator (federal, state,
    university, and private) in a Unit to make its agreed upon investments
    under negotiated agreements. Under the fiscal year 2007 budget request,
    however, for the fifth year in a row, the federal government is not
    making its agreed-upon contribution, particularly in the nearly half of
    all Units across the country that have one or more scientist vacancies.
        We urge you, therefore, to support providing $17.5 million for the
    Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Program in fiscal year
    2007. This action will fill vacant scientist positions at the Units and
    ensure that the Units can continue to support the needs of state,
    university, and private cooperators in your states and elsewhere across
    the country.
        We thank you for consideration of our request.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Council for Science and the
                                  Environment

                                    SUMMARY

        The National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE) urges
    Congress to appropriate $1.2 billion for the U.S. Geological Survey
    (USGS) in fiscal year 2007. NCSE recommends a minimum funding level of
    $900 million for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Science
    and Technology account, including at least $150 million for the Science
    to Achieve Results (STAR) research grants program and $20 million for
    the STAR graduate fellowship program, as well as $10 million for the
    Office of Environmental Education.
        The National Council for Science and the Environment is dedicated
    to improving the scientific basis for environmental decisionmaking. We
    are supported by over 500 organizations, including universities,
    scientific societies, government associations, businesses and chambers
    of commerce, and environmental and other civic organizations. NCSE
    promotes science and its essential role in decisionmaking but does not
    take positions on environmental issues themselves.

                             U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

        The vital importance of the U.S. Geological Survey in protecting
    public safety has been brought home by a series of devastating natural
    disasters over the past several years. Investments in the USGS pay
    enormous dividends by reducing risks from earthquakes, tsunamis,
    floods, hurricanes, landslides, wildfires, and volcanic eruptions. The
    USGS plays a pivotal role in preventing natural hazards from becoming
    natural disasters. Likewise, the USGS helps provide a scientific basis
    for managing critical natural resources--from energy to wildlife to
    water resources.
        As a founding member and co-chair of the USGS Coalition, NCSE joins
    with nearly 70 other organizations in recommending an appropriation of
    $1.2 billion for the USGS in fiscal year 2007. This increase would
    enable the USGS to restore the science cuts proposed in the budget
    request, accelerate the timetable for deployment of critical projects
    (e.g., Advanced National Seismic System, National Map, and National
    Streamflow Information Program), and launch new science initiatives
    that would begin to reverse the cumulative effects of the long-term
    funding shortfall that has left the USGS budget stagnant for the past
    decade.
        The President's budget request would cut funding for the USGS by
    $20.6 million or 2.1 percent to $944.8 million. In real dollars, the
    USGS budget would fall to its lowest level since 1996, when the
    National Biological Service was integrated into the USGS. The fiscal
    year 2007 request would add $40.1 million in new programs and fixed
    costs, which would be offset by redirecting $50.7 million from ``lower
    priority'' activities and eliminating $10.0 million in earmarked funds,
    according to USGS budget documents.
        Funding is requested for a multi-hazards pilot initiative,
    development of Landsat 8, increased energy research, and regular
    testing for avian influenza in wild birds as part of an expanding
    detection effort. These and other USGS initiatives deserve the support
    of Congress.
        Two proposed large program cuts are of special concern to NCSE.
    First, $22.0 million would be cut from the Mineral Resources program, a
    devastating 42 percent decrease in funding. Second, the entire $6.4
    million budget for the Water Resources Research Institutes, which are
    located in all 50 states, would be eliminated. These and other proposed
    budget cuts would adversely affect the ability of the USGS to achieve
    its mission. We encourage Congress to restore the cuts, but this
    funding should not come at the expense of other high priority programs
    in the USGS.
        The USGS Mineral Resources program is an essential source of
    objective guidance and unbiased research on our mineral resources that
    helps guide economic development of natural resources and protection of
    the environment. This guidance and research is important to reduce the
    environmental impacts of mining and to maintain the growing value of
    processed materials from mineral resources that accounted for $478
    billion in the U.S. economy in 2005, an increase of 8 percent over the
    previous year. The proposed cuts in the Minerals program would
    terminate multidisciplinary research that has important implications
    for public health (such as studies on mercury, arsenic and other
    inorganic toxins), environmental protection, infrastructure, economic
    development, and national security.
        The Water Resources Research Institutes have been highly successful
    in developing cooperative programs that leverage federal investments
    with funds from other sources. The proposal to eliminate all funding
    for this partnership is inconsistent with guidance from the House
    Appropriations Committee: ``The Administration has placed a high
    priority on cooperative programs that leverage funds from State and
    local governments as well as private entities. The Committee believes
    that Bureaus that are successful in implementing these policies should
    be rewarded and not penalized'' (H. Rpt. 108-542).
        The request includes an increase of $20.7 million for non-
    discretionary ``fixed cost'' increases (such as salaries and rent), of
    which $15.2 million are budgeted and $5.5 million are ``absorbed.'' The
    cumulative effect of absorbing fixed cost increases over many years has
    had a disproportionate impact on core USGS programs which cannot absorb
    cuts without affecting scientific research and monitoring activities.
    Without full funding of fixed cost increases, the USGS may be forced to
    curtail ongoing activities, hindering or preventing the delivery of
    data needed by resource managers and emergency planners. This would
    increase our vulnerability to disasters and increase the costs of
    recovery.
        In addition to restoring the proposed program cuts, we encourage
    Congress to provide additional increases that would enable the USGS to
    meet the tremendous need for science in support of decisionmaking. More
    investment is needed to strengthen USGS partnerships, improve
    monitoring networks, produce high-quality digital geospatial data and
    deliver the best possible science to address societally important
    problems. The USGS has a national mission that addresses the needs of
    all citizens through natural hazards monitoring, drinking water
    studies, biological and geological resource assessments, and other
    activities.
        From 1996 to 2006, total federal funding for research and
    development has risen by 55 percent from $87 billion to $134 billion in
    constant dollars. By contrast, real funding for the USGS has been
    nearly flat after adjusting for inflation. Even this flat funding for
    the USGS reflects congressional restoration of proposed budget cuts.
        We encourage Congress to provide the USGS with a budget that will
    allow for the growth necessary to address emerging needs for science.
    After years of stagnant funding and absorption of uncontrollable cost
    increases, the USGS has a large and growing backlog of monitoring and
    science needs.
        The National Council for Science and the Environment urges Congress
    to appropriate $1.2 billion for the USGS in fiscal year 2007. This
    investment will help the USGS improve monitoring networks, strengthen
    partnerships, produce high-quality data, and deliver impartial science
    that serves the needs of the nation.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        In order to fulfill its mission, the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA) needs increased investments in both its intramural and
    extramural science programs. The National Council for Science and the
    Environment (NCSE) urges Congress to appropriate a minimum of $700
    million for EPA's Office of Research and Development (bringing it back
    to fiscal year 2004 levels), including at least $150 million for EPA's
    Science to Achieve Results (STAR) research grants program and $20
    million for EPA's STAR graduate fellowship program. We recommend a
    total of $900 million for EPA's Science and Technology account. NCSE
    also urges Congress to restore full funding for the Office of
    Environmental Education at a level of at least $10 million.
        EPA's research and development portfolio has stagnated while the
    complexity of environmental challenges continues to grow. In real
    dollar terms, EPA's funding of science has been nearly unchanged for
    more than two decades. Under the fiscal year 2007 budget request,
    funding for EPA's R&D portfolio would fall to its lowest level since
    1987.
        EPA's strategic plan calls for science-based decisionmaking, but
    the agency will be unable to achieve this goal if its capacity to
    conduct science is not improved. According to its strategic plan, ``EPA
    has identified reliance on sound science and credible data among the
    guiding principles we will follow to fulfill our mission to protect
    human health and the environment.'' EPA needs to reverse the decline in
    its capacity to conduct science in order to fulfill its mission.
        Under the President's fiscal year 2007 budget, EPA's total budget
    would decline by $310 million or 4.1 percent to $7.3 billion, after a
    similar cut in fiscal year 2006. EPA's R&D portfolio would be cut by
    $43 million or 7.1 percent to $557 million, after a similar cut in
    fiscal year 2006. Funding for most EPA research areas would decline. If
    EPA's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal is enacted, funding for the
    Office of Research and Development would $90 million or 14 percent
    below its peak funding level of $646.5 million in fiscal year 2004.
        EPA created the extramural Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
    program as part of a set of reforms to EPA science proposed by the
    National Academy of Sciences in the 1990s. The STAR research grants
    program expands the scientific expertise available to EPA by awarding
    competitive grants to universities and independent institutions in
    order to investigate scientific questions of particular relevance to
    the agency's mission.
        The EPA's STAR program has been widely praised. The National
    Academies issued a laudatory report, The Measure of STAR, which
    concludes that the program supports excellent science that is directly
    relevant to the agency's mission. It says, ``The STAR program should
    continue to be an important part of EPA's research program.'' According
    to the report, the STAR program has ``yielded significant new findings
    and knowledge critical for regulatory decision making.'' The report
    says, ``The program has established and maintains a high degree of
    scientific excellence.'' It also concludes, ``The STAR program funds
    important research that is not conducted or funded by other agencies.
    The STAR program has also made commendable efforts to leverage funds
    through establishment of research partnerships with other agencies and
    organizations.''
        The EPA STAR research program compares favorably with programs at
    other science agencies. According to the National Academies report,
    ``The STAR program has developed a grant-award process that compares
    favorably with and in some ways exceeds that in place at other agencies
    that have extramural research programs, such as the National Science
    Foundation and the National Institute of Environmental Health
    Sciences.''
        Funding for the STAR program has been cut repeatedly over the past
    several years. The fiscal year 2007 request for the STAR research
    grants program is $65.3 million, which is 38 percent below the fiscal
    year 2004 request of $104.7 million and 24 percent below the fiscal
    year 2004 enacted level. NCSE proposes that the STAR research budget be
    increased to $150 million, which would allow expansion of areas and
    scientists supported and would send a signal that Congress is serious
    about science for environmental decisionmaking.
        EPA created the STAR graduate fellowship program to ensure a strong
    supply of future environmental scientists and engineers. It is the only
    federal program aimed specifically at students pursuing advanced
    degrees in environmental sciences. According to the National Academies,
    ``The STAR fellowship program is a valuable mechanism for enabling a
    continuing supply of graduate students in environmental sciences and
    engineering to help build a stronger scientific foundation for the
    nation's environmental research and management efforts.''
        For the fifth consecutive year, the President's budget request has
    proposed deep cuts in the STAR graduate fellowship program. Congress
    restored full funding in each previous year. The fiscal year 2007
    budget request would cut funding by 26 percent in fiscal year 2007. The
    current level of funding is insufficient to allow all students whose
    applications are rated as excellent to receive fellowships and it is
    insufficient to meet national needs for a scientifically trained
    workforce. NCSE recommends doubling the funding for STAR fellowships to
    $20 million, which can be accomplished without any decrease in the
    quality of the awardees.
        The fiscal year 2007 budget request proposes no funding for the EPA
    Office of Environmental Education. NCSE strongly encourages Congress to
    restore full funding of at least $10 million to support the
    congressionally mandated programs administered by this office. These
    programs provide national leadership for environmental education at the
    local, state, national and international levels, encourage careers
    related to the environment, and leverage non-federal investment in
    environmental education and training programs.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Conference of State Historic
                             Preservation Officers

        Request.--$50,000,000 from the Historic Preservation Fund, National
    Park Service, the Department of Interior, for the States to carry out
    the National Historic Preservation Pro-gram Administration.

                                    SUMMARY

        The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
    requests $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 for the administration of the
    National Historic Preservation Program by the states. While this is an
    increase over the Administration's request of $35,700,000, $50,000,000
    is only one-third of the annual deposits into the Historic Preservation
    Fund.

                         EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL THANKS

        On behalf of the hard-hit State Historic Preservation Officers in
    the Gulf States, the National Conference extends its deepest thanks to
    the Senate Appropriations Committee for including in the Emergency
    Supplemental the $80,000,000 for restoration of damaged historic places
    and the $3,000,000 to expedite responses on federal agency impacts to
    historic places. The State Historic Preservation Offices will use that
    money wisely in hurricane recovery in the Gulf.
        The Supplemental funding highlights the role that resources--
    dollars--play in preservation. All SHPOs have addressed declining
    budgets by paring down to the bare essentials. Once at the ``bare
    bones'' level, SHPOs have no where else to cut. The Emergency
    Supplemental funding is so important to the recovery of this historic
    region. Had HPF funding levels over the years matched inflation, SHPOs
    would have been better prepared to respond.

                           IMPACT OF FUNDING DECLINE

        States continue to struggle to achieve bare minimum NHPA mandates
    as funding--in real dollar terms--declines. HPF withdrawals dropped by
    more than 25 percent from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2003 and have
    been essentially flat since then. In real dollar terms, the current HPF
    appropriation is the same as the 1975 appropriation although the
    workload has increased.\1\ Our request would return the national
    program to levels comparable to fiscal year 2001, adjusted for
    inflation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ In 1975, SHPO responsibilities included survey, National
    Register, planning, Section 106 reviews, and restoration grants. In
    2005 SHPO responsibilities include the 1975 programs plus rehab tax
    credits, Certified Local Governments with a 10 percent pass through,
    and Preserve America.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Declining HPF withdrawals continue to force SHPOs to ignore the
    preservation needs of their States to respond to on-demand federal
    requirements. Economic Research Associates, an internationally economic
    consulting firm, analyzed SHPO's activity and concluded---- \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Economic Research Associates, ``Section 106 Cost Assessment,''
    for NCSHPO, January 2006, ERA Project No. 15755. Copies available
    through NCSHPO.``Section 106 is a paradox in that it is an
    un(der)funded Federally mandated program that states are required to
    complete, whether or not sufficient budgets are available; as such,
    reallocation of funding from other program areas to cover the costs of
    Section 106 funding have [sic] a negative effect on other historic
    preservation priorities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``Based on average costs, staff allocations and `time-spent'
    information provided . . ., SHPOs have become very efficient at
    processing Section 106 Reviews.
        ``[S]tates already overmatch Federal contributions, so Section 106
    can be considered overly `cost effective' from the standpoint of
    leveraged Federal expenditures.
        ``As government programs go, Section 106 appears to run quite
    efficiently and at a very low average cost. In fact, the opposition to
    the program is more a reflection of resistance to government regulation
    of any type, as opposed to specific inefficiencies within Section 106.
        ``Many SHPOs have streamlined the review processes through
    Programmatic Agreements, special review approaches . . ., and
    investment in technology such as web-based databases and Geographic
    Information Systems (GIS).
        ``Other needed preservation programs are being starved to cover
    under-funded, but mandated Section 106 review costs (National Register,
    historic site survey, planning, rehab tax credit assistance, education,
    etc.).'' [emphasis added]
        Historic preservation is and has been an effective domestic policy
    tool that both addresses key priorities for the conservation of our
    priceless heritage and generates significant economic benefits to the
    Nation. At $50,000,000, SHPOs could achieve much more in preserving and
    protecting heritage properties, reviewing Federal historic preservation
    tax credit applications, implementing the Preserve America and Save
    America's Treasures initiatives, and streamlining the historic
    preservation review process.

                            SUPPORT FOR $50,000,000

        Historic preservation enjoys wide, bipartisan support in the
    Congress and around the country. Senators Mike DeWine and Richard
    Durbin and a fourth of the Senate went on record supporting the HPF.
    The Senators said, ``SHPOs provide the foundation for the nation's
    historic preservation program. . . . Funding for SHPOs returns the
    federal investment by leveraging additional dollars through local jobs,
    fostering nonfederal contributions and securing long-term economic
    development.'' \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Dear Colleague letter by Senators DeWine and Durbin.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mayor Mike Swoboda of Kirkwood, Missouri, said ``The value of
    historic preservation in a local community is beyond price. It's about
    preserving something that can't be replicated today. It's about
    appreciating the planning and efforts of those who came before us.
    Historic preservation upholds what was important in the past, thereby
    maintaining a community's foundation: its past, present, and future.''
    \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ National Park Service, The Historic Preservation Fund Annual
    Report fiscal year 2003, [March 2004].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Governor Rick Perry of Texas concurs: ``Historic preservation
    creates jobs, revitalizes downtown business districts, provides
    affordable quality housing and stimulates heritage tourism.'' \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                ECONOMIC IMPACT

        Aside from its incalculable cultural benefits, historic
    preservation also provides an opportunity to generate local, regional
    and national economic growth by revitalizing valuable historic
    neighborhoods and communities, enticing private capital investment and
    fostering heritage tourism. HPF programs such as the Rehabilitation Tax
    Credit have proven their worth by using the modest Federal operating
    funds to stimulate as much as $3 billion per year in economic benefits
    to the Nation each year.

                                HERITAGE TOURISM

        Historic preservation is the foundation of heritage tourism, which
    is a multibillion dollar industry ($200 billion annually by 2005).
    Heritage tourists stay longer and spend more than other tourists do
    ($623 per historic/cultural trip as compared to $457 for an average
    U.S. trip), providing local jobs and creating local, state and federal
    tax revenues. SHPOs promote heritage tourism through historic site
    survey and National Register programs, and they further American
    history education by generating interest in urban and rural landmarks
    across America.

                HPF ALLOCATIONS TO THE STATES = MONEY WELL SPENT

        Under the Administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool,
    management of Historic Preservation Programs receive a score of 89
    percent indicating exemplary performance of mandated activities.\6\ The
    National Conference is disappointed that this success is not reflected
    in an increase in program funding in the Administration's budget
    request.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ State LWCF grants, in contrast, received a review score of 43
    percent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             HPF INTENT UNDERMINED

        Further, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation
    Officers is concerned that the Administration is using the Historic
    Preservation Fund in ways counter to the Act for Save America's
    Treasures grants and for federal salaries administering tribal grants.
    The National Historic Preservation Act is specific (Section 101(e)).
    The Secretary may make matching grants to the States, Indian tribes,
    and the National Trust. The law allows the Secretary to use only 10
    percent of the annual HPF appropriation for direct project grants.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Forty years ago, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
    (NHPA) established the nation's historic preservation program but
    directed that it be carried out through State Historic Preservation
    Offices (SHPOs). The success of SHPOs' promoting historic preservation
    is well demonstrated by the sound description of the program by the
    Honorable Francis Toscana, Mayor of Deadwood, South Dakota.
        ``Preservation is done in partnership. Communities, State Historic
    Preservation Offices, and Federal agencies work together to identify
    and preserve America's historic treasures. As mayor of one of those
    treasures, our relationship with the State Historic Preservation Office
    is important. The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) makes it possible
    for the States, through their State Historic Preservation Offices, to
    foster this partnership into a successful preservation program.'' \7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ National Park Service, The Historic Preservation Fund Annual
    Report 2005, March 2005.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thank you for your consideration of this request.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Campaign for Environmental Literacy

     INCLUDING EDUCATION AS AN AUTHORIZED USE OF STATE WILDLIFE GRANT FUNDS

    Executive Summary
        First funded by Congress in fiscal year 2001, the original Wildlife
    Conservation and Restoration Program (elements of which have since been
    incorporated into the State Wildlife Grants Program, or SWG) made these
    funds available to states for conservation education as well as for
    habitat protection and restoration. However, despite widespread support
    from state fish and wildlife agencies for using these funds for
    education purposes, education was removed in fiscal year 2002 as an
    allowable use of funds. With this loss of SWG as a source of education
    funding, the federal government in its entirety now provides literally
    no funding specifically identified for conservation education at the
    state level.
        Yet our survey of the 50 Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
    Strategies recently produced by state fish and wildlife agencies
    discovered that the vast majority of these agencies see education as
    mission-critical, vital to their efforts to conserve wildlife. This
    survey also found that they almost unanimously feel that education
    plays a critical role in first raising awareness of conservation
    issues, and then motivating people to modify their behavior towards
    wildlife.
        And most importantly, all 50 state Comprehensive Wildlife
    Conservation Strategies cited the need to expand their conservation
    education and outreach programs on multiple levels and scales to
    achieve their conservation goals--despite the fact that the SWG Program
    will not fund education.
        The broad support in every state for conservation education
    programs, both within the general public \1\ as well as within state
    wildlife agencies, along with the crucial need to close the public's
    growing conservation literacy gap, calls for federal action.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Ninty-five percent of adult Americans believe environmental
    education should be taught in schools, according to a Roper Starch
    Worldwide survey in 2001.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We therefore urge Congress to restore education as an allowable use
    of SWG funds by state fish and wildlife agencies. Taking such action
    will require no new funds from the federal government or taxpayer, and
    in fact, will save future federal dollars.

                                   BACKGROUND

        Congress created the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program
    in 2001, and subsequently incorporated many of its elements into State
    Wildlife Grants program (SWG). This program provides funding to every
    state and territory to support cost-effective conservation aimed at
    keeping wildlife from becoming endangered. Funds are allocated
    according to a formula based on each state's size and population. SWG
    funding from Congress has ranged from $65 million to $85 million over
    the past five years.
        This program is based on the recognition that lack of federal
    support for non-game species protection prior to 2001 led to the
    significant decline of these species, thus raising the potential for
    costly federal restoration efforts when such species become officially
    endangered. It is therefore in the interest of the federal government
    to support state efforts to prevent wildlife species from becoming
    endangered in the first place, in order to avoid bearing restoration
    costs.
        It is important to understand that the direct causes of wildlife
    loss and endangerment primarily are habitat loss, introduction of
    competing exotic species, pollution, and overharvesting, challenges for
    which SWG funding is primarily intended. However, these problems often
    are a result of thousands of individual decisions made by thousands of
    individuals. As regulation has greatly reduced the corporate impact on
    these now diffuse and chronic problems, a new set of environmental
    actors has emerged on the scene: small businesses which exist below
    today's regulatory radar, and millions of households whose consumption
    decisions drive energy and material flows as well as the increasingly
    complex logistics systems which move goods and people across the face
    of the planet. Far more effective, when properly done, is to educate
    these decision-makers rather than regulate them.
        Thus, education is an essential tool for achieving the purposes of
    the SWG program. Yet, fiscal year 2002 Appropriations report language
    excluded education as an allowable use of SWG funds.

                   STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANS AND EDUCATION

        In order to make the best use of State Wildlife Grants, Congress
    charged each state and territory with developing a Comprehensive
    Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS), which identifies species and
    habitats of greatest conservation need and outlines the steps needed to
    conserve these wildlife and vital natural areas. Every state and
    territory has now completed their CWCS.
        We thoroughly reviewed each of these 50 state plans. Every state
    created their plans using the same framework but their priority
    strategies vary due to different state-specific issues and needs. Thus,
    it is particularly noteworthy that our survey found a number of common
    themes related to education in these plans:
      --Every state CWCS acknowledges the inherent value of education and
            outreach programs in effectively managing those species and
            habitats in greatest need of conservation.
      --Every state CWCS cites the need to expand its conservation
            education and outreach programs on multiple levels and scales.
      --Every state that has used public education and/or outreach with
            positive measurable results identified it as a best practice
            adaptable for other priority species and habitats.
      --The large majority of states include new and/or expanded education
            efforts as one of their statewide priorities, and reinforce
            this need in their conservation actions across multiple key
            species and habitats.
        For example, North Carolina's plan noted the following conservation
    education challenges:
      --Inadequate production and distribution of wildlife education
            materials.
      --Current wildlife education programs not able to meet the public's
            growing needs.
      --Inadequate funding sources for programs and materials aimed at
            conservation education.
      --Insufficient number of nature centers devoted to the state's
            nongame wildlife.
        North Carolina's CWCS therefore set the following Conservation
    Education Priorities:
    Wildlife Nature Centers
        Develop Commission-owned wildlife nature centers in each
    physiographic region and support projects at existing centers.
        Develop materials and traveling displays for use across the state
    at schools, universities, science museums and aquariums to increase
    awareness of wildlife concerns.
    Wildlife Education Programs
        Improve the Commission's capabilities to provide instructor
    training in Project Wild & CATCH and coordinate support for other state
    environmental education programs.
        Develop and improve guides for construction/development of outdoor
    classrooms.
        Develop demonstration projects for wildlife education programs.
    Wildlife Educational Materials
        Develop and distribute wildlife educational materials to the public
    school systems.
        Develop informational materials on wildlife species, management
    programs, and habitat conservation.
    Wildlife Education Grants
        Encourage development of educational materials and programs on fish
    and wildlife through an annual Wildlife Education Grants program.

       EXAMPLES OF HOW SWG FUNDS MIGHT BE USED TO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
                                    LITERACY

        North Carolina lists the following as a few examples of the uses to
    which they might put such funds:
      --Provide schools, community parks, retirement centers, etc. with
            technical expertise, grant information, planting and
            educational materials for developing school and community
            nature areas as outdoor classrooms which in turn would attract
            wildlife.
      --Establish demonstration areas for backyard wildlife habitat
            improvements.
      --Coordinate biologists and educators to develop effective education
            and outreach materials for endangered/rare species in North
            Carolina.
      --Expand delivery of wildlife-related programs and field trips to key
            audiences (e.g., schools, civic groups, watershed associations,
            planning boards).
        Other key states offered the following examples when they were
    recently queried as to how they might use SWG funds for education:
      --Establish a statewide network of professional trainers and wildlife
            conservation practitioners working with at-risk species to
            offer in-service educator workshops.
      --Establish a competitive small grant program for schools and nature
            centers to compete for funding to purchase simple equipment
            (binoculars, dip nets, field guides, etc.), the lack of which
            is often a primary barrier for teachers attempting to take
            students on field trips to learn about natural areas.
      --Build partnerships with teacher training programs at state colleges
            and universities to better integrate conservation education in
            both content and methods courses for pre-service teachers.
      --Create a partnership with the state Department of Education and
            local school districts to incorporate conservation education
            themes into state science standards.
      --Work with electric utilities to educate homeowners, business owners
            and municipalities to reduce use of outdoor lighting during
            nesting, peak migration and other critical times.
      --Educate citizens and community leaders about the economic and
            social benefits that are achieved through scientific management
            of key species and habitats.

                           SUGGESTED REPORT LANGUAGE

        ``Education projects funded with SWG dollars must contribute
    significantly to the education priorities identified in a state's
    Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.''

                            COST OF THIS INITIATIVE

        The State Wildlife Grants program actually saves taxpayer dollars
    by taking preventative action to conserve wildlife before it becomes
    endangered. Further, a nonfederal matching requirement assures local
    ownership, and leverages state and private funds to support
    conservation. In an era of tight budgets, the State Wildlife Grants
    program represents how limited federal funds can be invested to get the
    most results for taxpayers.
        Specifically reopening these funds to education saves further
    money. Species are driven to extinction in large part due to ignorance
    and lack of understanding by the public of the value of maintaining
    wildlife and their habitats. Investing in sound education over time
    will significantly reduce the risk of needing expensive efforts to
    bring back endangered wildlife species. It treats the true cause--
    illiteracy--of the problem of species loss, not just the symptoms.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District

        On behalf of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, I am
    requesting your support for the following appropriations in fiscal year
    2007 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Upper Colorado River
    Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery
    Implementation Program, as recommended in the President's budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Ecological
    Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element;
    $697,000 within the $5,631,000 item entitled ``General Program
    Activities'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS
    to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado River
    Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
        2. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
    Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
    support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
    in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $211,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year
    2007 to meet FWS' Region 2 expenses in managing and implementing the
    San Juan Recovery Program.
        I thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee's
    assistance for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
        We are seeking your support for the President's fiscal year 2007
    Budget Request of $3 million to support the National Fish Habitat
    Initiative (NFHI) and, furthermore, we ask you to support an additional
    $3 million to be appropriated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
    Southeast Fisheries Program for the Southeast Aquatic Resources
    Partnership (SARP). The NFHI, lead by the International Association of
    Fish and Wildlife Agencies in partnership with the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, is a nationwide fisheries habitat restoration plan
    modeled on the successful North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The
    SARP is developing a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan that will guide the
    implementation of the NFHI on a regional scale and serve as a model for
    other regions of the country. The Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan will
    identify and establish Fish Habitat Partnerships that will deliver the
    objectives of the NFHI in the Southeast.
        The SARP was initiated in 2001 to better address the conservation
    and management of aquatic resources in the Southeastern United States.
    This partnership developed because (1) the Southeast has the highest
    diversity of aquatic species and habitats of any region in the country,
    (2) these resources are facing serious threats to their future
    existence, and (3) no single State or Federal agency has the necessary
    resources and authority to address this impending aquatic crisis. It is
    only by working together through partnerships that we will make a
    difference. SARP includes the fish and wildlife agencies from 13 States
    (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
    Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and
    Texas), the Gulf and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commissions, the
    Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries.
        This unique and focused effort is poised to deliver a new regional
    approach to aquatic conservation for future generations. Securing $3
    million in additional funding for the SARP is critical for the
    successful implementation of the Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan.
        Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you should
    have any questions or need further information, please contact Robert
    L. Curry, Chief, Division of Inland Fisheries, by phone (919) 707-0221
    or by email at robert.curry@ncwildlife.org.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Environmental Services Center

        We request $3 million in fiscal year 2007 to continue the programs
    of the National Small Flows Clearinghouse and the National
    Environmental Training Center for Small Communities. Both programs are
    administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under
    the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account.

                                  INTRODUCTION

        My name is Richard Bajura and I serve as Executive Director of the
    National Environmental Services Center. The Environmental Protection
    Agency and the Department of Agriculture fund our programs to provide
    comprehensive environmental services to small and tribal communities
    and to rural areas. Our work is focused on drinking water, wastewater,
    and municipal solid waste. Two of our major programs, the National
    Small Flows Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse) and the National
    Environmental Training Center for Small Communities (Training Center)
    are the subjects of this testimony.
        The Clearinghouse is in its 27th year of providing information and
    technical assistance to local governments/officials, to operators/
    managers of wastewater, drinking water, and solid waste facilities, and
    to circuit riders. We assist agencies, organizations, and industries
    that advance decentralized wastewater management as part of the
    nation's wastewater infrastructure. The Clearinghouse was mandated by
    Congress in the 1977 Clean Water Act and its subsequent
    reauthorizations. We use federal funds to provide contemporary,
    objective, and comprehensive technical information services and site-
    specific assistance about wastewater systems. We publish a suite of
    regular and special publications targeted to small, tribal, and rural
    community needs for wastewater management.
        The Training Center was established by Congress in 1991 as an
    adjunct to the Clearinghouse for the purpose of developing and
    delivering training on wastewater, drinking water, and municipal solid
    waste disposal. Our trainers and the services we provide assist small,
    tribal, and rural communities in providing essential water and
    sanitation services.
        The Clearinghouse and Training Center partner with a wide range of
    organizations and groups to help states and communities. In doing so,
    more people are served, dollars are leveraged, and cost savings are
    realized.

                                      NEED

        Our nation relies on water and wastewater infrastructure and
    services to protect public health, sustain economic activity, and
    enable our modern lifestyles. This infrastructure, which was generally
    installed decades ago and is often a small community's largest public
    investment, is aging and even failing. The 25 million people who live
    in small communities rely on local leaders and system personnel to
    manage this infrastructure and provide essential water and wastewater
    services. These dedicated citizens often lack the necessary time,
    expertise, information, strategies, and finances to meet these demands.
    EPA is charged with developing water and wastewater treatment
    strategies and services for these rural communities. However, EPA does
    not have the necessary resources in-house and relies on units like the
    Clearinghouse and Training Center to fulfill this part of its mission.
    EPA also relies on Congress to add funds for these services since the
    Administration routinely does not provide financial support for such
    programs. Congressional action is required each year to support the
    services we provide.

                  ABOUT THE NATIONAL SMALL FLOWS CLEARINGHOUSE

        The Clearinghouse is the premier (and only) comprehensive national
    source of information about ``small flows'' systems, those with fewer
    than one million gallons of wastewater flowing through them per day.
    These systems range from individual septic systems to small sewage
    treatment plants, and require technologies different from large-volume
    wastewater treatment plants. Decentralized systems, such as onsite
    septic systems and small cluster systems, serve 25 percent of the U.S.
    population.
        Small communities in the United States (populations less than
    10,000) need significant assistance for basic water and wastewater
    services. Services provided by the Clearinghouse enable the communities
    to achieve and maintain regulatory compliance using technologies which
    are less costly than conventional sewers and treatment plants.
        The Clearinghouse was created in legislation to provide information
    and assistance to small, tribal, and rural communities on proper
    technology selection and management of onsite and small wastewater
    systems. Under its congressionally mandated information collection and
    dissemination mission [1977 Clean Water Act section 104(q)(1)], the
    Clearinghouse serves as the national archive for onsite and
    decentralized wastewater management technologies and offers a
    comprehensive body of information and technical assistance services
    unique to the wastewater industry. Users of these services include
    individual homeowners, small town officials who do not have staff
    support to address regulatory requirements, developers, state
    regulators, and professionals who design, install and service
    alternative treatment systems.
        Using Clearinghouse services, small communities across the nation
    learn how to leverage funding, obtain information about affordable
    small system technologies, and meet regulatory requirements. The
    Clearinghouse accomplishes its mandate by:
      --Enabling small system operators and service providers to comply
            with federal regulations;
      --Providing access to expert advice and training on wastewater;
      --Guaranteeing the availability of current, comprehensive information
            in small wastewater system financing, technologies, and
            management;
      --Delivering onsite public health and environmental awareness
            education, information, and technical assistance.
        Congressional funding for the Clearinghouse supports and provides:
      --Toll-free technical assistance via telephone from our staff of
            engineers and information experts to operators, engineers,
            scientists, regulators, manufacturers, and homeowners;
      --Magazines and newsletters, including Small Flows Quarterly and
            Pipeline, that address wastewater issues for small communities,
            reaching 70,000 individuals or organizations nationwide;
      --More than 800 products such as pamphlets, how-to guides and
            handbooks, design manuals, videos, checklists, equipment
            manufacturers catalogs and an outreach resource guide,
            directories of various water and wastewater experts nationwide,
            informational posters, case studies, and related information;
      --Comprehensive web site, discussion forums, list serves, and
            searchable online databases (e.g., our one-of-a-kind Onsite
            Regulations Database) featuring water, wastewater, security,
            and emergency preparedness resources;
      --Demonstration projects at more than 100 sites in 27 states showing
            the latest onsite sewage treatment technologies and management
            strategies at work; and
      --The intensive annual State Onsite Regulators Alliance (SORA)
            Conference: a one-of-a-kind event for wastewater regulators and
            industry professionals.

    ABOUT THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TRAINING CENTER FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES
                                    (NETCSC)

        In 1991, Congress funded the Training Center to meet the training
    needs of multiple constituent groups on a variety of environmental
    topics. In a unique approach, the Training Center develops,
    disseminates, and delivers training customized for small community
    environmental management. Environmental trainers and technical
    assistance providers who attend the classes then in turn train
    environmental professionals who serve small communities. The Training
    Center has developed more than 40 model training packages for drinking
    water and wastewater system design, operation, finance, management,
    emergency response, and system security. These training packages are
    delivered and available coast-to-coast to thousands of participants,
    often in co-sponsorship with other training and/or service providing
    organizations.
        The Training Center has held more than 250 training events on
    environmental management, security, and emergency response. Hundreds of
    environmental trainers across the nation subsequently use our materials
    to train thousands of local officials, operators, installers,
    regulators, engineers, homeowners, and tribal audiences. More than
    7,000 environmental trainers, technical assistance providers, and small
    community professionals receive the Training Center's environmental
    training newsletter.
        Since September 2001, the Training Center assisted small
    communities in addressing water security concerns. At the request of
    the EPA, the lead agency for homeland security in the area of water,
    and the Department of Agriculture, we developed and delivered training
    courses designed to improve the security of small drinking water and
    wastewater systems through a cadre of more than 250 trainers. These
    trainers held over 50 training events and trained over 1,000
    individuals. The Training Center has also developed and compiled an
    array of vulnerability assessment, emergency response, and security
    resources. These efforts include multiple training deliveries,
    substantial coverage of security issues in E-Train (our newsletter),
    and on our frequently accessed worldwide web sites. Additionally, we
    developed and disseminated a nationally distributed Wastewater
    Vulnerability Assessment Guide for small communities, and a ``Top Ten''
    list of security and emergency preparedness actions for small
    wastewater systems. Our security-related efforts have been undertaken
    in consultation with a variety of national, regional, and state and
    local partners.
        The Training Center also sponsors the weeklong National
    Environmental Training Institute drawing a wide-ranging audience of
    water, wastewater, and environmental professionals interested in small
    community infrastructure.

                                    REQUEST

        Congressional support to continue the work of the Clearinghouse and
    Training Center is imperative because the State agencies and
    communities these programs assist do not have funds to pay for these
    services. By virtue of the congressional appropriation, we are able to
    offer most of our services free of charge.
        The Clearinghouse is a national resource for data and services that
    supports the work conducted by other major wastewater management
    programs funded under the EPA Environmental Programs and Management
    account. Without continued funding, this information repository will
    not be accessible by water groups, associations, and the user community
    which has relied on these services for many years.
        Both programs were supported by Congress in previous years, but did
    not receive an appropriation for fiscal year 2006 for the first time
    since the early 1990s. We request reinstated funding for fiscal year
    2007 and continued annual support at our previous levels of $2 million
    for the National Small Flows Clearinghouse and $1 million for the
    National Environmental Training Center for Small Communities.
        We appreciate your continued support for these highly-regarded
    national programs. Thank you for considering our request.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Northeast Waste Management Officials'
                                  Association

        The undersigned Environmental Commissioners for the Northeast
    States are writing to respectfully request your assistance for
    reinstating a $300,000 line item in the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency's (EPA) fiscal year 2007 budget for the Northeast Waste
    Management Officials' Association (NEWMOA). This funding will support
    multi-state work on waste management and cleanup problems that are
    critically important to the Northeast region and to our individual
    states, and will advance U.S. EPA's national priorities.
        In our experience, interstate cooperation on common environmental
    problems such as brownfields redevelopment and control of mercury
    pollution multiplies the benefits of scarce state and federal
    resources. We hope that, despite the many compelling priorities that
    your Subcommittee must balance, you will act favorably on this request.
        In 1986, NEWMOA, a non-profit, non-partisan association, was
    established by the Governors of the New England States as an official
    interstate regional organization, in accordance with Section 1005 of
    the U.S. Resource: Conservation and Recovery Act, and was formally
    recognized by EPA. New York and New Jersey joined subsequently.
    NEWMOA's members are the directors of the state hazardous waste, solid
    waste, waste site cleanup, and pollution prevention programs in
    Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
    Rhode Island, and Vermont. NEWMOA works with member states to develop
    and implement regional policies and strategies for mutual waste
    management issues, serves as a clearinghouse for multi-state
    information, and provides staff training and education.
        Federal ``line item'' funds have made it possible in the recent
    past for NEWMOA to develop unique solutions in environmental
    improvement and protection. For fiscal year 2006, however, Congress did
    not appropriate funds for NEWMOA's activities. Reinstating these funds
    in fiscal year 2007 will enable NEWMOA to continue with projects such
    as:
      --training environmental consultants and state staff to improve the
            quality and reduce the cost of characterizing contaminated
            Superfund and Brownfields sites;
      --helping states and businesses implement laws that phase out mercury
            in products through the Interstate Mercury Education &
            Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC), a service that provides a
            single point of contact for a growing membership beyond the
            Northeast states to the West Coast and Mid West for receiving
            required reports from the regulated community, managing mercury
            product data and sharing information so that states, businesses
            and the public can measure progress and set priorities;
      --facilitating the development of innovative compliance programs that
            measurably improve environmental performance and reduce costs
            for businesses and state environmental agencies;
      --measuring solid waste flows among the Northeast states and tackling
            ``hard to dispose of'' wastes, such as construction and
            demolition debris, electronics, and tires, on a multi-state
            basis.
        These collaborative initiatives solve critical environmental
    challenges and expand successful strategies at a far lower cost than
    would occur if each state had to do this work on its own. NEWMOA is a
    very important resource for our state waste management programs and
    contributes significantly to advancing state and national environmental
    objectives. We urge your support for an appropriation of $300,000 to
    NEWMOA for fiscal year 2007.
        If you have any questions or would like more information about our
    fiscal year 2007 request please contact NEWMOA's Executive Director,
    William Cass (telephone: 617-367-8558 x301), or the current Chair, Dave
    O'Toole, Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials, New York State
    Department of Environmental Conservation (518-402-8652). You may also
    wish to visit NEWMOA's website (www.newmoa.org) for more information
    about NEWMOA's activities.
        Thank you for your continued assistance.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Northern Forest Alliance

        On behalf of the Northern Forest Alliance, a coalition of fifty
    non-profit organizations across New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and
    Maine, I would like to offer testimony in support of fiscal year 2007
    funding for the U.S. Forest Service's Forest Legacy Program and the
    Department of Interior's Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
    Specifically, we request funding for specific Forest Legacy and LWCF
    projects from the Northern Forest totaling $23.709 million and $6.1
    million, detailed in tables below. We also urge strong overall program
    allocations of $80 million for Forest Legacy and $320 million for LWCF,
    including $220 million for federal LWCF projects and $100 million for
    the state grants program, in light of the value of these programs not
    only to the Northern Forest but to the nation.
        The Northern Forest is a rural region of 26 million acres
    stretching from the Tug Hill Plateau in New York through the
    Adirondacks, Vermont's Green Mountains, New Hampshire's White
    Mountains, and into northern Maine. Much like the Southern
    Appalachians, the Northern Forest is an eastern forest region that has
    retained its rural character and resource-based economy in the face of
    overwhelming changes in the broader eastern landscape. However, this
    rural region is changing rapidly. The recently released U.S. Forest
    Service report, Forests on the Edge, projects that much of the private
    lands in the Northern Forest will see ``medium'' or ``high'' change
    from development through 2030. The study focused its assessment by
    watershed and identified seven watersheds in the Northern Forest states
    as among the top twenty-five in the nation for projected development
    through 2030, including the Connecticut River watershed between Vermont
    and New Hampshire and the Penobscot River watershed in Maine. Some of
    the conservation projects we are recommending for funding lie within
    these most threatened watersheds.
        The kind of forest parcelization and development that the report
    projects are already affecting not only natural resources but also the
    Northern Forest way of life. Our region was the nation's original fiber
    basket and continues to be a place where many citizens earn a living
    from the woods as loggers and sugarmakers or in forest products
    manufacturing. Parcelized forestlands are less valuable for forestry
    and new owners often make them unavailable for timber harvest and
    neglect even basic forest stewardship. This is having economic and
    environmental impacts. Our region also prides itself on a long
    tradition of open travel across private lands, a tradition that is
    increasingly at risk thanks to rising forest parcelization. Posting of
    land is increasing across the Northern Forest, closing opportunities
    for hunters, hikers, and other recreationists.

                     SUSTAINING OUR NORTHERN FOREST LEGACY

        Despite some recent mill closings in Berlin, New Hampshire and
    other Northern Forest communities, forest products remain the largest
    industrial sector in the Northern Forest. The forest products industry
    in Maine alone contributes $6.5 billion annually to the Northern Forest
    economy with wages and salaries of more than $1 billion. To maintain
    this important economic activity, many of the fiscal year 2007 Forest
    Legacy projects in our region have been designed to maintain working
    forests that might otherwise be converted for private development. One
    such example is the Orange County Headwaters project in Vermont, which
    will sustain timber harvest and sugaring over 3,043 acres of the most
    productive sugar maple stands in the state. The project is also notable
    as a shining example of cooperative conservation: the Forest Legacy
    project is one piece of a larger 30,000-acre conservation collaboration
    among private landowners in two neighboring towns that features
    coordinated donation of conservation easements to the Vermont Land
    Trust and Upper Valley Land Trust.
        Like other rural regions across the country, the Northern Forest is
    also seeking to diversify its economy through tourism and other
    measures. Tourism has already grown to include ten percent of all
    Northern Forest jobs, with a payroll of $455 million. Many of the
    fiscal year 2007 Forest Legacy projects in the Northern Forest would
    have a significant impact on tourism. In particular, we are supporting
    two complementary fiscal year 2007 Forest Legacy projects along the
    Mahoosuc Range of Maine and New Hampshire--one of the Northern Forest's
    most famed recreation areas and a magnet for tourism. The Mahoosuc
    Range features the most rugged and challenging section of the entire
    Appalachian Trail (AT), the newly-developed Grafton Loop Trail that
    will enable hikers to swing almost fifty miles off the AT, and some of
    the richest hunting grounds in the entire Northern Forest in New
    Hampshire's Phillips Brook watershed that lies on the western edge of
    the range. Maine's Grafton Notch Forest Legacy project was top-ranked
    by the President for good reason, as it will add 3,688 acres to state
    holdings in the Mahoosucs, including lands that contain nine miles of
    the Grafton Loop Trail. The Phillips Brook project in New Hampshire did
    not make the President's list despite its potential to complement
    Grafton Notch. The project will conserve more than 23,000 acres of
    forest and wetlands under easement, allowing hunting in this wildlife-
    rich area and preserving timber harvest on the first parcel purchased
    by International Paper at its founding in 1898.
        The Northern Forest is also notable for containing the headwaters
    of many major northeastern rivers, including the Hudson, Connecticut,
    Androscoggin, and Penobscot. Many of our projects clearly address the
    threats to these forested watersheds identified in Forests on the Edge.
    The Tahawus project in New York is one example, as it will conserve
    10,056 acres in the High Peaks region of New York's Adirondack Park
    that are wrapped around the headwaters of the mighty Hudson River.
    Tahawus also addresses many other Forest Legacy Program values by
    providing public access for hunting, fishing, and other recreation,
    continued opportunities for forestry, and new opportunities to develop
    heritage tourism--it was on this parcel that then-Vice President Teddy
    Roosevelt began his famous ``Midnight Ride.''

        NORTHERN FOREST ALLIANCE FISCAL YEAR 2007 FOREST LEGACY REQUESTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State                      Project                          Request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       ME Grafton Notch                                         $2,000,000
       ME Lower Penobscot Forest                                 5,500,000
       ME Machias River, phase III                               2,000,000
       NH Phillips Brook                                         3,500,000
       NH Willard Pond/Robb Res.                                 3,000,000
       NY Tahawus                                                5,000,000
       VT Orange County Headwaters                               1,542,000
       VT Adams Pond                                             1,167,000
                                                        --------------------
                Total                                           23,709,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

             FULFILLING OUR POTENTIAL: LWCF FOR THE NORTHERN FOREST

        The fiscal year 2007 LWCF projects for the Silvio Conte National
    Wildlife Refuge, Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, and Green
    Mountain National Forest will help realize the potential conservation,
    economic, and community benefits of our region's few federal public
    land units. These federal lands are strategically situated to conserve
    some of our the Northern Forest's most important natural and
    recreational resources, but are being compromised as private inholdings
    within the units are developed, sometimes by private owners who would
    have preferred to sell to the relevant agency but were unable to for
    lack of federal LWCF funding for acquisition.
        The Conte and Umbagog National Wildlife Refuges have already
    brought previously unimagined levels of tourism and related economic
    benefits to rural towns in the far northern reaches of our region like
    Island Pond, Vermont and Errol, New Hampshire. The Conte NWR is also
    unique for its strategic conservation value, as the proclamation area
    covers select lands of highest conservation value throughout the entire
    Connecticut River watershed. The Northern Forest Alliance has worked
    with other supporters of the Conte NWR across four states to create the
    new Friends of Conte Refuge group that is enthusiastically supporting a
    $4 million request for this unique refuge in fiscal year 2007. The
    funding request covers important acquisitions from willing sellers in
    all four states that the refuge crosses--Vermont, New Hampshire,
    Massachusetts, and Connecticut. The lands in Vermont lie adjacent to a
    new visitor center and are essential to maintaining that unit's tourism
    potential. The lands in New Hampshire include key watershed parcels in
    the Ashuelot River and Mohawk River basins--both major growth centers.
        The fiscal year 2007 LWCF funding to complete the USFS acquisition
    of the Broad Brook property in Vermont is also of paramount importance.
    This area of over 3,900 acres serves as a critical water supply area
    for local communities and is valued by locals and visitors alike for
    its extended section of the Long Trail/Appalachian Trail corridor. The
    project is a particular priority for two Northern Forest Alliance
    member groups: Vermont's Green Mountain Club and the Appalachian Trail
    Conservancy. In a sign of how much towns across the Northern Forest are
    embracing land conservation as part of their economic future, the Town
    of Pownal where the Broad Brook parcel is situated voted to approve the
    project by a two to one margin. This system of local approval assures
    that U.S. Forest Service acquisitions in Vermont are consistent with
    community interests.

      NORTHERN FOREST ALLIANCE FISCAL YEAR 2007 LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION
                                  FUND REQUESTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State                     Project                       Request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NH Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge          $1,000,000
     NH/VT/MA/CT Silvio Conte National Wildlife Refuge           4,000,000
              VT Green Mountain National Forest (Broad           1,100,000
                  Brook Phase II)
                                                        --------------------
                       Total                                     6,000,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        All of the Forest Legacy and LWCF projects included in our fiscal
    year 2007 request represent the best that our region has to offer, a
    highly select group drawn from the total range of projects seeking
    funding across the Northern Forest. In appreciation of the severe
    constraints on federal resources for the upcoming fiscal year, we have
    gone through careful evaluation to develop this prioritized set of
    time-sensitive strategic investments that will leverage other funding
    sources and deliver critically important public benefits. We would be
    grateful for your consideration of this testimony as you go through the
    appropriations process.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Federation of Federal Employees
                                   Local 1957

        As officers of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE)
    Local 1957, we are writing on behalf of the bargaining unit for the
    Minerals Information Team (MIT), Geologic Division, U.S. Geological
    Survey (USGS), Reston, VA. We are concerned that the President's
    proposed fiscal year 2007 budget for the USGS includes a $4.5 million
    cut (30 percent) to MIT's current funding level of $15.4 million, and a
    total of $22 million (42 percent) from the entire Mineral Resource
    Program, of which we are a part.
        The effect of the proposed fiscal year 2007 cut would be to
    eliminate 180 occupied scientific positions from across the country.
    MIT specifically would cease collection and dissemination of data on
    international production and consumption for 100 mineral commodities;
    publication of commodity reports on 20 minerals; and research on
    mineral and materials life cycles, material flows, and future demand
    and uses of minerals and metals.
        All this would occur at a time of increasing globalization and
    materials competition from developing countries such as China and India
    that has led to global supply constraints and record-high metals
    prices. Currently, the U.S. import dependence for most strategic and
    critical nonfuel minerals exceeds 75 percent, which is greater than the
    country's dependence on foreign oil. In 2005, MIT found that U.S.
    companies relied more than 50 percent on imports to meet their needs
    for 42 of 81 nonfuel mineral commodities and were 100 percent import
    reliant for 16 mineral commodities essential to the domestic economy;
    this was up from 29 and 10, respectively, in 1995.
        Assuring that the country has ample mineral resources to meet its
    needs cannot be done with disregard to the international factors that
    affect their supply and demand. Eliminating MIT's core International
    Information function (collecting, reporting, and analyzing data on the
    foreign supply of minerals needed by the United States), will inhibit
    the ability of the members of our bargaining unit to provide critical
    information on the nation's mineral supply. The increasing global
    demand for mineral resources will affect the U.S. economy's ability to
    have ample affordable mineral resources to meet its needs and will
    require international information regarding the production and
    consumption of minerals. Without data on international supply, there
    would be a critical information gap regarding the U.S. mineral supply
        MIT was transferred to the USGS in 1996 under a Joint House-Senate
    Conference Amendment that provided for the minerals information
    activities, formerly conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, to continue
    within the USGS. The Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (1980 &
    1992), delegates significant authority to the Secretary of the Interior
    relating to the assurance of an adequate supply of mineral materials
    necessary for the national defense, with the specific responsibility
    for analyses of domestic and foreign supplies.
        Information and analyses produced by MIT are widely used and relied
    upon by our Government and private sector. The MIT produces more than
    500 publications per year covering most nonfuel minerals, including
    Mineral Commodity Summaries for the Congressional Offices. Our web site
    provides approximately 1.4 million publication downloads per year and
    nearly the same number of hits. The U.S. Departments of Commerce,
    Defense, Treasury, and State, as well as the Central Intelligence
    Agency, the Federal Reserve Board, the Overseas Private Investment
    Corporation, the International Trade Commission, and the Office of the
    U.S. Trade Representative have increasingly relied on the USGS-MIT
    specialists for global minerals-related policy analysis, as have
    domestic agencies, including the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the
    Minerals Management Service, the National Park Service, and the U.S.
    Forest Service. MIT data are cited in Securities and Exchange
    Commission filings by mining companies requiring an authoritative,
    impartial source for statements of world resources, capacities,
    production and consumption.
        MIT is already operating under a severely constrained budget that
    has declined by about 25 percent in real dollars since 1996, the year
    the group was moved to the U.S. Geological Survey when the U.S. Bureau
    of Mines was eliminated. Compounding the problem, MIT has had to absorb
    mandated increases in salaries and cost of living adjustments despite
    the decreasing annual budgets. MIT, therefore, requires a minimum of
    $23 million to restore its reporting capability and retain its
    expertise. Not included in this level of funding are upgrades to the
    outdated IT software and hardware systems that are necessary for MIT
    performance.
        Last year, Congress rejected a similar reduction proposed by the
    Administration. In rejecting that proposed cut, Congressional joint
    committee managers wrote ``[we] strongly disagree with the
    Administration's proposed reductions to the mineral assessment program
    and believe it irresponsible for the Administration to decrease or
    eliminate funding for what is inherently a Federal responsibility.''
    NFFE urges Congress to do the same in fiscal year 2007.
        We want to extend our appreciation for your consideration of these
    issues that affect both our Union's and the Nation's interest.

       NFFE LOCAL 1957 BRIEFING ON THE USGS MINERALS INFORMATION TEAM &
                           MINERAL RESOURCES PROGRAM

                      USGS MINERALS INFORMATION TEAM (MIT)

        The Administration's proposed $4.5 million cut to MIT's current
    funding level would eliminate MIT's international data collection
    function and severely compromise the USGS' ability to meet its mission
    as mandated by Congress.
      --MIT's international information function would be eliminated,
            greatly limiting the MIT bargaining unit's ability to meet its
            core mission--to collect, report, and analyze data on the
            supply of minerals critical to the Nation's economic and
            national defense needs.
      --The USGS, therefore, could not fulfill its Congressional mandate to
            assure there is an adequate and dependable supply of mineral
            materials necessary for national defense, as established by The
            Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (1980 & 1992).
        Because of the global nature of the minerals industry, mineral
    commodity assessments require international information.
      --The Administration's budget proposal comes at a time of increased
            globalization and demand for minerals.
      The economies of China, India, and other developing countries
            continue to grow, which places an ever increasing global demand
            for mineral resources. This will affect the U.S. economy's
            ability to have ample affordable mineral resources to meet its
            needs and will require international information regarding the
            production and consumption of minerals.
      --The U.S. import dependence for most strategic and critical nonfuel
            minerals and metals exceeds 75 percent, which is greater than
            the country's dependence for oil. In 2005, MIT found that U.S.
            companies relied more than 50 percent on imports to meet their
            needs for 42 of 81 minerals (USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries
            2006). Of those, the import reliance was 100 percent for 16
            minerals and at least 80 percent for another 13. (See The
            Importance of Manganese to National Security in highlight box.)
      --Helping assure the country has ample mineral resources to meet its
            needs simply cannot be done with disregard to assessing data on
            the international factors that affect the supply and demand of
            those resources.
        MIT's budget should be permanently set as a separate line item and
    the budget increased to $23 million.
      --Repeated attempts by the Administration to reduce MIT funding over
            the last several years raise the question of the group's long-
            term viability under the current budget structure.
      --In 2002, Congress rejected a similar proposed $2 million reduction
            in MIT's budget.
      --Since then, Congress has continued to reject proposed similar cuts
            to MIT funding.
      --Since 1998, MIT's budget of about $16 million has fallen about 5
            percent, which represents more than a 25 percent decrease when
            accounting for salaries, cost of living adjustments, and other
            inflationary costs. Such a severely constrained budget
            challenges the group's ability to retain its expertise, attract
            new hires for succession planning, implement upgrades to the
            outdated IT systems software and hardware, and perform at the
            highest levels.
      --NFFE urges Congress to increase MIT funding to at least $23
            million, which is equivalent in today's dollars to MIT's
            funding within USGS in 1998. This represents only about 0.0045
            percent of the non-defense discretionary budget of $445 billion
            as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office in January
            2004, and would afford MIT the means to better meet its
            mission. As the nation's only source of comprehensive and
            unbiased mineral commodity data, MIT should be retained and
            enhanced.
      --At a minimum, MIT's international function should be retained and,
            accordingly, MIT's budget should be restored by $4.5 million so
            that the MIT bargaining unit can meet its core mission
            functions.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the
    opportunity to submit testimony regarding the fiscal year 2007 funding
    request for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation).
    Included in this testimony is a summary of our history and fiscal year
    2005 accomplishments, as well as the new and innovative programs we
    hope to accomplish with the funding provided by this Committee.
        Congress established the Foundation 22 years ago, and since that
    time the Foundation's vision for more healthy and abundant populations
    of fish, wildlife and plants has flourished through the creation of
    numerous valuable partnerships. The breadth of our partnerships is
    highlighted through our active agreements with 14 federal agencies, as
    well as numerous corporations, foundations and individual grantees.
    Through these unique arrangements we are able to leverage federal
    funds, bring agencies and industry together and produce tangible,
    measurable results. Our history of collaboration has given way to
    programs and initiatives such as the North American Waterfowl
    Management Plan, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Program,
    the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants Program and the Pulling
    Together Initiative. With the support of the Committee in fiscal year
    2007, we can continue to uphold our mission of enriching fish, wildlife
    and the habitat on which they depend.
        The Foundation respectfully requests that this Committee fund these
    efforts at the following levels:
      --$9 million through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Resource
            Management General Administration appropriation;
      --$5 million through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Resource
            Management Endangered Species appropriation to conserve and
            restore Pacific salmon in Washington State;
      --$4 million through the Bureau of Land Management's Management of
            Lands and Resources appropriation; and
      --$4 million through the Forest Service's National Forest System
            appropriation.
        This request lies well within the authorized levels and will allow
    the Foundation to better meet the demand for new or expanded strategic
    conservation programs. The appropriations provided by the Committee are
    also used by the Foundation to attract additional funding for
    conservation projects through mitigation, settlements and direct gifts.
        Since our inception in 1984 through fiscal year 2005, the
    Foundation has supported over 8,190 grants and leveraged over $339
    million in federal funds for more than $1 billion in on-the-ground
    conservation. This has resulted in more than 18 million acres of
    restored and managed wildlife habitat; new hope for countless species
    under stress; new models of private land stewardship; and stronger
    education programs in schools and local communities. We recognize that
    without the seed money this Committee provides many of these
    conservation benefits would not be realized. None of our federally
    appropriated funds are used for lobbying, litigation or the
    Foundation's administrative expenses. All of our federally appropriated
    funds go directly to on-the-ground conservation projects.
        Our efforts encompass many boundaries and missions of our U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and USDA-
    Forest Service (FS) partners. Whether it involves habitat conservation,
    species management, conservation education or international
    conservation, the Foundation strategically invests the federal funds
    entrusted to us in sound projects. In fiscal year 2005, we received
    three times as many good project proposals as we could fund. We were
    able to fund 417 projects representing over $17.2 million in Foundation
    federal funds, leveraging it with $43.9 million in non-federal funds to
    commit $61.1 million to on-the-ground conservation. This will result in
    thousands of acres of vital habitat being enhanced, restored and
    protected as well as hundreds of stream miles improved. The remaining
    $500,000 in appropriated funds will be obligated in the next few months
    bringing our total on-the-ground conservation to more than $62 million.
        As you have heard us say before, the term ``partnerships'' lies at
    the center of everything that the Foundation does. In fiscal year 2005,
    the FWS, BLM and FS partnerships we forged with our appropriated
    dollars helped the Foundation permanently protect 1,305 additional
    acres; restore over 22,000 acres; better manage 105,000 acres of public
    and private lands; and aided the restoration of 128 river and stream
    miles, as well as management of 282 miles of rivers and streams. As our
    grantees continue to report to us on their restoration and management
    efforts, we expect to see increases for all of these performance
    measurements by year's end.
        Working Landscapes and Healthy Habitats.--The Foundation places one
    of our highest priorities on projects integrating conservation
    practices on ongoing agricultural, ranching and forestry operations
    with the goal of improving the ecological health of working lands.
    Utilizing our FWS, BLM and FS appropriations, the Foundation supports
    projects designed to improve the habitat of our Nation's federal and
    private lands. In fiscal year 2005, the Foundation was appropriated an
    additional $500,000 in BLM funds to support the conservation of
    sagebrush habitats on federal and adjacent private lands. With FWS and
    FS funds added to the BLM dollars, the Foundation funded 19 sagebrush
    conservation projects leveraging $1,047,525 into more than $2.5 million
    to benefit sage grouse.
        An example healthy habitat grant program is the Foundation's
    Pulling Together Initiative (PTI), which is a private/public
    partnership to aid in the prevention, management and/or eradication of
    invasive and noxious plants. Through this collaborative program, FWS,
    BLM and FS are able to join invasive species experts from the
    Department of Defense, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and
    the Natural Resources Conservation Service to review and jointly select
    the most innovative weed management projects. In fiscal year 2005, the
    Foundation awarded 68 projects in 28 states that leveraged over $1.7
    million in federal funds to more than $5.8 million for on-the-ground
    invasive species control projects through the PTI program.
        Conserving Fish, Wildlife, and Plants.--With our FWS, BLM and FS
    appropriations, the Foundation also leveraged resources to fund
    projects that directly benefit diverse fish and wildlife species
    including sage grouse in the intermountain west, cutthroat trout in the
    west and quail in the south. We also measure our success by preventing
    the listing of species under the Endangered Species Act and by
    stabilizing and hopefully moving others off the list. We invested in
    common sense and innovative cooperative approaches to endangered
    species, building bridges between the government and the private
    sector. Some species benefiting from Foundation grants in fiscal year
    2005 include steelhead trout, red-cockaded woodpeckers, Black-capped
    vireos, Whooping cranes, Laysan ducks, Karner blue butterflies, Houston
    toads and black-footed ferrets.
        An example wildlife focused grant program is the Foundation's
    Washington State Community Salmon Fund. In fiscal year 2005, the
    Foundation leveraged $2 million provided by the Committee into more
    than $6 million for salmon conservation projects. The Foundation
    established the program with the goal of awarding community-based
    salmon habitat restoration grants to assist rural communities, farmers
    and other private landowners with salmon habitat improvement projects.
    The program has expanded in recent years to include funding and
    participation by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board and the King County
    and Pierce County Community Salmon Fund programs. As a result of the
    Committee's support, salmon will now have increased access to more than
    600 miles of spawning and rearing habitat; at least 4,500 acres of in-
    stream, riparian, estuarine and upland habitat will be restored; and
    over 3,000 acres will be protected through improved management.
        Watershed Approach.--The Foundation has recently launched several
    collaborative grant programs designed to support conservation projects
    on a watershed level. These programs include the Chesapeake Bay Small
    Watershed Grants Program, the Delaware Estuary Grants Program, the Long
    Island Sound Futures Fund and the Columbia Basin Water Transaction
    Program. In fiscal year 2005, the Foundation launched a new
    strategically focused grant program targeting the Great Lakes
    Watershed. The partners in this program include the Environmental
    Protection Agency, FWS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, FS and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
        The Foundation is currently developing two additional Special Grant
    Programs that will be launched later this year. The purpose of the
    first grant program is to implement the National Fish Habitat
    Initiative Action Plan. The National Fish Habitat Initiative is a
    multi-agency, multi-partner initiative to improve our Nation's aquatic
    resources. The Foundation's grant program will bring together federal
    and non-federal funds to strategically invest in priority fish habitat
    grants. The Foundation's second grant program will focus on the Upper
    Mississippi River Watershed. The program is being launched at the
    direction of FS, with the goal of restoring private land streambanks
    with native trees and grasses. The Foundation is hoping to expand this
    program into a multi-partnered effort in fiscal year 2007.
        Evaluation.--The Foundation has become a leader in evaluation and
    adaptive management among its peers. The Foundation's goal is to build
    the capacity of both itself and its partners to undertake more
    effective evaluation, to assist in both measuring performance and
    adapting methods and funding strategies for more effective
    conservation. To address these goals, the Foundation is implementing
    several evaluation strategies simultaneously. First, the Foundation has
    instituted new protocols within its application process to provide the
    measurable indicators needed to evaluate the impacts of our programs.
    Second, the Foundation has convened meetings among our agency partners
    to identify and coordinate potential opportunities for collaboration
    within evaluation. One of the initial results of these meetings has
    been an interest in piloting new evaluation indicators, to better
    articulate the federal investment for GPRA and PART.
        Third, the Foundation has commissioned several third-party
    evaluations targeting standard methods like culvert removal to full
    program evaluations to learn where we have been successful and where
    past methods have not provided the desired impact. As an example, in
    fiscal year 2006, the Foundation's Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed
    Grants Program will be evaluated for the first five years of grant-
    making. The evaluation will include 355 projects associated with about
    $10.6 million in federal funds. The federal legislation accompanying
    this program included 10-year goals, and this evaluation presents an
    opportunity to assess the mid-way mark in helping the Foundation and
    its partners better focus their resources over the next five years. To
    capture the evaluations and lessons learned, the Foundation is taking a
    fourth key step by developing a new searchable project website where
    users will be able to query information and learn more about funded
    projects, including how to adapt projects for higher rates of success.
        Accountability and Grantsmanship.--The Foundation constantly
    strives to improve the grant making process while maintaining a healthy
    level of oversight. To improve ease of use for potential applicants,
    Foundation applications are now completed and reviewed electronically.
    In early 2006, to further improve efficiency, the Foundation released a
    revised application, grant contract template and reporting form. Even
    with these efficiencies, the Foundation still requires strict financial
    reporting by grantees and has once again received an unqualified audit
    in fiscal year 2005.
        In addition to the evaluation requirements described earlier, all
    potential grants are subject to a peer review process. This involves
    five external reviews representing state agencies, federal agencies,
    affected industry, environmental non-profits and academics. Before
    being recommended to the Foundation's Board of Directors, grants are
    also reviewed internally by staff, including our conservation
    scientists. The internal review process examines the project's
    conservation need, technical merit, the support of the local community,
    the variety of partners and the amount of proposed non-federal cost
    share. The Foundation also provides a 30-day notification to the
    Members of Congress for the congressional district and state in which a
    grant will be funded, prior to making a funding decision.
        Basic Facts About the Foundation.--The Foundation is governed by a
    25-member Board of Directors, appointed by the Secretary of the
    Interior and in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce. At the
    direction of Congress, the Board operates on a nonpartisan basis.
    Directors do not receive any financial compensation for service on the
    Board; in fact, all of our directors make financial contributions to
    the Foundation. It is a diverse Board, representing the corporate,
    philanthropic and conservation communities; all with a tenacious
    commitment to fish and wildlife conservation. I took over the
    chairmanship in January, after serving on the Board for ten years. It
    is an honor to lead such a prestigious board.
        The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation continues to be one of,
    if not the most, cost-effective conservation program funded in part by
    the federal government. None of our federally appropriated funds are
    used for lobbying, litigation or the Foundation's administrative
    expenses. By implementing real-world solutions with the private sector
    while avoiding regulatory or advocacy activity, our approach is
    consistent with this Congress' philosophy. We are confident the money
    appropriated to the Foundation will continue to make a difference.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Audubon Society

                          SITE DESCRIPTION & LOCATION

        In 1991, the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge
    (NFWR) Act directed USFWS to study the entire Connecticut River
    watershed, from Vermont and New Hampshire, through Massachusetts to
    Connecticut, and create a national fish and wildlife refuge. The Conte
    NFWR is no ordinary refuge. The Connecticut River watershed, 7.2
    million acres in four states, is larger and more populous than areas
    usually considered for a refuge. The purposes of the Conte Refuge are
    also much broader, it is one of the few fish and wildlife refuges, and
    protecting natural diversity is a new scientific and social challenge.
    There are several announced, identified and potential IBAs within the
    boundaries of the Refuge. The two current acquisition opportunities are
    located at the Salmon River Division in Connecticut and the Fort River
    Division in Massachusetts.
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) land protection plan
    for the Refuge identifies the minimum interest necessary to accomplish
    habitat protection goals. The Service has the potential and ability to
    acquire easements within all of the 48 Special Focus Areas. The Refuge
    accomplishes its habitat protection goals by utilizing all available
    conservation tools and partnerships. The Refuge encourages and supports
    mutually beneficial work with agencies, conservation organizations,
    landowners, and citizens.

                               ECOLOGICAL VALUES

        The northern third of the watershed located in Vermont and New
    Hampshire is part of the ``Northern Forest'' which is largely privately
    owned industrial forest stretching from the Adirondacks to the coast of
    Maine. Large blocks of this land have been sold in unprecedented
    quantities recently as the timber industry relocates some of its
    financial assets. Important bottomland forest, flood plain wetlands,
    and a variety of grassland areas are generally located along the middle
    third of the Connecticut River in western Massachusetts and northern
    Connecticut. The mouth of the river, located in southern Connecticut,
    contains internationally significant fresh, brackish and saltwater
    tidally influenced wetlands. The Refuge emphasizes protecting Federal
    trust species--migratory birds, migratory fish, federally endangered or
    threatened species, and rare and exemplary natural communities.
        Forty-eight ``Special Focus Areas'' encompassing roughly 180,000
    acres have been identified within the watershed. These areas contribute
    substantially or in unique ways to supporting natural diversity in the
    watershed. There are two recognized IBAs and 7 identified IBAs within
    the Refuge Special Focus areas in Connecticut and 14 in Massachusetts,
    4 in VT and 1 in NH.
        Special Focus Areas provide the following biological values:
      --Habitat for federally-listed species;
      --Habitat for a number of rare species and/or rare vegetative
            community types;
      --Important fisheries habitat;
      --Important wetlands; habitat for waterbirds;
      --Substantial areas of contiguous habitat;
      --Large blocks of unusual habitat, and;
      --Landbird resting, feeding, and breeding habitat.
        The Fort River Division represents several hundred acres of
    grassland and agricultural habitat that will offer substantial
    grassland restoration opportunities and ensure the establishment of a
    critical reservoir population of nesting grassland birds that can help
    strengthen the New England population of regionally endangered
    grassland birds.
        The Salmon River Division represents critical wintering habitat for
    the federally threatened Bald Eagle, along with critical wetland,
    forest and shrubland habitat for many species of conservation concern.

                    PUBLIC USE AND BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY

        The Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge is charged with
    providing environmental education and research opportunities.
    Recreational opportunities at Conte include wildlife observation and
    photography, hiking, and fishing. Acquisition within the Conte Special
    Focus areas would allow improved habitat management and create
    significant opportunities for environmental education, wildlife
    viewing, and research. The location of these special focus areas within
    the heavily populated Central Connecticut Valley of New England would
    allow the Refuge to serve urban areas more effectively, including
    Middletown and Hartford, CT, Springfield, MA, Brattleboro, VT and
    Manchester, NH.

                                    THREATS

        The Connecticut River watershed is facing tremendous pressures from
    development throughout its length. Areas on or near the river are in
    high demand as locations for high-end luxury housing, and there is
    increasing risk of fragmenting forest blocks throughout the watershed.
    Grassland and unfragmented forest habitats are particularly at risk.

            ACQUISITION STATUS & ESTIMATED COST FOR THE ACQUISITION

        The Refuge consists of 32,076 acres with a total acquisition goal
    of 93,395 acres. Acquisition priorities include additions that enhance
    environmental education and scientific research on the Refuge. $4
    million is needed for fiscal year 2006 to purchase 280 acres in the
    Salmon River Division in Connecticut and 83 acres in the Fort River
    Division in Massachusetts to provide research, public access and
    environmental education opportunities in heavily populated central
    Connecticut Valley of New England. Additional land acquisition projects
    in Vermont and New Hampshire will also be funded through this year's
    appropriation in the Nulhegan Basin, Pondicherry and Mohawk River
    Divisions.

                                 PUBLIC SUPPORT

        Tremendous public support exists for protection of the Connecticut
    River and for acquisition of land by the Conte NFWR. Many environmental
    groups have an interest in the conservation of land within the
    watershed including: Audubon Connecticut; Audubon Vermont; the
    Massachusetts Audubon Society; the Audubon Society of New Hampshire;
    The Nature Conservancy; Mattabeseck Audubon Society; Potapaug
        Audubon Society; Trust for Public Land; Connecticut Audubon
    Society; Hartford Audubon Society; The Friends of the Silvio O. Conte
    Refuge, and many other groups.
    Connecticut
        The Potapaug Audubon Society Chapter volunteers have participated
    in Conte NFWR Migratory Bird Habitat Stopover studies. Audubon chapters
    and affiliates would provide volunteers to lead trips and participate
    in Refuge wildlife monitoring activities when the Refuge does acquire
    land in Connecticut.
    Vermont and New Hampshire
        Audubon Vermont and the Audubon Society of New Hampshire are
    currently undertaking an effort to map the natural resources of the
    Connecticut River Watershed and conduct a spatial analysis of the
    watershed to assess habitat that may qualify for IBA status. Field
    assessments will be conducted this summer. And further nominations and
    recognitions are expected. In Vermont, chapters have advocated for
    state and federal funding to acquire land for the Refuge at Nulhegan
    Basin and the chapter has helped with a high school summer science
    program that has conducted large mammal surveys in the Conte Refuge
    holding in the Nulhegan over the last two summers. At Herricks Cove,
    each year our Audubon Chapter and the Vermont State Office sponsor a
    wildlife festival at Herricks Cove attended by as many as 1,000 people
    each year. In addition the state office has worked with the chapter to
    conduct a wildlife assessment of the property and are carrying our a
    native plant restoration project on site this past summer and the
    summer to come. Monthly monitoring is also taking place. Ascutney
    Mountain Audubon Society has developed artificial heron nesting
    platforms to maintain a heron rookery on a wetland in Weathersfield VT
    and the chapter maintains a nature trial and kiosk at the Army Corp of
    Engineers flood control project in Springfield and Weathersfield.
    Southeastern Vermont Audubon has put up Osprey nesting platforms along
    the banks of the Connecticut river in Brattleboro and the Northeast
    Kingdom Audubon participates in monitoring efforts at the Victory Bog
    IBA.

                                    HABITAT

        The Salmon River Division parcel consists of 280 acres of forested
    and freshwater tidal wetland habitat. The Fort River Division parcel
    consists of 83 acres of grassland and agricultural habitat.

                                    SPECIES

        Home to threatened & endangered species such as:
        Federally threatened species: Piping Plover; Bald Eagle; puritan
    tiger beetle; shortnose sturgeon.
        State-listed species.--Whip-poor-will; Yellow-breasted Chat; Bald
    Eagle; Red-shouldered Hawk; Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow; Seaside
    Sparrow; Sedge Wren; Northern Saw-whet Owl; Short-eared Owl; Least
    Bittern; American Bittern; Snowy Egret; Great Egret; Willet; Piping
    Plover; Northern Harrier; Snowy Egret; Horned Lark; King Rail; Black
    Rail; Common Moorhen; Pied-billed Grebe; Blue-winged Teal; Peregrine
    Falcon; American Kestrel; American Oystercatcher; Upland Sandpiper,
    Yellow-crowned Night Heron; Brown Thrasher; Bobolink; Savannah Sparrow;
    Ipswich Sparrow; Grasshopper Sparrow, Vesper Sparrow, Least Tern;
    Common Tern; and several species of state-listed plants and insects.
        Home to Audubon WatchList species.--American Black Duck;
    ``Atlantic'' Brant; Black Rail; Piping Plover; American Golden Plover;
    American Oystercatcher; American Woodcock; Red Knot; Short-billed
    Dowitcher; Whimbrel; Short-eared Owl; Blue-winged Warbler; Kentucky
    Warbler; Prairie Warbler; Rusty Blackbird; Wood Thrush; Cerulean
    Warbler, Worm-eating Warbler; Willow Flycatcher; Black-and-White
    Warbler; Hairy Woodpecker; Seaside Sparrow; Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed
    Sparrow and Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow.
        Partners in Flight High Conservation Priority Species.--Home for at
    least 37 species of birds considered of high conservation priority by
    Partners in Flight.
        Other species.--Floodplain forest of the Connecticut River has been
    documented as being important stopover habitat for migrant landbirds.
    Large blocks of forest remaining in the upper reaches of the watershed
    are critical nesting areas for many species of forest-nesting birds,
    and habitat for large mammals such as black bear and moose. The
    freshwater tidal marshes of the lower river are important habitat for
    migrant shorebird stopover, rails and other marsh birds, and as a
    waterfowl migratory stopover and wintering area.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the New Hampshire Audubon

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate
    the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $3 million from the Forest Legacy Program for the Robb
    Reservoir/Willard Pond tract in New Hampshire.
        The mission of New Hampshire Audubon is to protect New Hampshire's
    natural environment for wildlife and for people. The Robb Reservoir/
    Willard Pond tract has been a conservation priority of our organization
    for 35 years, with the first transfer of land to New Hampshire Audubon
    occurring in 1971. We are deeply invested in these properties due to
    their tremendous natural resources, wetlands, endangered species, and
    crucial wildlife corridor linkages.
        New Hampshire's forests are the economic engine that drives tourism
    and the majority of manufacturing in the state. Private landowners and
    industries own eighty percent of the state's forestland. The New
    Hampshire Forest Legacy Program seeks to protect blocks of forestland
    of varying sizes and values that are threatened by conversion to
    nonforest uses, so that they may provide for the continuation of
    traditional forest uses. To date, more than 200,000 acres of forestland
    in New Hampshire have been protected through the Forest Legacy Program.
        The Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond project is a 1,667-acre tract in
    Cheshire County, one of the few areas in southern New Hampshire where
    large unfragmented blocks of forestland can still be found. Protection
    of the property will link together the 1,466-acre Willard Pond New
    Hampshire Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary with two other private easements.
    Altogether these conservation efforts will link a block of over 40,000
    acres of permanently protected forestland in a densely populated area
    of the state.
        The Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond project area has also been
    identified as a critical target for protection due to its ecological
    value and central location in the Quabbin-to-Cardigan Conservation
    Initiative, an inter-organizational collaborative effort organized to
    establish a contiguous conservation corridor from the southern White
    Mountains in New Hampshire to the Quabbin Reservoir in Massachusetts.
    Approximately 75 percent of the property is productive forestland and
    will be managed to provide for sustainable timber production. This
    property is under considerable development pressure because of its
    commuting distance to Concord, Manchester and Keene.
        Under the terms of a conservation easement, the project area would
    continue to provide public access for hunting, hiking, nature viewing,
    cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing, as well as fishing for warm and
    cold water species in the North Branch River and Robb Reservoir. A
    network of established recreation trails will connect this property to
    an adjacent trail network at the Audubon wildlife sanctuary.
    Mountainous portions of the property offer unobstructed views of the
    reservoir and surrounding mountains, and provide excellent vantage
    points for wildlife viewing. Documented archaeological sites, located
    along the north branch of the Contoocook River, reveal clues to the
    lifestyle of the Penacook people, who lived on this landscape for
    millennia. A historic Native American travel route, the Kon-weg-ti-ok
    Trail, once ran through the property along the river, connecting Native
    American villages.
        The Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond property is home to diverse and
    interesting plant and animal species. Several state threatened and
    endangered species have been documented on the property including the
    bald eagle, pied-billed grebe, osprey, purple martin, and northern
    harrier. In addition, a state listed endangered plant species, the
    arethusa, is found growing on the property within the three state
    designated Exemplary Natural Communities: Atlantic white cedar swamp,
    southern New England level bog, and southern New England acidic seepage
    swamp. Of these three, the Atlantic white cedar swamp is designated as
    ``critically imperiled'' due to its extreme rarity. In 1991, the north
    branch of the Contoocook River, which runs through the property, was
    designated as protected by the New Hampshire Rivers Management
    Protection Program.
        New Hampshire has recognized Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond as its
    number one priority for the Forest Legacy Program this year, and $3
    million has been included for the project in the President's fiscal
    year 2007 Budget. This year, a total appropriation of $3 million of
    Forest Legacy funding is needed to acquire and protect the 1,667-acre
    Willard Pond/Robb Reservoir property.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of this request.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Institutes for Water Resources

        Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the National Institutes for Water
    Resources, I request the Subcommittee to provide $8,775,000 to the U.S.
    Geological Survey for the state Water Resources Research Act Program,
    as originally established under provisions of Public Law 88-379, the
    Water Resources Research Act of 1964.
        First, I would like to thank you and the Subcommittee members for
    your longtime support of the program. You have recognized the
    importance of university cooperation with local, state and federal
    government agencies to produce new knowledge, and to ensure the
    education and training of the professionals who design and manage our
    water systems.
        The 54 state water institutes, located at land grant universities
    in each of the states and territories, have been funded through the
    Department of the Interior each year since they were first authorized
    in 1964. They have a threefold mission: to oversee the conduct of
    useful water research, to foster the education and training of our
    Nation's future water professionals, and to transfer research results
    to those who manage or use the Nation's water resources.

                                    REQUEST

        The National Institutes for Water Resources respectfully request
    the addition of $8,775,000 to the 2007 budget of the USGS for the Water
    Resources Research Act Program. This recommendation is composed as
    follows:
      --$7,000,000 in base grants for the water institutes, as authorized
            by Section 104(b) of the Act, for competitive research seed
            grants and outreach;
      --$1,500,000 to support activities authorized by section 104(g) of
            the Act, the national competitive grants program; and
      --$275,000 for program administration.
        Two reauthorization bills for the program are currently pending
    before the House Resources Committee: S. 1017, which passed the Senate
    unanimously, and H.R. 4588, introduced by Representative Doolittle.
    Both bills authorize annual appropriations of $12,000,000. The
    appropriation in fiscal year 2006 was $6,500,000. The increase from the
    fiscal year 2006 appropriation that is recommended herein would
    partially offset the sharp increase in university costs of the last 3-5
    years, in particular the cost of tuition.

                                 JUSTIFICATION

        ``At the dawn of the 21st century the United States faces a panoply
    of water problems that are significantly more numerous, complex, and
    larger in scope than those of the past.'' So stated an expert committee
    of the National Research Council in 2004, in an assessment reported in
    Confronting the Nation's Water Problems: The Role of Research. These
    problems, paradoxically, stem from our Nation's progress and success.
    As the U.S. population grows and its economy drives forward, demands on
    water resources intensify. As the built environment expands, more value
    is jeopardized by each flood and drought. As we learn more about
    natural processes, we strive to bring our water management practices
    into alignment with our new understanding. As our general prosperity
    increases, we raise our expectations--for drinking water quality, the
    availability of irrigated farm produce and the abundance of wild fish.
    Meeting these demands requires high levels of research, outreach to
    water managers and water users, and education of future specialists.
        Federal agencies conduct a great deal of water research and
    training. But, as the NRC report points out, these are driven and
    constrained by agency missions, which means that important topics are
    neglected--most notably the institutional aspects of water management,
    where important economies and innovations may be realized. Private
    organizations and state natural-resource agencies need water research,
    education and training but seldom have the capacity to conduct these
    activities themselves. Clearly, universities must play a major role.
    The question is: by what characteristics should the Water Resources
    Research Act Program be judged worthy to fill this role, at a time of
    unprecedented demand on the federal budget? I propose four criteria:
    relevance, quality, efficiency and need.
        Relevance.--Congress was quite deliberate in originally directing
    the establishment of water institutes at land grant universities. These
    are the schools that specialize in identifying problems within their
    states, developing solutions, and conducting technology transfer. The
    institutes' research and outreach are further tuned to state needs,
    because the institutes are required by the Water Resources Research Act
    to consult with panels of advisors representing the water interests in
    their states. Regional and national priorities are addressed when the
    institutes collaborate on larger projects. Examples of 2006 activities
    at different scales include:
      --A regional workshop on turning the water produced during coalbed
            methane and oil extraction to beneficial uses
      --A national conference titled Increasing Freshwater Supply
      --A collaboration with the American Water Works Association to place
            undergraduate interns with municipal water utilities
      --Research to define ground water flows in the Tar River Basin, a
            rapidly-growing area of North Carolina where increased water
            supplies are needed
      --Research to locate the sources of infectious microbes in the
            watershed tributary to the Philadelphia municipal water system.
        Institute-sponsored research is not limited to the natural
    sciences; for example, three of this year's eight national research
    projects concern the economics of water management.
        Quality.--In both the state and national research programs,
    projects are selected for funding on a competitive basis, relying on
    the reviews of peer scientists, economists or engineers. The
    performance of each institute is evaluated every five years by an
    independent, USGS-appointed panel. The most recent evaluation report
    (2004) stated ``The vast majority of institutes are strong and thriving
    and a significant subset is very strong and distinguished the institute
    program, with its federal-state matching requirement, is an important
    and significant part of the nation's water resources research
    infrastructure.''
        Efficiency.--The water institutes must match each federal dollar
    from their base grants with two non-federal dollars. This is the
    highest match requirement of any federal research program. The national
    competitive grants program requires a 1:1 match. The overall leveraging
    ratio for all of the institutes, counting funding from all sources, is
    more than 15:1. In 2005 the institutes supported more than 1,300
    student researchers, at an average cost of less than $10,000 each. By
    comparison, student stipends funded by the National Science Foundation
    average more than $20,000 per year. The Water Resources Research Act
    Program does not allow for university administrative costs, and USGS
    administrative costs are less than 5 percent.
        Need.--The President's budget recommends the water institute
    program for elimination in fiscal year 2007. The recommendation is
    justified thus: ``These Institutes generally have been successful in
    obtaining other sources of funding and should be able to support
    themselves.'' In fact, the institutes cannot exert funding leverage if
    they have no fulcrum against which to lever. It is the ongoing federal
    support, the Congressional designation as a focal point of water
    investigation and outreach, that enables the institutes to augment
    their base grants from other funding sources. Furthermore, a
    significant number of the institutes receive no base funding from their
    states or universities at all. Some of these would cease to exist
    without the federal base grant. Others would greatly curtail their
    activities; in particular, they would no longer disburse research seed
    grants, formally consult with water-user groups, collaborate with other
    universities in their states, or conduct outreach to water managers. In
    my own state, the annual conference that brings together more than 200
    water managers, students, and researchers is largely funded through the
    federal base grant. Without the appropriation, its continuation would
    be in jeopardy.

                                   IN CLOSING

        The water institutes have been on the job nationwide for more than
    40 years, and they're well-prepared to play a key role in assuring our
    Nation's water security in the 21st century. But from one year to the
    next they are absolutely reliant on federal seed funding to mobilize
    the resources they need to tackle contemporary water problems. I thank
    you for your past support, and hope that the institutes have earned
    your continued confidence.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the New Jersey Audubon Society

        On behalf of the New Jersey Audubon Society and its over 21,000
    members, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit
    testimony to the fiscal year 2007 Subcommittee on the Interior and
    Related Agencies.
        New Jersey Audubon Society is a privately supported, not-for
    profit, statewide membership organization that fosters environmental
    awareness and a conservation ethic among New Jersey's citizens;
    protects New Jersey's birds, mammals, other animals, and plants,
    especially endangered and threatened species; and promotes preservation
    of New Jersey's valuable natural habitats.
        I am writing to express our support for funding three national
    wildlife refuge acquisition projects in New Jersey through the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Program. These projects meet the
    criteria of the LWCF program and benefit the citizens of New Jersey and
    visitors by:
      --Providing opportunities for citizens recreation in the most densely
            populated state in the nation;
      --Protecting open space and habitat for wildlife, including
            endangered and threatened species;
      --Offering opportunities for scientific research through the
            enhancement of the NOAA Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine
            Reserve; and
      --Resulting in considerable saving for the US Fish and Wildlife
            Service.

                       CAPE MAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

        LWCF funds in the amount of $1.3 million would acquire 450 acres,
    known as Braddock Realty, adjacent to Cape May National Wildlife Refuge
    in southern New Jersey.
        The property is located along Bidwell Creek, a tidal creek flowing
    from the Delaware Bay. Cape May County identified the drainage basin of
    this creek as one of the most important aquifer recharge areas in the
    county.
        This low, wet property is also the site of one of the largest
    stands of swamp pink (Helonias bullata), a member of the Lily Family
    and a federally threatened plant. In addition, this property is
    composed of forested uplands and an overgrown field, exceptional
    habitat for American woodcock. This piece of land also provides habitat
    for the tremendous number of migratory birds that pass through the Cape
    May peninsula each year. Other species that call this area home include
    state threatened species such as barred owls, red-shouldered hawks, and
    osprey.

                       FORSYTHE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

        LWCF funds in the amount of $500,000 would acquire a 45.59-acre
    island, known as the Ocean County parcel, near the Edwin B. Forsythe
    National Wildlife Refuge in central New Jersey.
        The Ocean County parcel is an upland tree island in the tidal
    marches to the north of Great Bay. The marshes surrounding the parcel
    are already part of refuge, however the island is not.
        Acquisition of this parcel is critical to the protection of habitat
    within the area and would be the final step in acquiring a 128-acre
    area approved for development in 1999. The Ocean County Freeholders
    recently purchased the other portion of this 128-acre area for the
    refuge.
        The land is located within the approved refuge acquisition boundary
    and once purchased would become part of the NOAA Jacques Cousteau
    National Estuarine Reserve.

                      GREAT SWAMP NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

        LWCF funds in the amount of $2 million would acquire 30 acres of
    land located on two abutting lots adjacent to Great Swamp National
    Wildlife Refuge in northern New Jersey.
        The 27-acre larger lot currently contains a fireworks production
    facility and temporary storage area as well as deciduous forested
    wetlands. Purchasing this land would remove a potentially dangerous
    operation from the immediate area of the refuge. The production
    facility is now located approximately 2,000 feet from the Somerset
    County Environmental Education Center and a little over 5,000 feet from
    the Refuge headquarters.
        Acquisition of this land also would provide an excellent
    restoration opportunity and likely protect critical habitat of the
    endangered blue-spotted salamander, found on adjacent refuge land, and
    the endangered red-shouldered hawk, reported to be nesting in the area.
        The smaller 3-acre lot contains a 4,400-square-foot brick house.
    Acquiring this lot would provide an opportunity to relocate the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Law Enforcement, currently
    occupying expensive leased space in Elizabeth, onto Service land. The
    house is in very good condition and could easily be converted and used
    as office space, resulting in considerable saving for the Service.

                                PROJECT SUPPORT

        These projects are supported by the following organizations, which
    represents hundreds of thousands of New Jersey citizens:
      --American Littoral Society
      --Delaware Riverkeeper
      --Great Swamp Watershed Association
      --New Jersey Conservation Foundation
      --New Jersey Environmental Federation
      --NJ PIRG
      --New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs
      --New York-New Jersey Trail Conference
      --Passaic River Coalition
      --Pinelands Preservation Alliance
      --Sierra Club, New Jersey Chapter
        Finally, NJ Audubon Society is very concerned about the overall
    proposed cuts to the Land & Water Conservation Fund, which is slated to
    receive only $85 million in the President's budget. This would be the
    lowest level of funding in over three decades. Without adequate funding
    of this program, New Jersey's last remaining open spaces will be
    developed, resulting in a loss of recreational opportunities and
    quality of life for both urban and rural residents.
        Thank you again for considering our comments on the fiscal year
    2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
        Contact Information: Eric Stiles, NJ Audubon Society at 908-766-
    5787 x13 or eric.stiles@njaudubon.org.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation

        The New Jersey Conservation Foundation thanks you for the
    opportunity to comment on the fiscal year 2007 Department of the
    Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. The NJ
    Conservation Foundation is a member-supported, non-profit 501.c.3
    statewide organization whose mission is to preserve New Jersey's land
    and natural resources for the benefit of all. Since 1960, NJCF has
    worked to protect the State's farmland, forests, urban parks, wetlands,
    water quality and special places.
        NJCF's top priorities include:
      --$80 million for the Forest Legacy Program, including $2.1 million
            for the protection of Sparta Mountain South (NJ)--Phase II
            ($1.8 million was provided in fiscal year 2006 for Phase I);
      --$11 million for the Highlands Conservation Act, including $2.5
            million for protection of the Wyanokie Highlands (NJ); and
      --$2.0 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the New
            Jersey Pinelands Forked River Mountain Preserve Expansion
            Project.

                           USDA/FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM

        Sparta Mountain South (NJ) is located in Sussex County, where it
    forms the westernmost ridge of New Jersey's northern Highlands. Sparta
    Mountain/Lubber's Run was identified as important ``Conservation Focal
    Area--I '' in the USDA Forest Service NY-NJ Highlands Regional Study:
    2002 Update.
        There is currently the potential, in densely populated New Jersey,
    to preserve more than 5,000 acres in the Sparta Mountain Greenway. In
    fiscal year 2006, the Forest Legacy Program provided funding for 1,200
    easement acres. Now, we seek $2.1 million for 1,000 acres (fee and
    easement).
        Sparta Mountain South is a key linkage between state park and
    wildlife management areas, extending some 15 miles between Hamburg
    Mountain State Wildlife Management Area and Allamuchy State Park. At
    Sparta Mountain's northern end, 1,200-acre Gerard Woods, 3,200-acre
    Sparta Mountain and 1,300-acre Weldon Brook State Wildlife Management
    Areas preserve over 5,700 acres. Sparta Mountain South forms a critical
    linkage between these WMA's and Allamuchy State Park to the south. New
    Jersey's Highlands Millennium Trail, initiated in 1994 with National
    Park Service Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance, follows Sparta
    Mountain on its 150-mile route between the Hudson and Delaware Rivers.
        Sparta Mountain South offers magnificant vistas overlooking
    pristine lakes and ponds, glacial erratics, and a diversity of natural
    communities, including grasslands and wetlands. Mature forests of oak,
    beech, hickory, maple, and tulip poplar clothe its steep ridges, and
    hemlock groves still stand despite the wooly adelgid blight that has
    devastated many hemlock forests in the State. Federally endangered bog
    turtle and State threatened red shouldered hawk, wood turtle, spotted
    salamander, timber rattlesnake and bobcat make their home here. The
    forests protect groundwater aquifers and water quality, while wetlands
    and ponds provide flood control and habitat for wading birds, neo-
    tropical migrant songbirds and amphibians.
        Sparta Mountain South forms part of the watershed of the
    Musconetcong River. Legislation adding the Musconetcong River to the
    National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was approved in the Senate
    December 16, 2005, and successfully marked up on March 29, 2006 by the
    Parks Subcommittee of the House Committee on Natural Resources.
        Recent development on adjacent parcels threatens the biological and
    resource integrity of Sparta Mountain South.

                           HIGHLANDS CONSERVATION ACT

        In the fall of 2004, Congress enacted and President Bush signed the
    Highlands Conservation Act, recognizing the national significance of
    the more than three-million acre, four-state Highlands region as a
    source of drinking water, productive forests and farms, wildlife
    habitat and recreation within an hour of major metropolitan areas
    including Philadelphia, New York City and Hartford. The Act authorized
    $11 million annually to assist the Highlands states in conserving
    priority lands from willing landowners, and to continue USDA Forest
    Service research and assistance to private landowners in the Highlands.
        The Administration's fiscal year 2007 budget included $2 million
    for the Highlands Conservation Act (HCA), through the Fish & Wildlife
    Service, to support land conservation partnership projects in the four
    Highland states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut.
    The Governors of the four Highlands States have jointly submitted
    projects totaling $10 million in need to the Department of the Interior
    for funding in fiscal year 2007.

                            WYANOKIE HIGHLANDS (NJ)

        New Jersey requests $2.5 million in funding to acquire four parcels
    in Passaic County totaling 1,288 acres. The total cost of this project
    is $7.7 million.
        The Wyanokie Highlands encompass critical watersheds that protect
    New Jersey's most significant and most threatened water supply--the
    Wanaque Reservoir--on which nearly two million people rely. The
    Wyanokies contain the headwaters of Burnt Meadow and West Brooks,
    waterways of exceptional ecological significance, which flow directly
    into the Wanaque Reservoir. Acquisition will provide essential
    protection for this critical water supply, which the U.S. Forest
    Service identified as highly threatened by development.
        In addtion, preservation will complete a missing greenway link
    between Norvin Green State Forest and Long Pond Ironworks State Park,
    and extend a direct connection to New York's Sterling Forest State Park
    along the route of the Highlands Millenium Trail. The Highlands Trail,
    nearly completed, runs 150 miles between the Hudson and the Delaware
    Rivers. The Wyanokie Highlands boast an extensive network of historic
    hiking trails and dramatic scenic overlooks, as well as significant
    ecological values.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        Forked River Mountain Preserve Expansion Project.--We are seeking
    $2.0 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (authorized by
    Section 502 of the National Parks and Recreation Act) to preserve 622
    acres in the Forked River Mountain Project area, towards the project's
    total cost of $4.425 million. The 622 acres are located wholly within
    the Pinelands National Reserve, in and near New Jersey Conservation
    Foundation's 3,000-acre Forked River Mountain Preserve.
        The New Jersey Conservation Foundation is working to permanently
    preserve thousands of acres throughout the New Jersey Pinelands
    Commission's Preservation Target Areas in partnership with the
    Pinelands Commission, NJ Department of Environmental Protection and
    other governmental and non-governmental agencies. Over $40 million
    would be needed to protect all the unpreserved, targeted lands. The
    money sought will match existing funds to purchase the property from
    the current landowner.
        The permanent preservation of critical natural resources in the
    Pinelands National Reserve (PNR) ensures that the specific goals and
    overall mission of the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP)
    are realized. The New Jersey Conservation Foundation has a long history
    of supporting the CMP and the Pinelands Commission land preservation
    initiatives throughout the PNR. If funded, our efforts will result in
    the preservation of thousands of acres leveraged by additional State,
    local and private funding that will protect natural areas, connect
    existing isolated preserved lands, and provide the public with areas
    for hunting, fishing, hiking and other outdoor pursuits. Management
    will include active and passive measures to ensure the survival and
    possible expansion of known populations of threatened and endangered
    species found on these properties.
        The Forked River Mountain Preserve Expansion Project is within a
    Land Preservation Target Area approved by the Pinelands Commission. It
    consists of a mosaic of tracts that are entirely forested with no
    history of development or other significant disruption. Pine-oak forest
    dominates the property with some significant stands of Atlantic White
    Cedar in the lower areas along the North Branch of the Forked River.
    This area is known to be habitat for a number of rare and endangered
    Pine Barrens species such as Pine Barrens treefrog (Hyla andersonii),
    Knieskern's beaked-rush (Rynchospora knieskernii), northern pine snake
    (Pituophis melanoleucus) and curly grass fern ( Schizaea pusilla). A
    portion of the property is located in the Oyster Creek Watershed,
    recently given additional protections by the Pinelands Commission
    through a zoning change to better protect species diversity and high
    water quality. Many adjacent properties are already protected as part
    of the 3,000-acre Forked River Mountain Preserve.
        Thank you again for considering our comments on the fiscal year
    2007 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Hiking Society; American Rivers;
     Arizona Wilderness Coalition; Audubon Society of Greater Denver; Bay
       Area Coalition for Headwaters; Continental Divide Trail Alliance;
      Friends of the Agua Fria National Monument; Friends of the Missouri
      Breaks Monument; Friends of Sloan Canyon; Grand Canyon Trust; Grand
       Canyon Wildlands Council; Idaho Conservation League; Idaho Rivers
     United; National Coast Trail Association; National Trust for Historic
     Preservation; National Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources Defense
        Council; New Mexico Wildlife Federation; Oregon Natural Desert
        Association; Republicans for Environmental Protection; San Juan
         Citizens Alliance; Sierra Club; Sky Island Alliance; Tamarisk
        Coalition; U.S. Public Interest; Research Group; The Wilderness
                       Society; and the Wilderness Watch

        On behalf of the 27 organizations listed above and our millions of
    members, we are writing to express our support for increased funding
    and improved budgeting and reporting accountability for the National
    Landscape Conservation System (NLCS).
        The NLCS is comprised of 26 million acres of the most spectacular
    lands and waters under the stewardship of the Bureau of Land Management
    (BLM). Created in 2000, the System provides unparalleled opportunities
    for recreation, hunting, fishing, wildlife watching, grazing, solitude,
    adventure, scientific research, and economic benefits to neighboring
    communities across the West. National Monuments, National Conservation
    Areas, Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, National Scenic and
    Historic Trails and Wild and Scenic Rivers are all part of the NLCS.
    fiscal year 2007 operations, maintenance, and planning budget needs for

                                    THE NLCS

        The President's fiscal year 2007 budget slashes $4.8 million from
    NLCS operations funding--a cut of 12 percent. When inflation and normal
    uncontrollable operating increases are taken into account, the
    President's proposal cuts approximately $6 million. The total proposed
    budget of just $37.1 million will leave critical BLM responsibilities
    and needs unmet, including law enforcement, management of illegal off
    road vehicle traffic, archaeological site protection, control of
    invasive species, and the implementation of new Resource Management
    Plans.
        We respectfully request that the Committee provide $46 million for
    operations and planning funding for the NLCS, a $3 million increase
    over the fiscal year 2006 enacted budget. This funding level would
    enable the BLM to maintain services at the fiscal year 2006 enacted
    level, while providing additional capacity to address areas of acute
    need, including:
      --Law enforcement and visitor management: A 2005 survey of 15
            Monuments and Conservation Areas in the NLCS found that only
            one-third has more than one full-time law enforcement ranger.
            On average, one ranger patrols 200,000 acres. Enforcement staff
            capacity needs to keep pace with growth in use; in some areas,
            visitor numbers have quadrupled in the past 5 years.
      --Science and natural resource monitoring: The BLM cannot meet its
            responsibility to obtain adequate information on the health of
            flora and fauna, riparian condition, water quality, and other
            resources--a problem recently highlighted by the Heinz Center
            and the Government Accountability Office.
      --Cultural Resource Management: BLM does not have the personnel to
            meet its legal responsibility to identify, evaluate, and
            nominate historic properties to the National Register of
            Historic Places, and protect cultural sites. The NLCS contains
            hundreds of thousands of significant cultural and historic
            resources, yet the agency has comprehensively inventoried just
            6-7 percent of the area encompassed by NLCS Monuments and
            Conservation Areas.
        Additionally, we note that the President's budget has removed all
    of the Congressional requests that were included in the fiscal year
    2006 budget. We urge the committee to restore these Congressional add-
    ons and we ask the committee to give serious consideration to any
    additional member requests for funding NLCS units in the fiscal year
    2007 budget. These increases should be allocated in addition to, not in
    lieu of, funding already budgeted for each NLCS unit in the BLM's
    fiscal year 2007 budget.
        These requested increases could be funded by limiting the
    appropriation for BLM's oil and gas program to $6 million, rather than
    the $26 million increase requested by the agency. In addition to BLM's
    oil and gas program request, the BLM is receiving an additional $20
    million ``off budget'' from lease rentals to fund seven ``pilot
    permitting programs'' established by the Energy Policy Act. In effect,
    the BLM is asking for a $46 million increase in funding for its oil and
    gas program, while neglecting other high priority programs, such as the
    National Landscape Conservation System.

                NLCS LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND PRIORITIES

        The President's fiscal year 2007 budget would provide just $6
    million for BLM land acquisition via LWCF--the lowest level ever. We do
    support the projects proposed for funding from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund in the President's request, but strongly recommend an
    additional $4.9 million for projects in Canyons of the Ancients
    National Monument (CO), McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area
    (CO), Carrizo Plain National Monument (CA), Cascade Siskiyou National
    Monument (OR), and along the Pacific Crest Trail (OR). These projects
    are BLM acquisition priorities and offer willing sellers, local
    support, and opportunities to resolve inholder/access issues and
    protect recreational opportunities.

      SUPPORT FOR THE PRESIDENT'S CULTURAL RESOURCE FUNDING INCREASES IN
                                FISCAL YEAR 2007

        We support the President's proposed $3 million program increase for
    cultural resource enhancement on BLM lands in fiscal year 2007. We
    encourage the Appropriations Committee to direct the BLM to devote a
    portion of this increase to inventory and protect the NLCS' hundreds of
    thousands of significant archaeological and historic sites (both known
    and unknown), and the wild lands surrounding these sites. The Committee
    should also restrict the use of these funds to proactive management of
    cultural resources (surveys, necessary maintenance and stabilization of
    historic sites), rather than for compliance with Section 106 of the
    National Historic Preservation Act.

                NLCS MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

        BLM's budget structure for the NLCS discourages program integration
    and limits accountability. For example, the NLCS receives funding from
    multiple budget categories and subcategories, obscuring the total
    funding devoted to the NLCS and how it is used within the System. The
    BLM cannot effectively track NLCS funding, so the President's budget
    does not provide a clear depiction of NLCS expenditures.
        Members of Congress concerned about the efficient use of scarce
    conservation dollars should request that the Interior Department
    provide annual reports on NLCS revenues, expenditures, and
    accomplishments, starting with budget documents for fiscal year 2006
    and fiscal year 2007. Directing the DOI and the BLM to provide budget
    information on the System at the unit level (for example,
    accomplishments and financial information for each Monument and
    Conservation Area)--akin to the level of detail DOI can provide on oil
    and gas leasing, and minerals management--would promote good government
    and accountability and help clarify the goals and needs of BLM's
    National Landscape Conservation System. We urge the committee to
    reinstate a cross-cut budget for the NLCS similar to that included in
    the fiscal year 2002 budget and we recommend that the Committee direct
    the BLM to establish separate subactivities for Wild and Scenic Rivers,
    National Scenic and Historic Trails, National Conservation Areas and
    National Monuments.
        We look forward to working with you on improvements to the budget
    to ensure that the BLM can effectively and efficiently meet its mandate
    of conservation on the National Landscape Conservation System--some of
    our nation's most spectacular and beloved public lands.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Northern Lights Nordic Ski Club

        I thank you for the opportunity today to present this testimony in
    support of an appropriation of $750,000 from the Forest Legacy Program
    (FLP) for the Sugar Hills property in Itasca County, Minnesota. As you
    may know, the President's Budget for this year included $750,000 for
    this project.
        The Northern Lights Nordic Ski Club is a non-profit volunteer
    association of over 250 members who enjoy cross country skiing and
    other winter sports in the forests around Grand Rapids, Minnesota.
    Every year we sponsor a cross country race series called the
    Vinterloppet. Different events include classic and freestyle Nordic
    skiing as well as the Kinderloppet for children. We put on weekly free
    ski clinics for children and adults. Our mission is ``to promote cross
    country skiing as a healthful family activity.''
        Our organization voluntarily cuts, grooms, and maintains over 25
    kilometers of cross country ski trails on the Sugar Hills property for
    use by our members and other cross country enthusiasts. These trails
    include five separate loop trails ranging in length from nearly two
    kilometers to over five kilometers. The trails are some of the best in
    the state. As a result, the Sugar Hills trail system is a primary
    destination for Nordic Ski enthusiasts from not only the Itasca County
    area, but from throughout the State of Minnesota. In the summertime
    these trails are used for other recreational opportunities including
    hiking, bird watching, nature walks by school children, and biking, and
    provide public access to the forest for hunting and fishing. In the
    winter the skiing trails are open longer because of the dense cover
    from the forest canopy.
        The forests of the Sugar Hills property and northern Minnesota are
    a tremendous resource for residents and recreational users, but also
    the natural environment. The old growth northern hardwood communities
    and riparian areas along Pokegama and Siseebakwet creeks, Long Lake,
    and at many small potholes, wetlands, and ponds, support habitat for
    numerous species including timberwolves, lynx, bear and other mammals,
    and many species of birds, including grouse and dozens of warbler
    species.
        In recent years the Forest Legacy Program has made significant
    steps to prevent the fragmentation of forests in Minnesota. Conversion
    of forestlands to non-forest uses through development threaten
    recreation and habitat lands and the contributions of timber management
    to local economies. Itasca County has the greatest concentration of
    industrial forestlands in Minnesota and the Sugar Hills property is
    located in a larger block of 75,000 acres that is under consideration
    for future Forest Legacy efforts.
        An appropriation of $750,000 from the Forest Legacy Program in
    fiscal year 2007 is needed to allow the purchase of the conservation
    easement on the Sugar Hills property to continue providing recreational
    access for the members of our organization and others, conserve fish
    and wildlife habitat, and ensure the integrity of the northern hardwood
    forests. The federal funds provided will be matched by state and
    private funds to complete this project.
        I respectfully urge you to include this Forest Legacy project in
    the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
        I thank you again for this opportunity to provide testimony for
    your consideration of this request.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of Natural Lands Trust, Inc.

        We would like to enlist your help to secure a $300,000
    appropriation through the U.S. Forest Legacy Program for the
    ``Birdsboro Waters'' project. The money would leverage other public and
    private monies that will be used for the acquisition of a conservation
    easement on 1,836 acres of forest land owned by the Birdsboro Municipal
    Authority in Union and Robeson townships in Berks County, Pennsylvania.
        The forested area of southern Berks and northern Chester County,
    know as the Hopewell Big Woods landscape, is by far the largest block
    of wild and unbroken forest left in southeastern Pennsylvania. Its
    importance is further enhanced by being at the critical juncture of the
    Pennsylvania Highlands and the Schuylkill River corridor.
        According to the Hopewell Big Woods Landscape Conservation Plan,
    the Birdsboro Waters tract is the highest land protection priority for
    the Hopewell Big Woods Project. It is highly unusual to be able to come
    across a piece of property of this size in southeastern Pennsylvania,
    especially one with the natural significance and features of this one.
        Through the Forest Legacy Program, the Federal government is now in
    a position, with a relatively small investment, to close the deal on
    Birdsboro Waters. We have already received or anticipate receiving
    $1,900,000 in funding of the $2,200,000 price tag on Birdsboro Waters,
    leaving us only $300,000 away from our goal and the completion of the
    purchase of a conservation easement.
        As part of the Forest Legacy easement provisions, the land owner,
    the Birdsboro Municipal Authority, will still be able to realize timber
    revenues from the property, under the guidance of a sustainable forest
    management plan. The Hopewell Big Woods Partners are also organizing
    outdoor tourism opportunities for this forest area. It is hoped that
    this will provide the economic engine for the Borough of Birdsboro and
    renew it as a nature-based tourism center and regional service center.
        This project has been included in the President's 2007 budget to
    Congress for Forest Legacy funding and is currently in the Interior
    Appropriations budget. It is essential that these monies remain intact
    in these budgets.
        While the Birdsboro Water Authority has been very patient as we
    have worked to assemble the funding necessary for this project, we can
    anticipate that their patience has an end point, at which time the land
    will be considered for development. Also, it may be of interest for you
    to know that the project has support from the local forest products
    industry.
        We greatly appreciate your support and efforts on behalf of this
    project.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the National Mining Association (NMA)

                              NMA RECOMMENDATIONS

    Department of the Interior
        U.S. Geological Survey--Mineral Resources Program (MRP). Reject the
    proposed $22.9 million reduction in funding for the MRP, including the
    $4.5 million proposed cut for the Minerals Information Team.
        Bureau of Land Management (BLM)--Mining Law Administration.
    Increase the Mining Law Administration's Program budget by $5 million
    (enacted level is $32.6 million). Restore the $2.3 million proposed cut
    to the BLM Alaska minerals program.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
        Center for the Study of Metals in the Environment at the University
    of Delaware. $825,000 is recommended for the research of metal
    sequestration into soils.

                                   BACKGROUND

        Mineral Resources Program.--The United States Geological Survey
    (USGS) is the only source for most of the United States' statistical
    data on mining and minerals commodities. The proposed reduction of
    $22.9 million in the MRP would result in the elimination of more than
    180 full time employees (FTEs). The $4.5 million reduction proposed for
    the Minerals Information Team will result in the discontinuation of
    data collection and analysis for 100 mineral commodities in 180
    countries and approximately 200 reports. The reduction will also result
    in the loss of employees with invaluable expertise in global and
    domestic production and consumption of mineral commodities. As a
    result, information on U.S. and international minerals will no longer
    be available to the: (1) U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of
    Industry and Security, which uses the data and analyses to resolve
    trade disputes; (2) Federal Reserve Board, which uses global minerals
    information in preparation of economic forecasts; and (3) U.S.
    intelligence agencies that must understand the effect changes in
    natural resource markets have on economic and political stability of
    developing countries.
        In addition, the USGS' role in mineral information, exploration,
    identification of geological hazards and mapping offers important
    support to the mining industry.
        This information provided by USGS is the basis for informed policy
    decisions and is extensively used by government agencies, by Members of
    Congress and by state and local governments, as well as industry,
    academia and nongovernmental organizations. Mineral resource supply and
    demand issues are global in nature, and our nation is becoming more
    dependent upon foreign sources to meet our metals and minerals
    requirements. The MRP is the leading source of unbiased research on the
    nation's mineral resources. The guidance and research the program
    provides is important in maintaining the growing value of processed
    materials from mineral resources that accounted for $478 billion in the
    U.S. economy in 2005 as well as assessing the environmental impacts of
    mining. The proposed cuts in the Minerals program would also terminate
    multidisciplinary research on mercury, arsenic and other inorganic
    toxins.
        Mining Law Administration.--The BLM's fiscal year 2007 request of
    $32,696,000 for the Mining Law Administration Program (MLAP) is
    inadequate to meet the agency's obligations to process notices and
    plans of operations necessary for domestic exploration and mining
    projects. Since 1999, the funding of the MLAP program has remained flat
    (around $32,000,000). The substantial increase in the number of mining
    claims over the past five years (300 percent) demonstrates additional
    staffing and other resources are necessary to process the notices and
    plans of operations required for expanding our domestic mineral
    supplies. Ironically, while BLM has increased the regulatory demands on
    our domestic industry, it has not kept pace with sufficient agency
    staff and resources to review and approve the requests for permits and
    other authorizations required under the increasingly more stringent
    regulatory requirements.
        Delays in obtaining permits and other authorizations remain a
    substantial impediment to the financing and development of mining
    projects in the United States. A 1999 National Academy of Sciences
    study found the permitting of domestic mining projects entails an
    inordinate amount of time and resources. According to Behre Dolbear,
    the U.S. ranks among the lowest of the top 25 mining nations in terms
    of time and expense for obtaining required permits for mineral
    exploration and development. The consequence of this state of affairs
    is substantially longer lead times to get projects up and running so
    that they begin to generate a return on investment. As a result,
    permitting delays discourage companies from exploring in the United
    States and impair our ability to attract the capital investment
    required for mine development. In short, investment capital flows to
    where investors will experience a quicker return on their investment.
        In its report to Congress last year, BLM identified insufficient
    staffing as one cause of permitting delays, noting that many BLM
    offices were not backfilling positions as they were vacated. BLM
    recommended that a portion of the increased location and maintenance
    fees could be used to maintain adequate staffing levels needed to
    review, analyze and approve plans of operations.
        NMA agrees that insufficient staffing significantly delays the
    permitting process. Increasing funds for staffing appropriately
    balances the need to address the mining permit delays and capability of
    the agency with our nation's needs for secure supplies of minerals.
        To address this regulatory bottleneck, which impairs our Nation's
    economic growth and security, NMA provides the following
    recommendations:
      --An additional $5 million should be appropriated in fiscal year 2007
            for the MLAP. This level would allow the hiring by BLM State
            Offices of approximately 30 full time equivalents (FTE) to
            allow either backfilling of currently vacated positions or new
            hires.
      --Allocation of funds to the State Offices should be prioritized
            based on number of notices and plans filed in each office and
            current unfilled openings in MLAP.
      --For any fiscal year where receipts from mining claims maintenance
            and location fees exceed the amount Congress appropriates for
            MLAP, excess funds should be retained by the agency and used
            only for MLAP to promote more timely permit processing.
        Alaska Minerals Program.--By cutting its $2.3 million budget, BLM
    proposes to completely eliminate the Alaska Minerals Program. BLM's
    justification is that the money is needed to focus on higher
    priorities. However, that justification ignores the need for domestic
    sources of minerals. The Alaska minerals program helps identify
    mineralized areas that will supply the nation with new sources of
    minerals. In addition, the Alaska Minerals Program ensures that mineral
    potential and reserves are considered during the development or
    revision of land management plans. For example, the agency is currently
    developing a plan for the Southern National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska
    (NPRA) which holds tremendous mineral potential. The plan for this area
    will determine whether it is open to mineral development. The Alaska
    Minerals Program plays a critical role in promoting the efficient use
    of our nation's mineral resources and NMA, therefore, recommends it be
    fully funded at $2.3 million.
        Environmental Protection Agency.--The Center for the Study of
    Metals in the Environment (CSME) is comprised of scientists and
    engineers from the University of Delaware and Pennsylvania State
    University. The purpose of the CSME is to analyze and research the
    effects of metals on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
        NMA recommends $825,000 in funding for the CSME. A sound
    understanding of the chemistry, toxicology and fate of metals in the
    environment is critical to the development of appropriate regulatory
    programs. The CSME will use the requested funding to develop
    quantitative tools for understanding and predicting the fate and
    effects of metals in soils and water. This work will include:
      --understanding and modeling the fate of metals in streams, rivers
            and lakes; and
      --conducting research into metal sequestration in soils, a natural
            process that can lower the risk of metals in soil and, thereby,
            decrease cleanup costs at mining, military and industrial
            sites.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Parks Conservation Association

        The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) works to
    protect, preserve, and enhance America's national parks for present and
    future generations. On behalf of NPCA's more than 300,000 members, we
    appreciate the opportunity to share our funding priorities and
    respectfully request the Committee consider these views as you develop
    the fiscal year 2007 Interior budget.
        NPCA is deeply concerned with the President's fiscal year 2007
    budget request that cuts funding for the National Park Service $100
    million below enacted levels. Funding for our national parks should not
    be cut. At a minimum, we request overall funding for the National Park
    Service at current fiscal year 2006 level of $2.25 billion in
    appropriations. In addition, we request funding for priority programs
    and projects listed below.

                     OPERATIONS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

        A top NPCA priority is to significantly increase funding for Park
    Service operations. NPCA is requesting an increase of $150 million
    above the current fiscal year 2006 levels, $127 million above the
    President's request, for a total of $1.86 billion for Operations of the
    National Park System.
        If enacted, the President's requested increase of $23 million for
    Operations of the National Park System (ONPS), well below the rate of
    inflation, will result in a reduction in critical Park Service
    functions, including resource protection and visitor services. We note
    that the budget request for ONPS covers only 70 percent of the Park
    Service's fixed costs, forcing the parks to again absorb these costs at
    the park level. We urge the Committee to fully cover the anticipated
    fixed costs for the Park Service as it formulates its fiscal year 2007
    budget. In recent years, the parks have been stretched thin by
    unbudgeted cost-of-living increases, un-reimbursed storm damage, and
    insufficient funding for homeland security needs, which have
    contributed to and compounded the burden of the annual operating
    deficit. NPCA greatly appreciates the effort of the Committee to work
    on a bipartisan basis to address the core operating needs of the parks,
    particularly the successful effort to significantly increase the base
    operating budget of the parks in fiscal year 2005.
    Land Acquisition
        NPCA urges the Committee to significantly increase funding for
    National Park Service land acquisition. The President's request of only
    $22 million for federal land acquisition for the National Park Service,
    a cut of more than 50 percent below fiscal year 2006 enacted levels,
    and more than $100 million below levels only five years ago, hinders
    the ability of the Park Service to acquire and protect sensitive
    natural and cultural lands across the nation from willing sellers.
    California Desert Parks, CA (Death Valley NP, Joshua NP, Mojave NP)
        Request.--$1,000,000
        Description.--Funding is requested toward the purchase of desert
    park in-holdings from willing sellers. There are substantial numbers of
    private property parcels located within the boundaries of the Mojave
    National Preserve, Joshua Tree and Death Valley. These funds would
    match private dollars raised by the National Park Foundation, which has
    already worked to identify, map, and prioritize in-holdings for
    purchase from willing sellers.
    Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, TN
        Request.--$2,000,000
        Description.--Funding is requested for acquisition of the Light
    property in Lookout Valley to protect and ensure the integrity of these
    historic battlefield lands. $1.8 million was appropriated in fiscal
    year 2006 for acquisition of adjacent lands.
    Cumberland Gap National Historical Park, KY/TN
        Request.--$2,500,000
        Description.--Funding is requested to complete acquisition (4,000
    acres) of the Fern Lake watershed, critical to protecting water supply,
    historic lands, and one of the most scenic vistas in the park. $1
    million was appropriated in fiscal year 2005 towards this acquisition.
    Gettysburg National Military Park, PA
        Request.--$1,500,000
        Description.--Funding is requested to purchase two priority
    acquisitions in the park totaling 145 acres. The first, a 34-acre
    tract, the second 11 acres, both with National Register significance
    within the Gettsyburg Battlefield Historic District, and at risk of
    development. Of the 5,989 acres inside Gettysburg's boundary, nearly 20
    percent or 1,154 acres remains privately owned. The last funding
    provided to acquire threatened lands at Gettysburg was in fiscal year
    2001.
    Grand Teton National Park, WY
        Request.--$2,100,000
        Description.--Funding is requested to purchase from willing sellers
    the remaining 1.4 acre inholding parcel adjacent to the Moose-Wilson
    Road. Known as the ``Hartgrave Property,'' the land is critical park
    wildlife habitat and in an important scenic viewshed. An adjacent 3
    acre parcel was acquired in 2005 by the National Park Service.
    Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Tapoco Addition), TN
        Request.--$1,500,000
        Description.--Funding is requested to acquire 627 acres of part of
    a larger 10,000-acre Tapoco Lands project, a watershed containing one
    of the few remaining undisturbed, high-elevation streams in the
    ecoregion. Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. has committed $100,000 per year
    for 40 years to the project.
    Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, WV
        Request.--$2,000,000
        Description.--Funding is requested to acquire Schoolhouse Ridge
    properties inside the park boundary. Public Law 108-307 authorized the
    addition of 1,240 acres to be included within the national park
    boundary. Almost all of the $2.9 million approved in fiscal year 2005,
    and $2.0 million in fiscal year 2006 (total of $4.9 million) has been
    appropriated to acquire two tracts totaling 111 acres. This land
    outside Washington, D.C., faces significant development threats.
    Funding in fiscal year 2007 of $2 million will enable the Park Service
    to buy remaining smaller tracts from willing sellers.
    Mount Rainier National Park, Carbon River Valley, WA
        Request.--$5,000,000
        Description.--Funding is requested to complete acquisition of 800
    acres from willing sellers to address seasonal flooding and improve
    road access to the park. The Mount Rainier Boundary Adjustment Act
    (Public Law 108-312) was signed into law in 2004. The fiscal year 2005
    Interior Appropriations bill including an initial $1 million for
    surveying and land acquisition.
    New River Gorge National River, WV
        Request.--$2,000,000
        Description.--Funding is requested to purchase the Woods Ferry
    Property (179 acres) which contains a major access point to the Gauley
    River. The park has identified 2,900 acres of private land owned by
    willing sellers. Funding to purchase Woods Ferry is an important step
    in showing continued progress on purchasing these properties. $500,00
    was appropriated in fiscal year 2006.
    Petrified Forest National Park, AZ
        Request.--$5,000,000
        Description.--Funding is requested to begin the purchase of private
    lands incorporated into the park through the Petrified Forest National
    Park Expansion Act signed into law by President Bush in 2004 (Public
    Law 108-430). The expansion will protect globally significant
    paleontological resources, as well as nationally significant
    archeological resources. There are currently approximately 79,500
    privately owned acres within the expansion.
    Valley Forge National Historic Park, PA
        Request.--$3,000,000
        Description.--Funding is requested to continue acquisition of lands
    owned by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia inside the park boundary. In
    fiscal year 2005, $1.5 million was appropriated towards the acquisition
    of these lands. Valley Forge National Historical Park is a premier
    classroom on the American Revolution. Approximately 20 percent of the
    park's acreage inside its designated boundary remains in the hands of
    other owners.
    Emergency, Hardship, Deficiency, and Relocation Fund
        Request.--$5,000,000
        Description.--Funding is requested at $5 million, an increase of
    $2.6 million above the President's fiscal year 2007 request. This
    funding is critical to secure inholdings throughout the Park System.
    For example, through the Hardship Fund, the vast majority of the
    inholdings in Gates of the Arctic National Park have been secured.

                                  CONSTRUCTION

    Death Valley National Park, CA
        Reconstruct Furnace Creek Water System
        Request.--$8,754,000
        Description.--NPCA supports the President's fiscal year 2007
    request of $8.7 million to reconstruct this water system, critical to
    providing reliable water to the park and restoration of the historic
    wetland and riparian habitat in the area.
    Hamilton Grange National Monument, NY
        Relocation and Restoration of Alexander Hamilton's Home
        Request.--$8,493,000
        Description.--NPCA supports the President's fiscal year 2007
    request of $8.5 million to relocate and restore the Hamilton Grange,
    the home of Alexander Hamilton. Funding is needed to avoid further
    deterioration of this historic landmark. Public Law 106-482, signed
    into law in 2000 authorized the Secretary of the Interior to acquire by
    donation suitable land to serve as the new location for the home of
    Alexander Hamilton and to authorize its relocation to the acquired
    land.
    Olympic National Park, WA
        Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration
        Request.--$20,010,000
        Description.--NPCA supports the President's fiscal year 2007
    request of $20 million to fully restore the Elwha River ecosystem and
    fisheries, as directed in the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries and
    Restoration Act (Public Law 102-495). $115 million has been
    appropriated to-date for this effort.

                                     OTHER

    Everglades National Park, FL
        Modify Water Delivery System
        Request.--$13,330,000
        Description.--NPCA supports the President's fiscal year 2007
    request of $13.3 million within the Department of Interior budget for a
    Modify Water Delivery System, as well as the $35 million from the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers. This funding is critical to ensure significant
    restoration benefits for Everglades National Park and the South Florida
    Ecosystem.
        Restoration Science and Monitoring
        Request.--$8,521,000
        Description.--NPCA supports the President's fiscal year 2007
    request of $8.5 million for science, research, and planning to ensure
    the Park Service is adequately participating in the Everglades
    restoration effort.
    National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom
        Request.--$2,000,000
        Description.--NPCA requests $2 million for the Underground Railroad
    Network to Freedom program managed by the National Park Service. The
    President's fiscal year 2007 budget eliminates the $368,000
    appropriated in fiscal year 2006 for the program. NPCA requests $1.5
    million for operations and $500,000 for grants to this important
    program. The Underground Railroad Network to Freedom program was
    created to promote and preserve sites, partnerships, and programs that
    educate the public about the historical significance of the Underground
    Railroad. Many of the sites and structures of the Underground Railroad
    are in imminent danger of being lost to us forever. The Underground
    Railroad Network to Freedom program is the best existing opportunity to
    interpret and preserve this significant part of American history.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the New River Land Trust

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support
    of an appropriation of $1.3 million from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund for the Jefferson National Forest in
    Virginia.
        Managed jointly, the Jefferson and George Washington
    National Forests in western Virginia contain some of the finest
    scenery, wildlife habitat, and recreational lands in Virginia,
    including over 4,000 acres of open water in lakes, ponds, and
    streams, and approximately 2,000 miles of hiking trails. The
    Jefferson boasts tumbling waterfalls, rare wildflowers, and
    Virginia's highest peak (Mount Rogers), along with 11
    wilderness areas.
        The New River Land Trust is a nonprofit conservation
    organization working throughout the New River watershed to
    protect farmland, forests, open spaces and historic places. In
    the past 3\1/2\ years, we have helped to conserve over 12,000
    acres. Our region is under increasing pressure from
    development. This tract of land near Wytheville is an ideal
    inholding to add to our National Forest system to preserve both
    productive forest and recreational options for our region.
        In fiscal year 2007, an opportunity exists to acquire the
    1,477-acre Black Lick property for inclusion into the Jefferson
    NF. As an inholding within the Wythe Ranger District of the
    Jefferson, the property is strategically located in Wythe
    County, ten miles outside Wytheville and near many public
    access points within the forest, including the Dark Horse
    Hollow picnic area, Big Bend picnic area, and the Stony Fork
    campsites.
        Acquisition of this large tract is therefore a priority for
    the Jefferson National Forest and would offer recreational and
    ecological benefits to visitors and local residents alike.
    Acquisition would provide additional public access to the Stony
    Fork Nature Trail and trails along Little Walker Mountain.
    Hikers along the Stony Fork Nature Trail can enjoy dramatic
    views of the 3,782-foot Griffith Knob, the upper Stony Fork
    Valley below, and the inside of the Big Bend of Walker
    Mountain. Furthermore, the headwaters of Hutson Branch and a
    fork of Grippy Branch, both perennial streams, are located on
    the tract. These streams flow into Reed Creek, which borders
    the town of Wytheville. Acquisition of the Black Lick tract,
    therefore, would protect the watershed for Wytheville and the
    surrounding area.
        Char-Lo Timberlands, a timber company based in the Pacific
    Northwest, owns the Black Lick property and is willing to see
    the land conserved as part of the Jefferson NF if federal funds
    are made available. An appropriation of $1.3 million from the
    fiscal year 2007 Land and Water Conservation Fund will help
    conserve this property for generations to come.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present
    this testimony is support of this acquisition in the Jefferson
    National Forest.
                                    ------

       Prepared Statement of the National Recreation and Park Association

        This statement reflects the views of the National Recreation and
    Park Association on fiscal year 2007 appropriations for selected
    programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. Referenced programs
    are administered principally by the National Park Service. The National
    Recreation and Park Association recommends that the following
    appropriations be made:
      --$100,000,000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for
            state assistance to be invested by state and local governments
            on a 50/50 matching basis. Funds should be appropriated to the
            states as authorized by the Land and Water Conservation Fund
            Act, Public Law 88-578, as amended.
      --$25,000,000 for the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program
            (UPARR) to address the most distressed urban recreation
            resource conditions and deficiencies identified and aided
            through the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program. At a
            minimum, $250,000 in administrative funding for the Urban Park
            and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR). These funds are
            critically needed to continue to ensure protections of
            federally aided urban park projects from conversion to other
            uses under Section 1010, protections which may be ended if no
            administrative supervision is provided.
      --$10,100,000 for the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance
            (RTCA) program to support field-based technical assistance
            actions that yield broad conservation and recreation benefits
            through partnerships between federal, state, and local
            interests.
      --Sufficient funds to enable the National Park Service, through
            Federal Lands to Parks and related programs to collaborate with
            state and local recreation and park agencies and others on the
            conservation and use of surplus federal real property, and
            conservation of rivers and trails and other resources.
        If substantially adopted, our recommendations will help address an
    increasing national imperative to improve physical and mental health,
    stimulate local economies, and to sustain the environment through the
    protection and enhancement of public recreation areas and parks.
        We are pleased to note that our recommendations relative to LWCF
    assistance and urban park restoration are supported by advocates for
    health, public parks, and recreation, as well as a broad coalition of
    health and recreation related groups. The Smart Communities of Outdoor
    Recreation and Environment (SCORE), a coalition that includes major
    public official organizations, major U.S. sports organizations,
    community development organizations, and the sports and outdoor
    industry, also supports our testimony.
        The parks and recreation resources of local and state park and
    recreation systems are critical to the American people. These parks and
    facilities are not only our communities' public sanctuaries for close
    to home recreation and physical activity, they are resources
    stimulating local economies, bringing visitor tax dollars into the
    local area, and providing stimulus for cultural and community exchange.
    These public areas address diverse public interests and our collective
    need for quality recreation and associated services for children of
    working parents. Local agencies in particular host programs that serve
    millions of nutritious meals to children in need, especially during
    summer months. Public recreation and park sites and services help
    reduce crime and delinquency, especially during non-school hours, days
    and seasons. Public parks and recreation agencies accommodate needs to
    enhance physical, mental, social, and cognitive development through
    programming and access to facilities. Public parks and recreation are
    often regarded as the second largest public support entity next to
    public schools for individuals with disabilities. In addition to
    providing public recreation experiences, state and local agencies
    contribute to sustaining plant and wildlife diversity, and protect
    against flood/storm water, provide ground water recharge, and filter
    pollutants.

               LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND STATE ASSISTANCE

        We commend the Subcommittee for its decisions to create and sustain
    fiscal partnerships with state and local recreation agencies and local
    governments. Consequently, we believe the President's proposed
    termination of LWCF State Assistance and proposal to provide a mere
    $1.6 million in administrative funding for fiscal year 2007 is
    remarkably short-sighted. Further, we believe the stated rationale for
    these actions reflects limited awareness of program purpose, public and
    personal health imperatives, long-term value and results arising from
    investments, and fiscal conditions of state and local governments. The
    Administration is recommending termination of this program for the
    second time in two years, and we are astonished at the rationalizations
    used to justify the elimination of one the most successful conservation
    and public recreation partnerships in the history of the Department of
    Interior.
        The LWCF state assistance program has leveraged millions of dollars
    on the local level, and countless times the federal assistance for the
    approved project ends up being much less than 50 percent, making the
    actual federal investment minimal. These grants seem to attract other
    funds at the local and state level because of the review process
    identifying quality projects with a high level of need. Many
    economically distressed areas have benefited from access to public
    recreation resources through the LWCF state assistance program.
        The Department's claim that state and local governments should go
    it alone reflects a basic misunderstanding of one of the key elements
    of the act--reinvestment of a small portion of Outer Continental Shelf
    receipts for resource conservation and public recreation. These funds
    are the American People's funds to be reinvested, and thus a healthy
    portion of these funds, applied to programs that ensure public access,
    should be a priority of the subcommittee.
        Though the eligibility, and required use by public agencies to
    access LWCF state assistance funds is very broad, ironically, the
    President's budget continues to incorporate non-LWCF authorized
    programs, thus creating the illusion that LWCF is ``fully funded.'' If
    the Congress in its wisdom determines to fund these programs from LWCF,
    then jurisdictions and agencies presently eligible for LWCF state
    assistance should be directly eligible to participate in programs that
    are drawn from the LWCF treasury account.
        According to the National Park Service, the 2005 funding requests
    from state local governments for grants through this program totaled
    $2.8 billion ($2,781,397,625).--This is a sharp increase in expressed
    need from past years. With only $30 million, provided for fiscal year
    2006, the LWCF is inadequate in assisting communities in addressing
    their needs. We are likely to see even greater unmet need for the
    program.
        Nationally, NRPA has a continuing interest in the status of all
    capital development and infrastructure needs of local park and
    recreation agencies. Our work on behalf of local general-purpose
    governments and special purpose park and recreation districts requires
    periodic assessments of both the short and longer-term fiscal
    conditions and capital investment needs. We are purposed with
    identifying both present and longer-term deficiencies to properly steer
    public policy on the federal, state, and local levels. The national
    survey conducted in the spring of 2005, reveals a total capital
    investment need of $72.697 billion for public parks and recreation
    facilities, land acquisition, and recreation resources for fiscal year
    2005 to fiscal year 2009. Nationally, there is a nationwide demand to
    increase the recreation capacity of public systems, especially those
    relatively close to home and in communities exploding with growth.
        We continue to press our concern that the administration's proposed
    budget again recommends access to the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    for a number of other non-LWCF activities. The LWCF act, while broad in
    its application and diversity of projects, is very specific in its
    policy objectives--provision of recreational opportunities to improve
    human health through conservation of lands and waters and developments
    to enable public use and access.
        Non-federal recreation and park resources are essential to quality
    recreation experiences for all people. These systems provide the
    majority of public recreation destinations, services, and visitor
    experiences. Further, they are not incidental to sustaining the social
    and environmental integrity of federal land systems.

                   URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY PROGRAM

        The Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program recognizes the
    recreation values associated with conservation of the built
    environment. Funds are restricted to restoration and, thus, renewed and
    expanded public use of local recreation facilities and sites that have
    essentially been worn out by use, age, or the elements. These
    facilities and sites are no less important than conservation of other
    recreation spaces and places of high ecological and aesthetic value.
    One alarming shortcoming of the 2007 budget proposal is that no funding
    is planned for administrative costs for the first time in the 30 year
    history of the program, seriously jeopardizing the ability of the
    National Park Service to continue to provide protections for federally
    aided projects under UPARR. NRPA strongly recommends that an
    appropriation of at least $250,000 be made for 2007 to continue
    administrative oversight of the 1,500 UPARR aided projects.
        Demand for Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program assistance
    remains high. This interest is reflected in both the number of requests
    for assistance and the quality and objectives of projects when the
    program has been funded. Based on demand for fiscal year 2001-2003
    appropriations, for example, our recommendation would support from 50
    to 90 projects.

               NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES

    Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program
        NRPA recommends $10,100,000 for the Rivers, Trails, and
    Conservation Assistance Program. The program continues to illustrate
    the critical importance of federal contributions to public/public and
    public/private partnerships for conservation of natural and cultural
    resources, and public access for recreation. The program provides
    technical assistance to local governments, citizens, and community
    organizations, and state agencies to consider recreation and
    conservation strategies. The results include planning, restoration, and
    development of waterways and trails, and conservation of open space and
    greenways, among other types of projects. In most cases, local
    governments continue to invest non-federal funds in projects stimulated
    by local public interests and technical assistance.
    Federal Lands to Parks Program
        We recommend an appropriation of at least $1 million to support the
    Federal Lands to Parks program, also part of the NPS Recreation and
    Conservation Assistance area. The FLP program is an exemplary service.
    It guides state and local governments in the conversion of federal
    surplus properties to public recreation and park uses and conservation
    of historic or wildlife values. The number of surplus properties
    potentially available for state and local parks, and demands for
    assistance has increased beyond the present capacity of program staff.
    A large part of this demand was generated by the closure of a large
    number of military bases between 1988 and 1995. In recent years,
    program staff has assisted in the transfer of about 20-25 properties
    annually. There is a current backlog of some sixty pending transfers.
    Impending base closure and reuse decisions will substantially impact
    the capacity of program staff.
        While there is today considerable attention and debate on the
    stewardship and priorities of the National Park System and National
    Park Service, we urge the Subcommittee to not let this situation divert
    attention away from other congressional authorities in the Interior
    department's domain.
        We appreciate this opportunity to share the views of our members.
    NRPA public policy Director, Rich Dolesh (rdolesh@nrpa.org) or Policy
    and Advocacy Specialist, Michael Phillips (mphillips@nrpa.org) (202-
    887-0290) is available to provide additional perspectives and to
    respond to questions.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Nisqually Tribe of Indians

        Mr. Chairman, my name is Dorian Sanchez and I am the Chairman of
    the Nisqually Indian Tribe. On behalf of the Tribe, I would like to
    submit the following written testimony on the fiscal year 2007 budget
    for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

                                LAW ENFORCEMENT

        The Nisqually Reservation is located in Washington State. We
    currently employ nine land patrol law enforcement officers to patrol
    5,000 acres of reservation and near reservation lands. In addition, the
    Nisqually Tribe Police has extensive marine water enforcement duties
    and employs two water patrol officers to patrol over 100 square miles
    of Puget Sound for both the treaty salmon fishery and treaty shellfish
    harvesting. Tribal law enforcement also provides hunting enforcement
    for over 50,000 acres of land in the tribe's usual and accustomed area
    within the Nisqually River watershed.
        We also employ ten detention officers at our 45-bed detention
    facility, which was built with Department of Justice funding in 2002.
    Like many other tribes, we are struggling to cope with escalating
    methamphetamine use and associated increases in gang activity and
    property crime related to dealing and manufacturing.
        We support the Administration's proposed increase of $8.2 million
    for BIA law enforcement activities. However, this increase still falls
    short of meeting the severe need in Indian country for additional law
    enforcement resources--a need that will be even greater this year in
    light of significant cuts to Indian programs proposed by the Department
    of Justice. We ask the Subcommittee to increase funding for law
    enforcement officers and equipment. We also ask that the Subcommittee
    restore the $5.3 million proposed cut to the Tribal Courts programs.
    Tribes depend on law enforcement and tribal justice funding and this
    year--at the height of the meth crisis--this funding should be
    increased, not cut.
        A specific area of concern is the status of the Tribe's detention
    facility, the Nisqually Correction Center. The detention center was
    built as part of a DOJ-BIA initiative, under which the DOJ would
    provide funding for new facilities in Indian country and the BIA would
    provide funding for staffing, operations and maintenance of those
    facilities. The Tribe's facility has been praised by BIA official as a
    model facility. In addition to detention space, we work closely with
    community agencies to provide alcohol and drug assessment and
    treatment, continuing education and transitional services. We provide
    these services for members of our tribe and for inmates from
    surrounding communities. For the past two years, however, the Tribe did
    not receive the scheduled funding for operations and maintenance. We
    were forced to cover these costs with tribal funds last year, and if
    this funding is not received in fiscal year 2007, we will likely be
    forced to close the facility.
        The Tribe requests that the Subcommittee contact law enforcement
    officials at the BIA to inquire about the use and allocation of
    appropriated funds for law enforcement. The Nisqually Tribe's
    experience is not uncommon. A 2004 Report by the Office of the
    Inspector General harshly criticized the BIA for failing to account for
    million of dollars in law enforcement funding. The report, entitled
    ``Neither Safe Nor Secure: An Assessment of Indian Detention
    Facilities,'' was issued seven years after the BIA and the Department
    of Justice entered into a joint initiative to construct and fund new
    detention facilities in Indian country. The report found that, on the
    whole, tribal detention facilities were still in poor condition and
    that millions of dollars in additional funding appropriated to the BIA
    for detention center staffing and operations was unaccounted for and
    that most never reached the tribes. For example, from fiscal year 2001-
    fiscal year 2004, Congress appropriated $10 million to hire additional
    detention officer. Only $3 million of this ever reached the tribes and
    the BIA was unable to determine how the remaining $7 million was spent.

                             CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

        The Tribe supports the Administration's proposal to provide $19
    million to fully fund indirect contract support costs. This funding
    supports critical administrative functions that allow tribes to
    successfully operate programs contracted under the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act. We ask that the
    Subcommittee support this increase and consider adding report language
    to that effect. In addition, we ask that the Subcommittee support the
    proposed deletion of the word ``indirect'' in the text of the Interior
    Appropriations bill. This change would permit tribes to allocate unused
    Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) funds to cover unmet direct contract
    support costs, which is important because the Administration proposes
    full funding for only indirect costs, leaving a significant unmet need.
        If we can provide any additional information, please do not
    hesitate to contact our counsel, Mary J. Pavel or Addie C. Rolnick at
    Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP, 1425 K Street NW,
    Ste. 600, Washington D.C. 20005; 202-682-0240 (tel); 202-682-0249
    (fax); mpavel@sonosky.com; arolnick@sonosky.com.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics
                                Research Center

        The Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center
    (NUATRC) is requesting a $2.6 million appropriation for fiscal year
    2007 to continue the air quality public health research and data
    collection on air toxics in urban areas as directed by the U.S.
    Congress. NUATRC is a 501(c)(3) institution authorized by Congress in
    the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Title III, Section 301(p)).
        The NUATRC is a unique public/private research partnership.
    Significant funding for the NUATRC is from EPA Assistance Awards based
    upon annual Congressional appropriations. We leverage these federal
    funds with non-federal funds contributed from a variety of sources.
    NUATRC's contributors to specific research also include major U.S.
    companies such as ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Georgia Pacific, Rohm &
    Haas, and Shell. Additional funding is received from the Houston
    Endowment and local and state government. To further leverage our
    funding, NUATRC utilizes an administrative services agreement with The
    University of Texas-Houston Health Science Center (UTHSC) in the Texas
    Medical Center (TMC), complex. This arrangement lowers NUATRC's overall
    costs and allows us to take advantage of the world-renowned scientific
    community at The University of Texas (UT) and TMC as directed by
    Congress, while still remaining an independent entity. However, even
    with multiple sources and efficient leveraging of the NUATRC's funding,
    this important public health research would not be possible without the
    annual congressional appropriation. The research performed by the
    NUATRC is not performed within EPA or other research organizations.
    Since budgets supporting internal EPA research have been declining in
    recent budgets, this research would not likely be performed at all
    without the NUATRC.
        NUATRC's mission is to sponsor and direct sound, peer-reviewed
    scientific research on the human health effects of air toxics in urban
    populations. NUATRC's research is driven by scientific questions
    requiring answers by policy and decision makers in government,
    industry, and academia, in order to improve the scientific basis of
    regulatory decisions. It is an integral part of the strategy
    established by Congress to assess the risks posed by air toxics to
    individuals living in areas where air quality concerns have been
    expressed by medical and scientific experts, and community leaders.
        NUATRC is governed by a nine-member Board of Directors, appointed
    pro rata by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, the
    Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, and the President of the United
    States. Amongst its duties, the NUATRC Board appoints a 13-member
    Scientific Advisory Panel, selected from national research
    institutions, academic centers, government agencies, and the private
    sector.
        The NUATRC's unique structure, organization, and intellectual
    resources are its source of strength. The NUATRC is an organization
    dedicated to implementing its mission as a public/private research
    center. Inclusion of academic, business, government, and citizen
    perspectives in the implementation of the NUATRC's research mission not
    only fulfills the NUATRC's mandate from the U.S. Congress; serving this
    public/private mindset is at the core of how the NUATRC operates. By
    embracing these disparate perspectives and working together to achieve
    consensus on the design of an effective research program, the NUATRC's
    leadership greatly reduces or eliminates the all too often occurrence
    of confusion and stalemate resulting from similar research studies
    funded by research organizations with a single type of funding source
    and intellectual resources. Depending on the perspective of the
    audience affected by the research results, an organization with a
    single funding and intellectual resource perspective could be seen as
    biased. In the NUATRC's case, academic, business, government, and
    citizen representatives strive for consensus on the research design and
    objectives prior to beginning the research. With this approach, less
    duplication of research occurs as well as less debate over the accuracy
    or bias of the results produced. This process enhances the focus on the
    policy or regulatory debate, not the design of the air quality research
    study.

                                  ACHIEVEMENTS

        NUATRC has accomplished the following major scientific achievements
    over the last several years consistent with our Congressional charge in
    the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990:
        1. Establishment of the importance of personal exposure (e.g. what
    people breathe) to the evaluation of possible public health effects.
    These findings are stimulating a reevaluation of the national emphasis
    on outdoor levels and sources.
        2. Development of new technology for inexpensive and accurate
    personal monitoring devices to allow measurements of individual
    exposures to air toxics. This provides a new and, for the first time,
    direct view of the possible public health risks of personal exposure to
    air toxics. To our knowledge, this is a unique contribution by the
    NUATRC.
        3. Initiation of community-based studies that involve participation
    by those citizens directly exposed to urban levels of air toxics.
        We owe these advances in large part to the work of our Scientific
    Advisory Panel, made up of world class scientists from the public,
    private, and academic sectors, who have spent considerable time and
    effort to develop and refine these studies in a collegial and efficient
    manner.
        We continue to work closely with the EPA, through which we access
    the Congressionally-appropriated funds. We have an excellent working
    relationship with the scientists that serve on our research panels, and
    we continue to interact with their administrative counterparts to
    establish a firmer base for our financial support.

                               CURRENT ACTIVITIES

        NUATRC has been very active on its air toxics research initiatives.
    One of these initiatives addresses the national concerns about health
    effects. Scientific studies conducted to date suggest that living near
    busy roads leads to adverse health effects. In these studies the
    association between proximity to traffic and health effects has been
    shown without any direct measurement of exposures. The NUATRC plans
    research to clarify the potential impact of air toxics in such observed
    associations. The NUATRC will fund research that is hypothesis driven
    and designed to test the relationship between exposures to air toxics
    and proximity to vehicular traffic and potential adverse non-cancer
    health effects resulting from these exposures. The health effects of
    interest are those affecting the respiratory, cardiovascular, and
    immune systems. The air toxics of interest are one or more of the 33
    chemicals listed as priority air toxics in the EPA's Integrated Urban
    Air Toxics Strategy (FRL-6157-2; Docket No. A-97-44) and the National
    Scale Air Toxics Assessment (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/
    34poll.html) and those that are uniquely mobile source related.
        In all NUATRC funded research, the NUATRC's priority is to support
    research leading to peer-reviewed publications. The NUATRC has funded
    research that has contributed to over 35 peer reviewed publications to
    date and significantly advanced the scientific understanding of air
    toxics.

                           RESEARCH FINDINGS TO DATE

        In 2007, NUATRC will continue research efforts to better understand
    the personal exposures of people living in urban areas to a number of
    the 188 air toxics defined in the Clean Air Act. From our earlier
    exposure studies we have achieved pioneering accomplishments in
    measuring levels of personal exposures to toxic air pollutants. These
    data point conclusively to the importance of personal exposures in
    terms of assessing the actual public health risk from air toxics.
        The information we are obtaining suggests that the nation's
    environmental resources need to be focused on personal situations, as
    opposed to a continuing emphasis on fixed site urban air monitors.
    These fixed site monitors, which play a key role in determining overall
    urban air quality and air quality standard attainment, are not numerous
    enough or precise enough to address public health risks. The support we
    have received from Congress has been instrumental in creating a new
    scientific emphasis on personal exposure measurement. The EPA has now
    accepted the importance of such approaches.
        In 2007 the NUATRC will be in the second year of funding for the
    Houston Exposure to Air Toxics Study (HEATS). HEATS is a two-year
    project that will study the relationship between the levels of air
    toxics compounds that are measured at traditional fixed site monitors
    and the levels that individuals are actually exposed to as they move
    throughout their daily activities. It will be conducted in two
    neighborhoods near the Houston Ship Channel. The study will also
    explore reported health effects from the study participants, and
    examine the relationship between reported health effects and personal
    exposure and ambient monitors.
        The study is funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the Mickey Leland
    National Urban Air Toxics Research Center, the Texas Environmental
    Research Consortium, Harris County, and The East Harris County
    Manufacturer's Association. The City of Houston is also participating
    in the study in an advisory role. Although HEATS is collecting data in
    Houston, Texas, it is of national importance as it relates fixed site
    monitoring, personal exposure monitoring, and health data.
        Further, the NUATRC will expand its involvement in community-based
    environmental health research, an important element of our mission, as
    air toxics health effects may disproportionately impact the
    economically and medically underserved people in our urban populations.

                                 ADMINISTRATION

        NUATRC operates with an efficient administrative staff of four
    full-time and one part-time equivalent staff, consultants, and
    important administrative support from UTHSC. Our staff is employed by
    UTHSC, which eliminates the need for considerable personnel support
    services and allows us the benefit of residence in a world class health
    science center, while remaining an independent institution. This
    provides important scientific, administrative, and cost benefits,
    including access to the UT Medical School and School of Public Health
    faculty. We are extremely conscious of and pleased to call attention to
    our ratio of funding spent directly on research compared to
    administrative costs. Historically, the NUATRC's success in leveraging
    federal research funds with organizations such as the HEI, NCHS, and
    SKC, Inc., have extended the value and accomplishments of the NUATRC's
    research program and optimized the value added by its small, efficient
    administrative staff. The NUATRC will continue to effectively leverage
    its research funds.

                          2007 BUDGET RATIONALIZATION

        For 2007 NUATRC will support several categories for individual
    research studies. The research category budgets are shown in the budget
    table below. The Exposure Assessment category includes research to
    characterize, collect, and assess the impact of air toxics exposure
    data. Research will be designed and funded acquire data to show the
    relative importance of point, area, mobile, and other sources for
    exposure to air toxics. The Health Effects research category includes
    NUATRC's plan to continue its involvement, research funding, and focus
    on health effects research on susceptible subpopulations. The
    Technology Development and Validation research category resulted in the
    commercially successful Sioutas personal cascade impactor and Leland
    Legacy Pump, which were completed with funding from this category.
    Fiscal year 2007 funding in this category will support development of
    new personal monitors for use with susceptible populations. It will
    also include investigation of new technology and methods for the
    measurement of VOCs, aldehydes, PAHs and metals. In prior years the
    Small Grants program has been a successful, cost effective program for
    NUATRC in terms of identification of emerging research areas and
    producing important publications in the peer-reviewed literature. We
    will continue this program in 2007. The emphasis we place on having
    Workshops and/or Symposia every year has proven cost-effective in
    advancing the understanding of air toxics health effects. With 2007
    funding we will support an annual Workshop or Symposium on air toxics
    with TCEQ and EPA. As in previous years NUATRC will leverage Workshop
    and Symposia costs and topics with other related organizations to be as
    cost efficient as possible with the limited funding available. The
    Research Support category is essential to provide funds for scientific
    peer-review, publications, reports, additional scientific research,
    quality assurance and other activities recommended by the SAP and
    approved by the Board. This budget also serves an important strategic
    research function for the entire NUATRC program. The budget presented
    below advances the legacy investment in research already made by
    providing resources to fully analyze and capture the knowledge inherent
    in the study results in time for answers to regulatory and scientific
    questions. We will continue, as previously noted, to seek supplemental
    funding sources for our research program. In past years NUATRC has
    received project specific funding commitments from many private
    contributors. We anticipate continuing these relationships.

                             FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Exposure Assessment.....................................        $400,000
    Health Effects..........................................         450,000
    Technology Development and Validation...................         400,000
    Small Grants............................................         300,000
    Conferences, Workshops, Symposia........................          50,000
    Research Support........................................         100,000
    Indirect Research.......................................         398,049
    Administration..........................................         501,951
                                                             ---------------
          Total.............................................       2,600,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Refuge Association

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Evan
    Hirsche, president of the National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA).
    On behalf of the NWRA and its membership comprised of current and
    former refuge professionals, more than 110 refuge Friends organization
    affiliates and thousands of concerned citizens throughout the United
    States, thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal
    year 2007 Interior Appropriations bill. Specifically, we respectfully
    request that the Subcommittee support:
      --a funding level of $415 million--an increase of $33 million over
            the President's request--for the operations and maintenance
            (O&M) budget of the National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by
            the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in the fiscal year
            2007 budget;
      --an allocation of $1 million to continue to support volunteer
            projects on and in connection with refuges, like the
            Cooperative Volunteer Invasives Monitoring Program (VIMP) and
            competitive grants, which utilize Friends and volunteers to
            identify and eradicate invasive species;
      --an increase in the FWS construction budget to prevent further
            degradation of Refuge System infrastructure;
      --an allocation of $100 million in the FWS land acquisition budget to
            accommodate the numerous willing sellers across the country;
      --an increase in funding for the FWS' Partners for Fish and Wildlife
            Program;
      --an allocation of $85 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife
            Grants Program;
      --an allocation of $9 million for the National Fish and Wildlife
            Foundation (NFWF) in the FWS' Resource Management General
            Administration appropriation; and
      --an increase in the FWS' Contaminants Program budget.
        As you know, the National Wildlife Refuge System continues to be
    crippled by a $3.1 billion funding backlog that harms every refuge in
    the System. Specifically, funding shortfalls limit the ability of
    refuges to successfully conduct important science-based, biological
    programs and hire critical staff, while also hindering opportunities
    for the public to engage in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.
        The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), 21 diverse
    conservation and sporting organizations, chaired by the NWRA, has
    determined it will be necessary to increase the annual Refuge System
    budget to $700 million simply to meet the System's top tier needs. Our
    groups, representing a national constituency numbering more than 5
    million Americans, recognize the value of a healthy Refuge System to
    both the wildlife and habitats refuges were established to protect and
    the 40 million visitors that frequent these special places each year.
        The National Wildlife Refuge System budget needs an annual $16
    million increase over the previous year's funding to achieve a ``no-
    net-loss'' funding level. Without this increase, the FWS cannot account
    for cost-of-living increases for FWS personnel, rising rent and
    utilities and other cost increases, while sustaining current levels of
    visitor services and wildlife management. The Refuge System needs at
    least $16 million to avoid employee layoffs and reductions in services,
    maintain protections for wildlife and habitat and help contain growth
    of the Refuge System backlog. It is crucial that, at a minimum, the
    cost-of-living and ``uncontrollables'' are covered in the fiscal year
    2007 budget. To prevent the additional loss of programs, maintain
    protections for wildlife and habitats, make some modest and needed
    advances, and provide for addressing the backlog in coming years, the
    NWRA recommends a refuge O&M budget of $415 million for fiscal year
    2007.
        For fiscal year 2007, we encourage the Subcommittee to continue its
    support for volunteer-based invasive species detection and eradication
    activities by again appropriating $1 million for volunteer-oriented
    invasives programs. The NWRA thanks the Subcommittee for its work in
    the fiscal year 2003, fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 budgets to
    promote the use of volunteers to address the growing threat of invasive
    species on and adjacent to our national wildlife refuges. More than 300
    separate refuges have taken actions to control invasives, and the
    Refuge System has identified approximately $260 million of invasive
    species projected needs. By utilizing the strong volunteer support
    available to the Refuge System, we can significantly expand our ability
    to identify and record data on invasives in refuges and implement
    control measures.
        The Cooperative Volunteer Invasives Monitoring Program is showing
    tremendous results at the 14 geographically diverse refuges currently
    participating in the program. For example, at Lee Metcalf NWR in
    Montana, funding provided through the volunteer-oriented invasives
    appropriation resulted in the eradication of invasive spotted knapweed,
    houndstongue and tansy from 16 acres of the refuge for approximately 50
    percent less than the cost of using contractors. The Program is a
    partnership among the NWRA, FWS, United States Geological Survey (USGS)
    and The Nature Conservancy that seeks to train refuge volunteers to
    identify invasives and collect extensive data using inexpensive but
    sophisticated global positioning system (GPS)/geographic information
    system (GIS) data-collection equipment. The data is entered into a
    centralized database and will augment incomplete information previously
    compiled by refuge staff.
        As a result of funding provided by this Subcommittee in fiscal year
    2006, current refuges in the VIMP will conduct invasive species control
    efforts, while seven new sites will be added to the program. Since its
    inception, 316 volunteers have participated in mapping, treating and
    restoring over 3,000 refuge acres through the Program.
        Collection of this data aids the FWS in detecting early
    infestations of invasives on refuges, and helps to prioritize rapid
    response eradication activities. The technology is proving successful
    and should continue to be expanded to more refuges in the coming years.
    The Program provides a more complete picture of the scope and impact of
    invasives on fragile refuge habitats and helps the FWS develop stronger
    invasives management protocols. In addition, broader community
    awareness and involvement generated through this program serves to
    strengthen federal, state and private lands initiatives aimed at
    addressing this rapidly growing threat.
        A competitive grants program for cooperative invasive species
    projects with refuge Friends and volunteers constitutes the majority of
    the $1 million allocated ``for cooperative projects with [F]riends
    groups on invasive species control.'' In 2006, 60 volunteer projects
    were selected through the competitive grants program, 25 of which
    directly involved Friends groups. Through the competitive grants, 876
    volunteers participated in the treatment, inventory and restoration of
    72,931 refuge acres.
        We encourage the Subcommittee to resist cuts proposed in the
    president's fiscal year 2007 budget request to the construction budget.
    The Administration has asked for $19.7 million, a reduction of $25.5
    million or 57 percent compared to fiscal year 2006. According to the
    FWS, the Agency has identified projects for approximately 1,500 new
    facility assets with a cost of about $1 billion. Roughly half this
    dollar amount is for 270 visitor centers and headquarter offices
    identified by field managers, some of which would take the place of
    quickly deteriorating structures that are becoming more expensive to
    maintain than to replace. With an aging infrastructure and visitation
    to national wildlife refuges at an all-time high, the construction
    budget for the Service should reflect the growing needs of the National
    Wildlife Refuge System.
        The NWRA encourages the Subcommittee to allocate sufficient funding
    to purchase high-priority lands and conservation easements. The Refuge
    System land acquisition backlog is estimated at $4 billion. According
    to the FWS' Land Acquisition Priority System (LAPS), as of 2004
    approximately 15.4 million acres remain to be acquired within approved
    refuge boundaries. Across the country, willing sellers are standing by
    to work with the Service. Unfortunately, the FWS has neither the
    funding nor resources to handle these land acquisition opportunities.
        Our primary concern is that vital refuge buffer areas and corridors
    may be lost, jeopardizing the very integrity of refuges. While a full
    suite of conservation strategies should be employed in working with
    private landowners, in cases where fee title acquisition is preferred
    by the landowner and the refuge has identified it as a top priority,
    the FWS should acquire the land. At a minimum, the NWRA believes that
    $100 million should be allocated toward Refuge System land acquisition.
    Even at that rate, it would take at least 40 years to acquire priority
    lands, which is time we don't have given that wildlife habitat is being
    lost at a rate 300 percent that of population growth in the United
    States.
        Within this $100 million request, the NWRA encourages the
    Subcommittee to provide funding for the following land acquisition
    projects in the Refuge System through the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund:
      --$3.2 million for Arapaho NWR (CO);
      --$922,503 for Back Bay NWR (VA);
      --$1.4 million for Balcones Canyonlands NWR (TX);
      --$726,000 for Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (UT);
      --$150,000 for Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR (TX);
      --$887,000 for Neal Smith NWR (IA);
      --$650,000 for Rachel Carson NWR (ME);
      --$2 million for Silvio O. Conte NFWR (MA);
      --$1 million for Stewart B. McKinney NFWR (CT);
      --$1.75 million for Tensas River NWR (LA); and
      --$3 million for Waccamaw NWR (SC).
        There are a number of federal programs that reward landowners for
    practicing conservation. One of the leading programs in this area is
    the FWS' Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, which provides
    technical and financial assistance to private landowners to voluntarily
    restore wetlands and other habitat on their land. Since this program
    began, hundreds of thousands of habitat acres have been restored, many
    of the projects located near national wildlife refuges. The Service has
    trouble keeping pace with landowner demand for this program, reporting
    that many states have waiting lists to participate. The NWRA encourages
    the Subcommittee to provide the ``Partners'' program with the resources
    it needs to assist landowners with habitat conservation, oftentimes
    complementing activities on refuge lands, or contributing to the
    resolution of problems on refuges that originate beyond refuge
    boundaries.
        The NWRA urges the Subcommittee to appropriate at least $85 million
    for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program in fiscal year 2007 to
    implement statewide conservation plans. Program grants support projects
    to restore degraded habitat, reintroduce native species, develop
    partnerships with private landowners, and collect useful data. These
    state-based plans can dovetail with the Comprehensive Conservation
    Plans (CCPs) that all refuges are required to produce, complementing
    the mission of the Refuge System. Further, adequate and consistent
    funding for State Wildlife Grants is essential to fulfilling the shared
    federal/state responsibility for keeping our nation's wildlife from
    becoming endangered.
        We encourage the Subcommittee to allocate $9 million for the
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation through the FWS' Resource
    Management General Administration appropriation. NFWF works to achieve
    healthy and abundant fish, wildlife and plant populations through
    valuable partnerships. Each year, NFWF receives more project proposals
    than they are capable of funding. Adequate funding will ensure NFWF has
    the ability to leverage resources to fund projects that directly
    benefit diverse fish and wildlife species in, around and outside of
    national wildlife refuges across the country.
        Contaminants were a major part of the tremendous damage inflicted
    on national wildlife refuges during the 2005 hurricane season.
    Unfortunately, funding for the FWS' Contaminants Program has remained
    flat for almost two decades. In light of recent natural and man-made
    disasters, this vital program is more important than ever, as the need
    to address contaminant issues on national wildlife refuges continues to
    grow. The NWRA urges the Subcommittee to provide increased funding for
    the Contaminants Program in fiscal year 2007.
        We extend our appreciation to the Subcommittee for its ongoing
    commitment to our National Wildlife Refuge System.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources

        I am writing to express my support for the President's request in
    the U.S. Geological Survey's fiscal year 2007 budget of $1 million for
    NatureServe to ensure the quality and consistency of a key national
    data resource that supports federal agencies and the States in the
    management of the nation's natural resources.
        Responsible management and use of our nation's natural resources
    depends on a sound scientific understanding of these resources. The
    States have an important role to play in managing these resources, and
    in assisting the federal government in carrying out their
    responsibilities. State natural heritage programs are among the most
    important sources for objective and reliable scientific information on
    the nation's wildlife species and habitats. The States rely on
    NatureServe, a private non-profit organization, for the scientific and
    technical support to meet quality assurance standards that enable this
    national network to meet in-state needs as well as support a wide array
    of federal-activities.
        Through coordinating the development of consistent biological data
    across all 50 states, NatureServe has created and manages a unique
    national data resource, which fosters strong State and Federal
    cooperation on wildlife conservation and environmental management.
    Numerous state agencies, corporations and private individuals in Ohio
    rely on information from NatureServe and the Ohio Natural Heritage
    Program to better manage natural resources and avoid or reduce
    conflicts with endangered species and other sensitive ecological
    resources. Federal agencies, ranging from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service and National Park Service to the Departments of Transportation
    and Defense, also rely on this objective and credible scientific
    resource.
        The federal government has a clear and compeiling interest in and
    need for the scientific information managed by NatureServe and its
    State partners. Without these funds, this national network, and the
    high quality and nationally consistent data it generates, would
    deteriorate, compromising the work of the State and Federal agencies
    that depend upon them.
        The President's proposed funding is also very cost effective. This
    $1 million will leverage a more than $40 million investment in this
    resource nationwide, most of which comes from state and private
    sources. This modest investment will also save taxpayer money by
    helping Federal and State agencies better manage our natural resources
    and by avoiding unnecessary endangered species conflicts.
        We recognize that this is a difficult budget climate and the
    Committee is operating with constrained resources. We support the
    President's inclusion of this $1 million allocation in the fiscal 2007
    budget, and respectfully request that the Committee include this in its
    appropriation.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Outdoor Industry Association

        Outdoor Industry Association urges the subcommittee to fund the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) State Assistance Program at
    $100 million for fiscal year 2007, the Federal Land and Water
    Conservation Fund at $220 million and the Urban Park and Recreation
    Recovery Program (UPARR) at $50 million for fiscal year 2007.
        We also support the following funding levels for recreation
    management and trails funding in the Forest Service and Bureau of Land
    Management budgets.
        Fiscal year 2007 Forest Service Budget:
      --Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness, $275 million
      --Capital Improvement and Maintenance/Trails, $90 million
        Fiscal year 2007 Bureau of Land Management Budget:
      --Recreation Management, Recreation Resources, $50 million
      --Transportation and Facilities, Annual and Deferred Maintenance, $75
            million
      --An increase of $5 million for activities on the 12 National and
            Scenic and Historic Trails that BLM administers or manages.
        Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) is a national trade association
    whose mission is to ensure the growth and success of the outdoor
    industry. A wide spectrum of leading manufacturers, distributors,
    suppliers and retailers of outdoor recreation equipment and services,
    as well as other related business entities, make up OIA's membership.
    The outdoor industry is made up of over 4,000 businesses with 500,000
    employees in all 50 states, generating $33 billion in sales every year.
    Last year, 159 million Americans participated in outdoor recreation,
    with the greatest numbers in the gateway sports of hiking, biking,
    camping and paddlesports.
        OIA's member companies include Yakima, Mountain Hardwear, The North
    Face, Cascade Designs, Vibram USA, Johnson Outdoors, REI, Eastern
    Mountain Sports, JanSport, Smartwool, Timberland, Columbia Sportswear,
    Black Diamond Equipment, GoLite, Vasque/Redwing and more.
           land and water conservation fund state assistance program
        The LWCF State Assistance Program and the Urban Park and Recreation
    Recovery programs are vital for providing recreation experiences and
    healthy lifestyle options to all Americans. These programs are good for
    the physical and economic health of the country. The stateside program
    has 41 years of strong success as one of America's most effective
    federal/state recreation and conservation partnership programs.
        Since its inception, stateside LWCF has underwritten the
    development of more than 40,000 state and local park and recreation
    projects, touching 98 percent of the counties in the United States.
        In 2005, stateside LWCF grants made a direct impact in 535 local
    communities spread across every state and U.S. territory.
        Eight parks and recreation facilities in Montana were enhanced with
    stateside LWCF dollars in 2005 including Lone Pine State Park, the
    school district #1 playground in Philipsburg and Big Sandy Municipal
    Park in Chouteau county.
        The citizens of North Dakota will enjoy improvements at 16 state
    parks and recreation sites as a result of stateside LWCF funding.
    Projects are underway at Lake Metigoshe, Beaver Lake, Ft. Stevenson,
    Lake Sakakawea, Icelandic and Fort Ransom state parks. Many local parks
    also received stateside grants.
        Alaska's Kenai Peninsula received stateside LWCF monies to make
    improvements to the Kasilof River State Recreation Area and Kenai
    Soccer Park.
        New Mexico received stateside LWCF funding for improvements at
    Eagle Nest State Park, Manzano State Park, Living Desert State Park and
    four other local parks.
        Ten projects in Idaho were funded by LWCF stateside grants in 2005,
    including monies to continue the development of Idaho's newest state
    park, Castle Rocks State Park and improvements at Ponderosa State Park.
        In every case, local citizens demonstrated the need and desire for
    parks in their communities by matching stateside LWCF grant monies by
    at least equal dollars and in many cases many times beyond a dollar-to-
    dollar match. Because of this, LWCF stateside grants have a high return
    on investment per government dollar.
        The impact of LWCF State Assistance Program is also felt in other
    ways as recreation lands are developed and parks are built and
    enhanced. Studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    (CDC) indicate that physical activity has proven absolutely invaluable
    in helping people lose weight. Yet more than 50 percent of U.S. adults
    don't get enough physical activity to recognize health benefits and 26
    percent are not active at all. More than a third of young people in
    grades nine through 12 do not regularly engage in vigorous physical
    activity.
        When people are active it not only makes them healthier; it also
    reduces the amount of money they, and the Federal Government, spend on
    health insurance, doctors, and medicine. Study after study suggests
    that the best way to get people active is to make recreation
    accessible. When there are parks, greenways, trail systems and
    playgrounds within reach of their homes, people exercise more.
        In a study published by the CDC, creation of or enhanced access to
    places for physical activity led to a 25 percent increase in the
    percentage of people exercising on three or more days per week. A group
    of studies reviewed in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine
    showed that ``creation of or enhanced access to places for physical
    activity combined with informational outreach'' produced a 48 percent
    increase in frequency of physical activity.
        Between 2001 and 2005, Congress recognized the many benefits of
    close to home recreation and appropriated more than $100 million per
    year for stateside LWCF grants.
        The President's fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 budget
    requests for LWCF stateside grants and UPARR zeroed out both programs.
    We thank you for rejecting that recommendation and through a bipartisan
    effort ensuring $30 million in funding for stateside LWCF grants last
    year. We urge you to restore funding to $100 million for fiscal year
    2007.
        Outdoor Industry Association believes LWCF stateside grants are an
    integral part of bringing quality parks and trails within 15 minutes of
    every child in the United States. Developing recreation infrastructure
    is a goal many states share and for which many need LWCF funds to
    accomplish.
        funding for recreation management at the forest service and blm
        Over the past fifty years, recreation has clearly emerged as the
    greatest use of Forest Service lands and the primary driver of the
    National Forest economy. Unfortunately for Americans, government
    funding for access and maintenance of public lands doesn't begin to
    appropriately address the recreation opportunities and other benefits
    we derive from them.
        Recently, the Administration released numbers estimating that
    recreation accounts for 60 percent of the Forest Service's contribution
    to the Gross Domestic Product.
        Unfortunately, staffing and funding for recreation in land
    management agencies doesn't match up to this reality. Historically,
    direct recreation management and trails spending is only about 10
    percent of the Forest Service budget--woefully inadequate when compared
    to the economic value of recreation in the forest economy.
        The Forest Service needs increased funding for recreation
    management and planning as well as funding to begin to reduce the $300
    million in deferred maintenance of recreation facilities and trails.
        Similarly, the Bureau of Land Management is tasked with managing
    261 million acres of land upon which a broad spectrum of recreation
    takes place. BLM is responsible for the management of 600,000 miles of
    roads and trails and like the Forest Service faces an increasing
    maintenance backlog. Increased funding is needed to develop resource
    and travel management plans as well as protect recreation destinations
    for future generations.
        Properly managed public lands provide limitless recreation
    opportunities. By adequately funding these recreation destinations, you
    improve the health of local economies that depend on recreation, the
    health of outdoor businesses that contribute significantly to the U.S.
    economy and the health and fitness of the American people.
        In order to achieve this outcome, OIA urges the subcommittee to
    provide $100 million for the LWCF Stateside Assistance program and to
    adequately fund UPARR, federal LWCF and the recreation management
    budgets at the Forest Service and BLM.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee

        It is my privilege to present this statement on behalf of the
    Oklahoma members of our committee in support of adequate funding for
    water resource development projects in our area of the Arkansas River
    Basin. Other members of the Committee are: Mr. Ted Coombes, Tulsa; Mr.
    A. Earnest Gilder, Muskogee; Mr. Terry McDonald, Tulsa; and Mr. Lew
    Meibergen, Enid, who also serves as Chairman of the combined Arkansas
    River Basin Interstate Committee.
        The Committee is encouraged about water resource developmental
    opportunities in the Arkansas River Basin for not only navigation, but
    also hydropower, flood control, recreation, water supply, and
    environmental stewardship. However, we are concerned that existing and
    proposed funding levels will not support the needs.
        Mr. Chairman, Public Law 108-137 authorized a 12-foot channel on
    the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. The Corps is now
    obligated to operate and maintain the system as a 12-foot channel. Over
    90 percent of the system currently is adequate for a 12-foot channel.
    Deepening the remainder of the channel to 12 feet will allow carriers
    to place 43 percent more cargo on barges, which will reduce the amount
    of fuel consumed and emissions released. Funds in the amount of $7.0
    million were allocated in fiscal year 2005 with $1.5 million used to
    complete the Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement with
    the other $5.5 million used on engineering, design, and construction
    activities. In conjunction with the deepening project the Corps is
    preparing a Basin Wide Master Plan that will include an integrated
    major maintenance construction and operational maintenance prioritized
    list for investment opportunities. Other environmental benefits include
    the creation of new aquatic habitat through new dike construction and
    the construction of Least Tern islands through beneficial use of
    dredged material.
        Therefore, we request $40 million to maintain the authorized depth
    by constructing dike structures to minimize dredging and dredging only
    necessary areas. This investment will increase the cost competitiveness
    of this low cost, environment-friendly transportation method and help
    us combat the loss of industry and jobs to overseas.
        Tow Haulage Equipment--Oklahoma.--We request funding of $5.0
    million to initiate the installation of tow haulage equipment on the
    locks located along the Arkansas River portion of the McClellan-Kerr
    Arkansas River Navigation System.
        The Power Plant at Webbers Falls Lock and Dam on the Arkansas River
    has suffered from greatly reduced reliability due to turbine design
    problems. One of the three turbines at the project has suffered major
    damage and will remain unavailable for generation until it can be
    rebuilt. Because this is a run-of-the-river facility with no storage,
    energy spilled due to off-line units is energy that is lost forever. A
    feasibility study recommending major rehabilitation of this unit has
    been approved by the office of the Chief of Engineers.
        Similar problems have been experienced at Ozark--Jeta Taylor Lock
    and Dam on the Arkansas River in Arkansas. Congress approved a new
    start and funding to begin the major rehabilitation of the Ozark
    powerhouse in fiscal year 2003. Congress approved the Administration's
    fiscal year 2005 budget request of $5 million in Construction General
    funding to continue this major rehabilitation. By combining the turbine
    replacements into a single contract, the Little Rock District awarded a
    contract in May 2005 to replace the turbines with a more reliable
    design. This contract also includes three options to provide newly
    designed turbines for the Webbers Falls project as well, if additional
    funding is forthcoming as recommended by the Corps' Hydropower Design
    Center. The Corps has saved $5 million over the life of the project.
    Unfortunately, no funding for these projects was included in the
    Administration's fiscal year 2006 and 2007 budget requests, and the
    conference report on the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations bill also excluded funding for them.
        The wholesale power customers are providing essential funding for
    the turbine replacement contract in fiscal year 2006 under terms of a
    Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Corps, the customers and
    Southwestern Power Administration. However, the MOA is not a viable
    vehicle for long-term funding of the contract.
        The Committee recommends that Congress appropriate $19.5 million to
    start the Webbers Falls major rehab in early in fiscal year 2007.
        Arkansas-White Rivers Cutoff Study is to determine a solution to
    prevent the developing cutoff from joining the Arkansas and White
    Rivers near the confluence of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River
    Navigation System and the Mississippi Rivers. If not corrected, this
    occurrence could have a dramatic adverse effect on the navigation
    system. Unless corrected, this will effectively drain the water from
    the navigation system and halt the movement of commerce on the system.
        Therefore we request an appropriation of $300,000 to protect the
    navigation system from closure.
        There has been over $5.5 billion invested in the construction and
    development of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System by
    the federal government ($1.3 billion) and the public and private sector
    ($4.2 billion+), resulting in the creation of over 50,000 jobs in this
    partnered project.
        Maintenance of the Navigation System.--In preparation for the
    deepening of the navigation system from 9 to 12 feet, there is a
    backlog of maintenance items that has been deferred due to insufficient
    budgets to allow proper maintenance. These maintenance items are
    required even to support navigation at the 9 foot depth in order to not
    jeopardize the reliability of the system. Therefore, we request
    additional funding in the amount of $1,549,000--plus the amount from
    Little Rock, over and above normal funding, for deferred channel
    maintenance. These funds would be used for such things as repair of
    bank stabilization work, needed advance maintenance dredging, and other
    repairs needed on the system's components that have deteriorated over
    the past three decades.
        In addition to the system-wide needed maintenance items mentioned
    above, the budget for the Corps of Engineers for the past several years
    has been insufficient to allow proper maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr
    Arkansas River Navigation System--Oklahoma portion. As a result, the
    backlog of maintenance items has continued to increase. If these
    important maintenance issues are not addressed soon, the reliability of
    the system will be jeopardized. The portion of the system in Oklahoma
    alone is responsible for returning $2.6 billion in annual benefits to
    the regional economy. The fiscal year 2006 O&M President's budget for
    Tulsa District was $8.2 million less (over 11 percent) than the fiscal
    year 2005 appropriation, which will result in no funding being
    available for critical infrastructure maintenance in fiscal year 2006.
    The fiscal year 2007 O&M President's budget is currently proposed at
    $72.4 million which is presently $10 million more than the fiscal year
    2006 budget. This $10 million increase is offset by higher energy,
    labor, and construction costs. We therefore request that $2.1 million
    be added to the budget to accomplish critical infrastructure
    maintenance items on the Oklahoma portion of the system as follows:
    McClellan-Kerr--$600,000 to repair plate seals for the weirs; and
    Robert S. Kerr--$1,500,000 to repair erosion and construct emergency
    mooring wood dolphins.
        Additional O&M funds are also requested for other high priority,
    non-navigation, water resource needs including $600,000 for tainter
    gate repair at Kaw Lake; $1,200,000 to repair sluice gates and liners
    at Keystone Lake; $1,500,000 for tainter gate repair at Fort Gibson
    Lake; and $400,000 for tainter gate hoist equipment replacement at
    Tenkiller Ferry Lake.
        Miami, Oklahoma and Vicinity Feasibility Study.--We request funding
    of $350,000 to move into the feasibility stage for the vicinity in
    Ottawa County including and surrounding Miami, Oklahoma in the Grand
    (Neosho) Basin. Water resource planning-related concerns include
    chronic flooding, ecosystem impairment, poor water quality, subsidence,
    chat piles, mine shafts, health effects, and Native American issues.
    The State of Oklahoma's desire is to address the watershed issues in a
    holistic fashion and restore the watershed to acceptable levels. Study
    alternatives could include structural and non-structural flood damage
    measures, creation of riverine corridors for habitat and flood storage,
    development of wetlands to improve aquatic habitat and other measures
    to enhance the quality and availability of habitat and reduce flood
    damages.
        Oologah Lake Watershed Feasibility Study.--We request funding of
    $500,000, which is $500,000 more than the President's budget request,
    for ongoing feasibility studies at Oologah Lake and in the upstream
    watershed. The lake is an important water supply source for the city of
    Tulsa and protection of the lake and maintaining and enhancing the
    quality of the water is important for the economic development of the
    city. Recent concerns have been expressed by the City of Tulsa and
    others regarding potential water quality issues that impact water
    users, as well as important aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Concerns
    are related to sediment loading and turbidity, oilfield-related
    contaminants and nutrient loading.
        Grand (Neosho) Basin Reconnaissance Study.--We request funding in
    the amount of $450,000 to conduct a feasibility study of the water
    resource problems in the Grand (Neosho) Basin in Oklahoma and Kansas.
    There is a need for a basin-wide water resource planning effort in the
    Grand-Neosho River basin, apart from the issues associated with Grand
    Lake, Oklahoma. The reconnaissance report has been approved and
    indicated that there is a federal interest in this project and the
    feasibility will focus on the evaluation of institutional measures
    which could assist communities, landowners, and other interests in
    northeastern Oklahoma and southeastern Kansas in the development of
    non-structural measures to reduce flood damages in the basin.
    Feasibility Cost Share Agreements will be executed in 2006 but the
    fiscal year 2007 President's budget did not provide funding to continue
    into the feasibility stage.
        Spavinaw Creek Watershed Study.--Spavinaw Creek and its downstream
    impoundments, Eucha and Spavinaw Lakes, are severely impacted by
    nutrient loading and excessive algae growth as a result of agricultural
    practices located in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Degradation of water
    quality has led to taste and odor problems, increased treatment costs,
    and a decreased recreational and aesthetic value of the lakes.
    Together, Spavinaw and Eucha Lakes provide 47 percent of the water
    supply for the Tulsa metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Utility
    Authority entered into the feasibility cost-share agreement in June
    2004. We request funds in the amount of $210,000 to continue this
    study.
        Grand Lake Feasibility Study.--A need exists to evaluate solutions
    to upstream flooding problems associated with the adequacy of existing
    real estate easements necessary for flood control operations of Grand
    Lake, Oklahoma. A feasibility study is necessary to determine the most
    cost-effective comprehensive solution to the real estate inadequacies.
    We urge you to provide $500,000 to fund feasibility studies for this
    important project in fiscal year 2007 and to direct the Corps of
    Engineers to execute the study at full federal expense. This project
    has been a Congressional add for the past four years, but there are no
    funds in the fiscal year 2007 President's budget request to continue
    this project.
        Section 205.--Although the Small Flood Control Projects Program
    addresses flood problems which generally impact smaller communities and
    rural areas and would appear to benefit only those communities, the
    impact of those projects on economic development crosses county,
    regional and sometimes state boundaries. There is limited funding
    available for these projects and we urge this program be increased to
    an annual limit of $65 million.
        We also request your support of the Planning Assistance to States
    Program (Section 22 of the 1974 Water Resources Development Act) which
    authorizes the Corps of Engineers to use its technical expertise in
    water and related land resource management to help states and Indian
    tribes solve their water resource problems. The Water Resources
    Development Act of 1996 increased the annual program limit from $6
    million to $10 million and we urge this program be fully funded to the
    programmatic limit of $10 million. We urge that you support the State
    of Oklahoma in requesting their full allocation of $500,000 for the
    Planning Assistance to States program for several important projects
    awaiting execution including the cities of Tulsa, Bristow, and
    Bartlesville and for State Water Planning efforts.
        In addition, we request your support of the Section 107 Navigation
    Program and ask that you provide $100,000 for the initiation of studies
    for a port in Wagoner County, Oklahoma. A Wagoner County Port could
    greatly benefit the region and utilize the authorized deepening of the
    McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation system to benefit the nation.
        We strongly urge the Appropriations Committee to raise the Corps of
    Engineers' budget to $6.7 billion to help get delayed construction
    projects back on schedule and to reduce the deferred maintenance
    backlog which is out of control. This will help the Corps of Engineers
    meet the obligations of the federal government to people of this great
    country.
        Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to present our view on
    these subjects.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress

                                    REQUEST

        The Oregon Water Resources Congress is requesting $25 million for
    the full funding in fiscal year 2007 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service Fish Restoration Irrigation Mitigation program as authorized in
    the Fish Restoration Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA) in November 2000
    as Public Law 106-502 (H.R. 1444). The Administration has not request
    any funding in the fiscal year 2007 Budget submission for this program.
        FRIMA created a new federal partnership fish screening and passage
    program in the Pacific Ocean drainage areas of Idaho, Oregon,
    Washington and western Montana, administered by the Fish and Wildlife
    Service and partnered through state fishery agencies.
        The original legislation was supported and requested by the Pacific
    Northwest Partnership, a coalition of local governmental entities in
    the four Northwest states. As one of the members of that coalition, we
    appreciate your consideration of this request.

                                      NEED

        Our association has represented irrigation districts in Oregon
    since 1912. About half of those districts are affiliated with the U.S.
    Bureau of Reclamation. The remainder of the districts were not
    developed under the Reclamation program. There are over 200 irrigation
    districts in Oregon that provide water supplies to over one million
    acres of cropland in Oregon. Almost all of these districts are affected
    by either state or federal Endangered Species Act listings of Salmon
    and Steelhead, Bull Trout or other sensitive, threatened or endangered
    species.
        Fish passage and fishscreen needs have become critical to fishery
    protection:
      --to keep protected fish species out of water canals and delivery
            systems;
      --to allow fish to be safely bypassed around reservoirs and facility
            structures;
      --and to eliminate water quality risks to fish species.
        Oregon irrigation districts anticipate no less than $500 million in
    funding will be required to develop fish passage and fishcscreening
    needs. Limited cost-share funds are available from the Oregon Watershed
    Enhanced Board (OWEB) program in Oregon, but primarily the cost share
    for passage and screening needs has been provided by the districts and
    their water users. Many districts already have screening facilities in
    place, but requirements for screening have been changed to meet federal
    agency requirements of the NOAA Fisheries Service and the Fish and
    Wildlife Life Service, driven by implementation of the federal
    Endangered Species Act (ESA) so that existing facilities must be
    upgraded at significant cost.

                        BACKGROUND OF PUBLIC LAW 106-502

        FRIMA was enacted November 2000, creating a voluntary cost-share
    fish screen construction program for water withdrawal projects in
    Idaho, Oregon, Washington and western Montana. The Fish and Wildlife
    Service is to implement this program through the fishery agencies in
    the four states. The funding is to go to local governments for
    construction of facilities. Irrigation districts (local governments),
    can access the funding; individual irrigators can access funding
    through their local Soil and Water Conservation District. (SWCD
    districts are local governments affiliated with the Natural Resources
    Conservation Service).

                                    FUNDING

        The legislation calls for $25 million annually, to be divided among
    the four stated, from 2001 forward. The Service has never included
    funding in its budget requests since passage of the legislation.
    Congress provided the first funding in 2001 through a write-in of $4
    million to be shared among the four states. The agency did not get the
    program up and running until late 2002, so the first moneys were
    distributed then. A 2003 budget write-in resulted in a $470,000
    allocation to Oregon ($1.8 million total for the 4 states)
    Funding History
        2000: Congressional authorization for $25 million per year
        2001: Congressional write-in of $4 million as no agency budget line
        2002: No budget; agency did not disperse 2001 money until late 2002
        2003: Congressional write-in of $1.2 million as no agency budget
    line
        2004: No agency budget line
        2005: No agency budget line

        For the 4 years, 2001-2004:
        Congress--Authorized-- $100 million
        CBO--Anticipated--$70 million
        Service--Budgeted--0
        Congress--Wrote-in--$8.8 million (2002-2004 total combined)
        In 2000, in the report accompanying the legislation, the
    Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated outlays of $8 million for
    fiscal year 2001; $15 million in fiscal year 2002; $22 million in
    fiscal year 2003 and $25 million in fiscal year 2004 and years forward.
    While the CBO estimate would have provided $70 million between 2001 and
    2004, the actual appropriation was only $8.8 million during that time
    period and all of the money was a write-in.
        For fiscal year 2005, Congress provided $2 million for the program
    in the Consolidated Appropriations Act and $2 million in fiscal year
    2006. As you can see from the total amount of money that Congress has
    written in for the program, such amounts are woefully inadequate for
    what was anticipated for the program, yet appreciated. Funding
    continues to not be requested by the Administration for the program for
    fiscal year 2007 despite widespread benefits from the money that
    Congress has provided. A recently produced report by the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service covering the program years fiscal year 2002-2004
    provides state-by-state coverage of how the Congressional provided
    funding has been used in the program. The program has been extremely
    beneficial in the State of Oregon.
        Funding funneled through the Service to state fishery agencies is
    distributed on the basis of an application and approval process that is
    based on a ranking system implemented uniformly among the states,
    including the following factors:
      --fish restoration benefits
      --cost effectiveness
      --feasibility of planned structure
        Each state is allocated 25 percent of the annual program funding.
    Agency administrative costs cannot exceed 6 percent of the funding.

                                PROJECT BENEFITS

        The project must provide improved fish passage or fish protection
    at water diversion structures and must benefit fish species native to
    and present in the area, including those listed on state or federal
    endangered species or conservation lists.
        The project must applicable state and federal requirements for
    project construction and operation. Projects will increase the survival
    of many native fish species in a relatively short period of time.
    Compared to other recovery strategies, the risks posed by these
    activities are low and the assurance of success in increasing numbers
    of fish is high. Dislocation of existing social and economic activities
    is minor. Screening and passage can make a very substantial
    contribution utilizing existing implementation mechanisms and methods
    well accepted by landowners and rural communities.

                                   COST SHARE

        The federal cost-share is 65 percent. The applicant's cost-share is
    35 percent plus the on-going maintenance and support of the structure
    for passage or screening purposes.
        Applicants operate the projects and the state agencies monitor and
    review the projects. For more information, see the Services' Fisher
    Resources website for the Pacific Region at http://pacific.fws.gov/
    Fisheries/Fish%20Passage-Screening%20Program.htm. This program is
    headquartered in the Portland, Oregon regional office of the Service.

                           OREGON'S PROJECT BENEFITS

        The following are examples of how Oregon has used some of its FRIMA
    money:
        Santiam Water Control District Project.--Fishscreen project on a
    large 1050 cfs multi-purpose water diversion project on the Santiam
    River (Williamette Basin) near Stayton, Oregon. Partners are the
    Santiam Water Control District, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
    Marion Soil and Water Conservation District, and the City of Stayton
    Approved FRIMA funding of $400,000 leverages a $1,200,000 project.
    Species benefited include winter steelhead, spring Chinook, rainbow
    trout, and cutthroat trout.
        South Fork Little Butte Creek.--Fishscreen and fish passage project
    on a 65 cfs irrigation water diversion in the Rogue River Basin near
    Medford, Oregon. Partners are the Medford Irrigation District and
    Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Approved FRIMA funding is
    $372,000 and leverages a $580,000 total project cost. Species benefited
    include listed summer and winter steelhead, coho salmon, and cutthroat
    trout.
        Running Y (Geary Diversion) Project.--Fishscreen project on a 60
    cfs irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath
    Falls, Oregon. Partners are the Wocus Drainage District, Oregon
    Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Jeld-Wen Ranches. Approved FRIMA
    funding of $44,727 leveraged a total project cost of $149,000. Species
    benefited included listed red-band trout and short-nosed sucker.
        Lakeshore Gardens Project.--Fishscreen project on a 2 cfs
    irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath
    Falls, Oregon. Partners are the Lakeshore Gardens Drainage District and
    Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Approved FRIMA funding is
    $5,691, leveraging a total project cost of $18,970. Species benefited
    include red-band trout, short-nosed sucker and Lost River sucker.
        Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Inventory Project.--An
    inventory to be conducted by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to
    identify FRIMA-eligible passage and screening projects within the Rogue
    and Klamath basins of southwestern Oregon. Approved FRIMA funding is
    $76,000. Estimated total project cost is $125,000.

                                  WHY FUND NOW

        Dollar-for-dollar, providing screening and fish passage at
    diversions is one of the most cost-effective uses of restoration
    dollars, creating fishery protection at low cost, with low risk and
    significant benefits. That is why it is important that this program be
    funded now. We urge the full authorization funding for fiscal year 2007
    and urge Congress' oversight in encouraging the Service to budget for
    this successful program in the future.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the
    hearing record.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Potapaug Audubon

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of
    the Potapaug Audubon, I appreciate the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of a $1 million appropriation from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund for land acquisition within the Stewart B.
    McKinney National Wildlife Refuge.
        Potapaug Audubon has been a ``Friend'' of Salt Meadow, one of the
    ten units in the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge, for the
    last five years. Potapaug, a chapter of National Audubon, never had a
    physical address to call home. Since nurturing this relationship with
    the refuge and its staff Potapaug now feels right at home there. We
    hold special programs, meetings and field trips there throughout the
    year in addition to what we do elsewhere, and hope to continue to do so
    for years to come. We, and all the people who attend our programs at
    Salt Meadow, have learned an awful lot about the natural world through
    walking the trails and hands-on demonstrations. Adding this parcel of
    land to the refuge will enhance what is already there and will prevent
    the inevitable disruption of migration if this land is developed.
        Named to honor the late U.S. congressman who was instrumental in
    its creation, the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge was
    established to protect migratory bird habitat considered important to
    wading and shorebird species including heron, egrets, terns, plovers
    and oystercatchers among others. Stewart B. McKinney NWR is currently
    comprised of eight units stretching along 60 miles of Connecticut's
    coastline. In addition to the increase in habitat protection over the
    years, the refuge now provides opportunities for scientific research,
    environmental education, and fish and wildlife oriented recreation.
    Located in the Atlantic Flyway, the refuge provides important resting,
    feeding, and nesting habitat for many species of wading birds,
    shorebirds, songbirds and terns, including the endangered roseate tern.
    Adjacent waters serve as wintering habitat for brant, scoters, American
    black duck and other waterfowl. Overall, the refuge encompasses over
    800 acres of barrier beach, tidal wetland and fragile island habitats.
        Available for refuge acquisition in fiscal year 2007 is the 22-acre
    Menunketesuck Salt Meadow Marsh in Westbrook, Connecticut. The property
    is comprised of pristine coastal tidal marsh, a forested upland,
    scrubland, and a rock outcropping that towers above 1,000 feet of
    frontage along the gentle Menunketesuck River as it winds its way to
    Long Island Sound. As a migratory stopover for neotropical migrant land
    birds, this riparian area is the top priority for acquisition for the
    refuge. The marsh property will enhance the resources of the current
    Salt Meadow Unit of the refuge, as it contains part of the least
    developed upland borders of any remaining tidal marsh in all of
    Connecticut. As much of the state's coastline has been built upon, it
    is rare to find an such a large undeveloped marsh area in Connecticut.
    Under imminent threat of development into condominiums, this parcel
    must be acquired by the refuge if it is to continue to serve as an
    island of forested habitat land on an otherwise highly developed
    coastline. In order to acquire the Menunketesuck Salt Meadow Marsh
    property, an appropriation of $1 million is needed from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2007. This priority acquisition
    will increase wildlife habitat protection at the Stewart B. McKinney
    NWR and ensure the public continued opportunities for recreation and
    environmental education along Connecticut's coastline.
        I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $1
    million for the Stewart B. McKinney NWR in the fiscal year 2007
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Pechanga Indian Reservation

        The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians writes to express our support
    for continued fiscal year 2007 funding of the Urban Indian Health
    Programs (UIHPs) and to request that funding be restored to the fiscal
    year 2006 enacted level of $32.7 million. The President's budget
    eliminates funding for 34 urban Indian non-profit organizations
    providing health care services at 41 sites throughout the United States
    for 430,000 eligible Indian users.
        In 1976, Congress passed the Indian Health Care Improvement Act,
    Public Law 94-437, to address poor health conditions in Indian Country.
    Title V of this law specifically targeted funding for the development
    of programs for American Indians and Alaska Natives living in urban
    areas. Title V has since been amended to strengthen UIHPs to expand the
    quantity and quality of services provided to the urban Indian
    population.
        In 1950's and 1960's the federal government encouraged Indians to
    move off their reservations and into various cities across the country.
    The 2000 census indicated that as many as 66 percent of all American
    Indians and Alaska Natives live in urban areas. Urban Indian
    populations are integral members of communities like Los Angeles,
    Seattle, Portland, Detroit, Chicago, Denver, Baltimore, Boston,
    Phoenix, Omaha, Fort Lauderdale, Anchorage, Oklahoma City, Wichita,
    Reno, Sioux Falls, Albuquerque, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and Billings,
    among many others.
        UIHPs provide affordable health care for an underserved population
    that is much more likely to die from certain diseases than the rest of
    the country. Indians suffer from diabetes, alcoholism, tuberculosis,
    influenza, and pneumonia at significantly higher rates than the general
    population. Urban primary care clinics and outreach programs provide
    culturally accessible, affordable, and accountable health services to
    our nation's large off-reservation Indian population. UIHPs participate
    in a wide range of activities, including outreach and referral
    services, ambulatory health care, health assessment, health promotion,
    disease prevention, child abuse prevention, and immunization services.
        The Indian Health Service (IHS) estimates that average funding in
    previous budget years has been 22 percent of the projected need for
    this program, and that eighteen additional cities have! an urban Indian
    population large enough to support a UIHP. UIHPs are all operating at
    maximum capacity, servicing over 2 million visits per year.
        The Administration contends that urban Indians live near hospitals
    and have access to Federal, State, and local health care programs. To
    accommodate the expected increase in visits to federal health clinics
    as a result of cutting UIHPs, the Administration will slightly increase
    funding for the Health Centers program.
        In a Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearing on the fiscal year
    2007 IHS budget, Director Charles W. Grimm admitted that the
    Administration did not consult with tribes when coming to the decision
    to eliminate funding for UIHPs. The Administration also did not engage
    the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) in how HRSA
    will facilitate the addition of the urban Indian population into the
    Health Centers system.
        However, even with a small increase to Health Centers funding, it
    is unreasonable to expect that there will be no interruption of
    services or decrease in the level of health care provided to the urban
    Indian population. Open access health centers already serve 8.8 million
    users.
        Dealing with past budget cuts and an increased user population has
    stressed the limits of the service capabilities at these centers.
    Increasing the potential user population by 1.5 million will place a
    much larger burden on a system already operating at capacity to the
    detriment of both non-Indian and Indian users.
        We are committed to fiscal responsibility and understand that
    restraints on funding are a reality of the current budgetary climate--
    eliminating an already under funded program that hundreds of thousands
    of Americans have depended on since 1976 is not a choice we can
    support. Without access to affordable and accountable health care
    centers, we fear that many urban Indian families will go without the
    services the federal government has been tasked with providing them. It
    is irresponsible to deny health care access to such a large and
    underserved population.
        We urge you to restore funding for UIHPs to the fiscal year 2006
    budget level of $32.7 million, and thank you for your consideration of
    this request.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Pueblo of Laguna Department of Education

        The President's proposed fiscal year 2007 budget does not include
    direct funding for Tribal Education Departments (TEDs) through the U.S.
    Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Such funding is
    authorized by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. See Section
    1140 of NCLB Title X, codified at 25 U.S.C.  2020(a).
        The Pueblo of Laguna Department of Education urges you to correct
    this omission and make appropriations for TEDs so that they can help
    states, school districts, and tribal students meet the challenges of
    implementing NCLB.,
        Although only one President's proposed budget (fiscal year 1996)
    ever has requested appropriations for TEDs through the Department of
    the Interior, historically, the National Congress of American Indians
    (NCAI), has asked Congress for such appropriations. We join in NCAI's
    recent request for TED appropriations at the level of $5 million so
    that our tribal students will achieve at their potentials and not be
    left behind.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Partnership for the National Trails System

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The Partnership for
    the National Trails System appreciates your support over the past
    several years, through operations funding and earmarked Challenge Cost
    Share funds, for the national scenic and historic trails administered
    by the National Park Service. We also appreciate your increased
    allocation of funds to support the trails administered and managed by
    the Forest Service and your support for the trails in the Bureau of
    Land Management's National Landscape Conservation System. To continue
    the progress that you have fostered, the Partnership requests that you
    provide annual operations funding for each of the 24 national scenic
    and historic trails for fiscal year 2007 through these appropriations:
      --National Park Service.--$10.683 million for the administration of
            19 trails and for coordination of the long-distance trails
            program by the Washington Park Service office.
      --USDA Forest Service.--$3.04 million to administer 4 trails and
            $933,000 to manage parts of 16 trails administered by the NPS
            or BLM; Construction: $4.822 million for the Continental Divide
            Trail, $1.35 million for the Florida Trail, and $1 million for
            the Pacific Crest Trail.
      --Bureau of Land Management.--To administer the Iditarod National
            Historic Trail: $272,000, the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro
            National Historic Trail: $230,000, the Old Spanish National
            Historic Trail: $331,000 and $3.15 million to manage portions
            of 9 trails administered by the Park Service or the Forest
            Service; $1,386,000 for operating four National Historic Trail
            interpretive centers.
      --We ask that you appropriate $7 million for the National Park
            Service Challenge Cost Share Program and continue to earmark
            $2.5 million for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects and one-
            third of the remaining $4.5 million ($1,500,000) for the other
            national scenic and historic trails or create a separate $1.5
            million National Trails System Challenge Cost Share Program.
      --We ask that you add $500,000 to the Bureau of Land Management's
            Challenge Cost Share Program and earmark the money for the 12
            national scenic and historic trails it administers or manages.
      --We ask that you appropriate $1.253 million to the National Park
            Service National Center for Recreation and Conservation to
            support the second year of a five-year interagency pilot
            project to develop a consistent system-wide Geographic
            Information System (GIS) for the National Trails System.
        We ask that you appropriate from the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund for land acquisition:
      --to the Forest Service: $5 million for the Pacific Crest Trail,
            $250,000 for management of the Pacific Crest Trail land
            acquisition program; $5 million for the Florida Trail; $5.6
            million for the Appalachian Trial; $195,000 for the
            Overmountain Victory Trail in North Carolina;
      --to the Bureau of Land Management: $1.5 million for the Pacific
            Crest Trail; $1 million for the Oregon Trail in Oregon; $1.4
            million for the Continental Divide Trail in New Mexico;
      --to the Park Service: $4 million to grant to the State of Wisconsin
            to match state funds to acquire land for the Ice Age Trail.

                             NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

        We request $1.253 million to fund the second year of a 5-year
    interagency effort to develop a consistent GIS for all 24 national
    scenic and historic trails. This initiative is described in the August
    2001 report (requested by Congress in the fiscal year 2001
    appropriation) ``GIS For The National Trails System'' and is built upon
    work already underway on the Ice Age, Appalachian, Florida, Oregon,
    California, Mormon Pioneer and Pony Express Trails to develop
    consistent information and procedures that can be applied across the
    National Trails System. The requested funding will be shared with the
    Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.
        The $10.683 million we request for Park Service operations includes
    increases for many of the trails to continue the progress and new
    initiatives made possible by the $975,000 funding increase provided for
    nine of the trails in fiscal year 2001 and the $500,000 increases
    provided in fiscal year 2004, fiscal year 2005, and fiscal year 2006.
    The $717,000 we request will enable the Park Service to continue
    managing three new national historic trails--Ala Kahakai, El Camino
    Real de Tierra Adentro, and Old Spanish--the latter two co-administered
    with the Bureau of Land Management. These funds will provide full-time
    management, support projects for these trails and development of
    Comprehensive Management Plans for the Ala Kahakai and Old Spanish
    Trails. We also request $200,000 for maintenance of the Pacific Crest
    Trail in Kings Canyon/Sequoia, Lassen, and North Cascades National
    Parks.
        We request an increase of $776,000 to continue and expand Park
    Service efforts to protect cultural landscapes at more than 200
    significant sites along the Santa Fe Trail, to develop GIS mapping, and
    to fund public outreach and educational programs of the Santa Fe Trail
    Association. An increase of $87,000 for the Trail of Tears will enable
    the Park Service to work cooperatively with the Trail of Tears
    Association to develop a GIS to map the Trail's critical historical and
    cultural heritage sites so they can be protected and interpreted for
    visitors.
        The $100,000 increase we request for the interagency Salt Lake City
    Trails office will enable the Park Service to continue developing
    comprehensive interpretation and auto tour guides for the Oregon,
    California, Mormon Pioneer and Pony Express Trails with a library of
    trail images linked with the GIS map database of the trails.
        We request $1,837,000 for the Lewis & Clark Trail to complete
    resource protection and interpretation projects and to work with the
    public/private and inter-agency partnerships forged through the
    successful Lewis & Clark Bicentennial commemoration to develop a
    strategy for long-term cooperative stewardship of the Trail.
        All of these trails are complicated undertakings; none more so than
    the 4,200 mile North Country Trail. With more than 650 miles of Trail
    across 7 national forests in 5 states there is good reason for close
    collaboration between the Park Service and Forest Service to ensure
    consistent management that provides high quality experiences for
    hikers. The $836,000 we request will enable these agencies to
    collaborate more effectively while also providing greater support for
    the regional and local resource inventory and GIS mapping, trail
    building, trail management, and training of volunteers led by the North
    Country Trail Association, hastening the day when our nation's longest
    national scenic trail will be fully opened for use.
        The $936,000 we request will enable the Park Service to help WDNR
    and other partners to accelerate acquisition of land for the Ice Age
    Trail and further development of the Trail GIS to more efficiently plan
    resource protection, trail construction and maintenance to correct
    unsafe conditions and better mark the Trail for users. The funds will
    also provide assistance to the Ice Age Park & Trail Foundation to
    better equip, train and support the volunteers who build and maintain
    the Ice Age Trail and manage its resources.
        Challenge Cost Share programs are one of the most effective and
    efficient ways for Federal agencies to accomplish a wide array of
    projects for public benefit while also sustaining partnerships
    involving countless private citizens in doing public service work. The
    Partnership requests that you appropriate $7 million in Challenge Cost
    Share funding to the Park Service for fiscal year 2007 as a wise
    investment of public money that will generate public benefits many
    times greater than its sum. We ask you to continue to direct $2.5
    million for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects and one-third of the
    other $4.5 million for the national scenic and historic trails to
    continue the steady progress toward making these trails fully available
    for public enjoyment. We suggest, as an alternative to the annual
    earmarking of funds from the Regular Challenge Cost Share program, that
    you establish a separate National Trails System Challenge Cost Share
    program with $1.5 million funding.

                              USDA--FOREST SERVICE

        As you have done for several years, we ask that you provide
    additional operations funding to the Forest Service for administering
    three national scenic trails and one national historic trail, and
    managing parts of 16 other trails. We ask you to appropriate $3.04
    million as a separate budgetary item specifically for the Continental
    Divide, Florida and Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails and the Nez
    Perce National Historic Trail. Full-time managers have been assigned
    for each of these trails by the Forest Service. Recognizing the on-the-
    ground management responsibility the Forest Service has for 838 miles
    of the Appalachian Trail, more than 650 miles of the North Country
    Trail, and sections of the Ice Age, Anza, Caminos Real de Tierra
    Adentro and de Tejas, Lewis & Clark, California, Iditarod, Mormon
    Pioneer, Old Spanish, Oregon, Overmountain Victory, Pony Express, Trail
    of Tears and Santa Fe Trails, we ask you to appropriate $933,000
    specifically for these trails.
        Work is underway, supported by funds you provided for the past five
    years, to close several major gaps in the Florida National Scenic
    Trail. The Florida Trail Association has built 100 miles of new Trail
    across Eglin Air Force Base, in the Ocala National Forest, Big Cypress
    National Preserve and along Lake Kissimmee and the Choctawahatchee
    River. FTA volunteers helped clear trees and other debris scattered
    across 850 miles of trail by four hurricanes in 2004. The Partnership
    requests an additional $1.35 million for trail construction in fiscal
    year 2007 to enable the Forest Service and FTA to build 90 more miles
    and manage 3,410 acres of new Florida Trail land.
        The Continental Divide Trail Alliance, with Forest Service
    assistance and funding from the outdoor recreation industry, surveyed
    the entire 3,200 mile route of the Continental Divide Trail documenting
    $10.3 million of construction projects needed to complete the Trail. To
    continue new trail construction, begun with fiscal year 1998 funding,
    we ask that you appropriate $4.822 million to plan 490 miles and to
    build or reconstruct 242 miles of the CDT.
        A Forest Service lands team is working with the Pacific Crest Trail
    Association (PCTA) and the Park Service National Trail Land Resources
    Program Center to map and acquire better routes for the 300 miles of
    the Pacific Crest Trail located on 227 narrow easements across private
    land or on the edge of dangerous highways. We request $200,000 to
    continue the work of the fulltime Trail Manager and the lands team and
    $100,000 for Optimal Location route planning. We also request
    $1,000,000 for new trail construction and reconstruction of fire and
    flood damaged bridges along the PCT in California and Washington by the
    Forest Service and the PCTA.

                           BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

        While the Bureau of Land Management has administrative authority
    only for the Iditarod, El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, and the Old
    Spanish National Historic Trails, it has on-the-ground management
    responsibility for 641 miles of two scenic trails and 3,115 miles of
    seven historic trails administered by the National Park Service and
    U.S. Forest Service. The significance of these trails was recognized by
    their inclusion in the National Landscape Conservation System and, for
    the first time, in fiscal year 2002, by provision of specific funding
    for each of them. The Partnership applauds the decision of the Bureau
    of Land Management to include the national scenic and historic trails
    in the NLCS and to budget specific funding for each of them. We also
    applaud the recently released 10 Year ``National Scenic & Historic
    Trails Strategy and Work Plan.''
        We ask that you continue to support funding for the National
    Landscape Conservation System and that you appropriate for fiscal year
    2007 as new permanent base funding $272,000 for the Iditarod National
    Historic Trail, $230,000 for El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National
    Historic Trail, $331,000 to continue development of the Comprehensive
    Management Plan for the Old Spanish National Historic Trail, and
    $3,150,000 for management of the portions of the nine other trails
    under the care of the Bureau of Land Management. We request $166,000
    for construction of new sections of the Continental Divide National
    Scenic Trail, $100,000 for maintenance of the Pacific Crest Trail, and
    $1,386,000 to operate four historic trails interpretive centers. We
    request that you add $500,000 to the Challenge Cost Share program and
    allocate the money for the National Trails System as you have done for
    many years with the Park Service's Challenge Cost Share program. Since
    the Bureau has no account specifically for ``trails'' in its budget we
    ask that you either direct that such an account be established or
    direct all of the requested money except the CCS to the ``Recreation
    Management'' account.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        The Partnership requests that you fully appropriate the $900
    million annual authorized appropriation from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund and that you make the specific appropriations for
    national scenic and historic trails detailed at the beginning of this
    statement and in Attachment #2. The $5.250 million we request for the
    Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail will continue acquisition underway
    by the Forest Service and Park Service. The $5 million requested for
    the Florida National Scenic Trail will continue another successful
    collaboration between these two agencies to protect another 13 miles of
    Trail and the $5.6 million requested will protect sections of the
    Appalachian National Scenic Trail in three national forests in three
    states. The $195,000 requested for the Overmountain Victory National
    Historic Trail will protect a key link and access to a 7-mile section
    of the trail in the Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina.
        The $3.9 million requested for the Bureau of Land Management will
    close a gap in the Continental Divide Trail in New Mexico and protect a
    key section of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail and an important
    historical site along the Oregon National Historic Trail in Oregon.
        The National Trails System Act encourages states to assist in the
    conservation of the resources and development of the national scenic
    and historic trails. Wisconsin has matched $7.92 million of fiscal year
    2000-2006 LWCF funding with $15.7 million to help conserve the
    resources of the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. With this 2:1 match of
    State to Federal funds, Wisconsin has purchased 34 parcels totaling
    5,694 acres and now has another 15 parcels under negotiation, appraisal
    or option to purchase. All of the LWCF funds appropriated by Congress
    for the Ice Age NST have been spent. The requested $4 Million Land and
    Water Conservation Fund grant to Wisconsin will continue this very
    successful Federal/State/local partnership for protecting land for the
    Ice Age Trail.
        The essential funding requests to support the trails are detailed
    in Attachment 2.

             PRIVATE SECTOR SUPPORT FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM

        Public-spirited partnerships between private citizens and public
    agencies have been a hallmark of the National Trails System since its
    inception. These partnerships create the enduring strength of the
    Trails System and the trail communities that sustain it by combining
    the local, grass-roots energy and responsiveness of volunteers with the
    responsible continuity of public agencies. They also provide a way to
    enlist private financial support for public projects, usually resulting
    in a greater than equal match of funds.
        The private trail organizations commitment to the success of these
    trail-sustaining partnerships grows even as Congress' support for the
    trails has grown. In 2005 the trail organizations channeled 723,191
    hours of documented volunteer labor valued at $12,691,997 to help
    sustain the national scenic and historic trails. The organizations also
    applied private sector contributions of $7,275,556 to benefit the
    trails. These contributions are documented in Attachment 1.

     ATTACHMENT 1.--CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN 2005 TO SUPPORT THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM BY NATIONAL SCENIC AND HISTORIC
                                                   TRAIL ORGANIZATIONS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Estimated
                                                                         Volunteer       value of        Financial
                              Organization                                 hours         volunteer     contributions
                                                                                           labor
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Appalachian Trail Conference....................................         195,733      $3,435,114  \1\ $3,099,000
    Camino Real Trail Association...................................             790          13,865           5,236
    Continental Divide Trail Society................................       \1\ 1,500          26,325  ..............
    Continental Divide Trail Alliance...............................          17,640         309,582         999,553
    Florida Trail Association.......................................      \1\ 58,266       1,022,568         165,000
    Ice Age Park & Trail Foundation.................................          90,524       1,588,696         564,289
    Iditarod National Historic Trail, Inc...........................         \1\ 896          15,725      \1\ 80,000
    Heritage Trails/Amigos De Anza & others.........................        \1\ 2000          35,100  ..............
    Anza Trail Coalition of Arizona.................................           2,650          46,507  ..............
    Lewis & Clark Trail Heritage Foundation.........................          87,119       1,528,938         495,796
    Mormon Trails Association.......................................           1,140          20,007           4,577
    Iowa Mormon Trails Association..................................         \1\ 750          13,163           1,730
    Nebraska Mormon Trails Association..............................         \1\ 125           2,194           2,445
    National Pony Express Association...............................          23,515         412,688         111,147
    Pony Express Trail Association..................................           5,703         100,088          44,840
    Nez Perce Trail Foundation......................................           6,780         118,989           8,256
    North Country Trail Association.................................          35,423         621,670         217,397
    Old Spanish Trail Association...................................          10,126         177,711          55,531
    Oregon-California Trails Association............................          59,053       1,036,380         602,178
    Overmountain Victory Trail Association..........................           7,985         140,137          36,800
    Pacific Crest Trail Association.................................          41,100         721,305         577,748
    Potomac Heritage Trail Association..............................       \1\ 2,535          44,489  ..............
    Santa Fe Trail Association......................................          39,639         695,664         138,808
    Trail of Tears Association......................................          32,199         565,092          65,225
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          TOTALS....................................................         723,191      12,691,997      7,275,556
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Estimate.

                                   ATTACHMENT 2.--PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM REQUESTED FISCAL YEAR 2007 APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year
                                                 ------------------------------------------------
                    Agency/Trail                    2006 cong.      2007 admin.    2007 partners                           Project/Programs possible with increased funding
                                                      approp.         request         request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    PARK SERVICE

    Ala Kahakai.................................        $259,000        $261,000        $261,000  Continue preparation of Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) for new trail;
    Appalachian.................................       1,205,000       1,217,000       1,755,000  $350,000 of the total supports volunteer-based trail and land management guided by ATC; Park
                                                                                                   ranger to deal with trail encroachments; support GIS work;
    Natchez Trace...............................          27,000          27,000          27,000  Planning & building new trail & bridges; backlog maintenance with SCA;
    El Camino Real Tejas........................          49,000          49,000          50,000  Begin to administer new national historic trail;
    El Camino Real Tierra.......................         140,000         140,000         220,000  Full-time administrator; implement CMP with Bureau of Land Management;
    California..................................         278,000         278,000         303,000  Begin to develop Four Trails Images Library/Database to complement GIS Database;
    Ice Age.....................................         631,000         641,000         936,000  Accelerate Trail corridor planning and land acquisition by agency partners; Increase Trail
                                                                                                   development, maintenance and resource management by IAP&TF volunteers;
    Juan Bautista de Anza.......................         305,000         313,000         313,000  Coordination of Trail site protection, interpretation & development projects with local agencies &
                                                                                                   organizations; Outreach to schools and Latino communities;
    Lewis & Clark...............................       1,798,000       1,837,000       1,837,000  Planning, coordination & support for local L&CNHT projects after the Bicentennial;
    Mormon Pioneer..............................         128,000         128,000         153,000  Begin to develop Four Trails Images Library/Database to complement GIS Database;
    North Country...............................         684,000         684,000         836,000  Advance Trail construction, route planning, protection and public awareness by providing regional
                                                                                                   services, GIS, and technical assistance for volunteers and partners;
    Old Spanish.................................         101,000         101,000         236,000  Full-time administrator; continue preparing CMP with Bureau of Land Management;
    Oregon......................................         286,000         293,000         311,000  Begin to develop Four Trails Images Library/Database to complement GIS Database;
    Overmountain Victory........................         170,000         174,000         286,000  New route signs & interpretive exhibits; mapping Trail sites for protection inventory, feasibility
                                                                                                   study for location of Trail headquarters and visitor contact site;
    Pony Express................................         182,000         182,000         207,000  Begin to develop Four Trails Images Library/Database to complement GIS Database;
    Potomac Heritage............................         276,000         279,000         279,000  Assistance to local agencies & organizations for planning & educational projects;
    Santa Fe....................................     \1\ 722,000         740,000       1,516,000  Preserve cultural resources; GIS mapping; produce interpretive media with SFTA;
    Selma to Montgomery.........................         328,000         334,000         334,000  Comprehensive management plan developed and trail interpretation begun in collaboration with
                                                                                                   citizen support organizations & local agencies;
    Trail of Tears..............................         361,000         361,000         448,000  Develop GIS, interpret critical Trail sites & provide new visitor facilities with TOTA;
    NTS-Washington Office.......................         336,000         340,000         375,000  Program coordination and funding for special projects and training for staff & partners
                                                 ------------------------------------------------
          National Trails System................       8,266,000       8,379,000      10,683,000  Total National Trails System operations funding.
                                                 ================================================
    Challenge Cost Share........................   \2\ 4,843,000   \3\ 2,380,000       7,000,000  $2.5 million for Lewis & Clark; one-third of remaining $4.5 million for rest of National Trails
                                                                                                   System.
    Interagency GIS Project.....................  ..............  ..............   \4\ 1,253,000  Development of GIS for National Trails System;

                         BLM

    Iditarod Trail..............................         248,000         248,000         272,000  Coordination and support for collaborative management with other Federal agencies, Iditarod Trail
                                                                                                   organizations and State of Alaska; bridges and cabins; Interpretive Plan;
    El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro............          15,000         230,000         230,000  Collaborative administration and management with National Park Service; Full-time Trail
                                                                                                   Administrator; Site certification and protection;
    Old Spanish.................................         235,000         331,000         331,000  Full-time Trail Administrator; Collaborative administration and management with National Park
                                                                                                   Service; Continue preparation of Comprehensive Management Plan; Site protection and
                                                                                                   interpretation;
    Continental Divide..........................         194,000         219,000         410,000  Planning 101 miles of CDNST in Idaho, Montana and New Mexico; Interagency management
                                                                                                   collaboration; Full-time CDNST Liaison;
    Pacific Crest...............................          70,000          75,000          90,000  PCNST maintenance in California and Oregon; Interagency management collaboration;
    Juan Bautista de Anza.......................          90,000          58,000          58,000  Interpretive exhibits for Anza Trail in Arizona and California;
    California..................................         135,000         150,000         179,000  California NHT resource inventories in Utah, Nevada and California;
    Lewis & Clark...............................       2,058,000       1,680,000       1,680,000  Completion of Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects in Idaho and Montana;
    Mormon Pioneer..............................         227,000         193,000         227,000  Mormon Pioneer NHT resource inventories in Utah and Wyoming;
    Nez Perce...................................         142,000          27,000         149,000  Completion of Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects in Idaho and Montana;
    Oregon......................................          22,000         133,000         210,000  Interagency management collaboration and Oregon NHT resource inventories;
    Pony Express................................         100,000         100,000         147,000  Marking Pony Express Trail in Utah and Nevada;
                                                 ------------------------------------------------
          National Trails System................       3,164,000       3,524,000       3,983,000  Total National Trails System operations funding.
                                                 ================================================
    Challenge Cost Share........................  ..............  ..............         500,000  Projects along the various national scenic and historic trails;
    Casper NHT Center...........................         377,000         377,000         425,000  Operating ONHT, CNHT, MPNHT, and PXNHT interpretive center in Casper, WY;
    Oregon, Pompey's Pillar & Camino Real                921,000         961,000         961,000  Operating ONHT, L&CNHT, and CRTANHT interpretive centers;
     Centers.
    Construction of:
        Pacific Crest Trail.....................  ..............  ..............         100,000  Funding for maintenance and re-construction of Pacific Crest NST in California;
        Continental Divide Trail................  ..............  ..............         166,000  Funding for construction and re-construction of 102 miles of Continental Divide NST in Idaho,
                                                                                                   Montana, and New Mexico;

                   FOREST SERVICE

    Continental Divide..........................        +760,000                       1,250,000  Continued support for full administrative responsibility and for consistent interagency
    Florida.....................................        +650,000                         650,000   collaboration for each trail; support for consistent management with trail organization and local
    Pacific Crest...............................        +850,000                         500,000   agency partners; trail brochures, signs, project planning etc.; Also $572,500 to plan 490 new
    Nez Perce Trails............................        +640,000                         640,000   miles of CDT; $200,000 for work of full-time Trail administrator and $100,000 for Optimal
                                                                                                   Location Planning for PCT and $100,000 to increase Trail maintenance by volunteers coordinated by
                                                                                                   PCTA; $650,000 to continue collaboration with Florida Trail Association to inventory 430 miles
                                                                                                   and certify 150 miles of the Florida Trail and further develop Trail GIS; $49,000 for Nez Perce
                                                                                                   Trail Foundation education and public outreach work;
                                                 ----------------                ----------------
          Total.................................   \5\ 2,900,000       1,000,000       3,040,000
                                                 ================                ================
    Appalachian, North Country, Ice Age,                 925,000         350,000         933,000  Improved trail maintenance, marking, interpretation, archaeological studies, historic site
     Iditarod, California, Juan Bautista de                                                        protection and trailhead facilities for trail segments in National Forests; $200,000 to address
     Anza, Caminos Real Tierra Adentro & Tejas,                                                    deferred maintenance, remove blowdown trees on 30 miles of trail, make improvements and provide
     Lewis & Clark, Oregon, Old Spanish, Mormon                                                    liaison for collaborative management of the North Country Trail with National Park Service; Re-
     Pioneer, Overmountain Victory, Pony                                                           location and reconstruction of sections of the Appalachian Trail, replacement of major bridges
     Express, Santa Fe, Trail of Tears.                                                            and installation of toilets at shelters;
    Continental Divide Trail....................         995,000  ..............       4,822,500  Trail construction projects along the Continental Divide Trail: reconstructing or building 242
                                                                                                   miles of trail in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico;
    Florida Trail...............................         498,000  ..............       1,350,000  Trail construction projects totaling 150 miles of new trail and management of 3,410 acres acquired
                                                                                                   by the Forest Service for the FNST;
    Pacific Crest Trail.........................         995,000  ..............       1,000,000  Trail construction projects along the Pacific Crest Trail, including reconstruction of fire and
                                                                                                   storm damaged bridges and structures in California and Washington; Fabrication and installation
                                                                                                   of roadside interpretive signs at Trail highway crossings;
                                                 ------------------------------------------------
          National Trails System................       6,333,000       1,350,000      11,145,500  Total: National Trails System funding
                                                 ================================================
    Nat. Forest System Trail Maintenance........      42,000,000  ..............  ..............  Trail maintenance throughout the National Forest System.
    Nat. Forest System Trail Construction.......      30,500,000  ..............  ..............  New trail construction and re-construction throughout the National Forest System.
    Nat. Forest System Capital Improvement &          76,000,000      60,341,000      90,000,000  Trail maintenance and new trail construction throughout the National Forest System.
     Maintenance--Trails.

                   LWCF FOR TRAILS

    LWCF grant--FS Pacific Crest................         500,000       1,600,000       5,000,000  USDA-Forest Service acquisition of lands in southern California (Tejon Ranch), Oregon and southern
                                                                                                   Washington to preserve the scenic integrity of the Pacific Crest Trail.
    LWCF grant--BLM Pacific Crest...............  ..............  ..............       1,500,000  BLM acquisition of Sky King Cole Ranch in the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument, including land
                                                                                                   along Pacific Crest Trail.
    LWCF grant--FS Pacific Crest................  ..............  ..............         250,000  Land acquisition program management.
    LWCF grant--FS Florida......................  ..............  ..............       5,000,000  USDA-Forest Service acquisition of lands in the Northwest Florida Greenway near Eglin Air Force
                                                                                                   Base and adjacent to St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge.
    LWCF grant--FS Appalachian..................  ..............  ..............       5,600,000  USDA-Forest Service acquisition of 1,200 acres in the Cherokee NF in Tennessee, 820 acres in the
                                                                                                   George Washington-Jefferson NF in Virginia (last unprotected segment of the Appalachian NST), and
                                                                                                   970 acres in the Green Mountain NF in Vermont.
    LWCF grant Ice Age--Wisconsin \6\...........       1,000,000  ..............       4,000,000  Assistance provided to State of Wisconsin to protect threatened Ice Age Trail corridor and connect
                                                                                                   trail segments across private land in Dane, Chippewa, Kewaunee, Langlade, Lincoln, Manitowoc,
                                                                                                   Marathon, Portage, Sheboygan, Taylor, Washington, Waupaca and Waushara Counties.
    LWCF grant--BLM Oregon......................       1,600,000         750,000       1,000,000  BLM acquisition of land along the Sandy River in Oregon.
    LWCF grant--FS Overmountain Victory.........  ..............  ..............         195,000  USDA-Forest Service acquisition of land to protect key link in the Overmountain Victory Trail near
                                                                                                   North Cove in North Carolina.
    LWCF grant--BLM Continental Divide..........  ..............  ..............       1,400,000  BLM acquisition of land between El Malpais National Conservation Area and the Gila National
                                                                                                   Forest.
    LWCF grant--NPS Lewis & Clark...............       1,600,000  ..............  ..............  ..................................................................................................
                                                 ------------------------------------------------
          Total.................................       4,700,000       2,350,000      23,695,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Includes $261,000 for operations of Santa Fe Park Service office, not related to the Santa Fe Trail.
    \2\ Includes $2.463 million earmarked for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects. One-third of the remaining funds (about $813,000 of $2.44 million) are earmarked for National Trails System
      projects.
    \3\ Administration request does not allocate any funds for the National Trails System. The Congressional earmark is needed to accomplish this.
    \4\ Funding request reflects budget detailed in Park Service GIS report delivered to Congress in January 2002.
    \5\ Appropriation includes: $2.9 million for administration of the Continental Divide, Florida, and Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails and the Nez Perce National Historic Trail, funding for
      full-time administrators for each trail and land acquisition teams for the Florida and Pacific Crest Trails.
    \6\ This would be a grant to the State of Wisconsin to be matched at least 1:1.

                  Prepared Statement of the Pueblo of Tesuque

        The Presidents' proposed fiscal year 2007 budget does not include
    direct funding for Tribal Education Departments (TED's) through the
    U.S. Department of Education. Such funding is authorized by the No
    Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. See Section 7135 of NCLB Title
    VII, codified at 20 U.S.C.  7455.
        The Pueblo of Tesuque, urges you to correct this omission and make
    appropriations for TED's so that they can join in helping states,
    school districts, and tribal students meet the challenges of
    implementing NCLB.
        Although no President's proposed budget ever has requested
    appropriations for TED's through the Department of Education,
    historically the National Education Association (NIEA) has asked
    Congress for $3 million in appropriations for TED's. We join in NIEA's
    request so that our tribal students will achieve at their potential and
    not be left behind as evidenced in today's State of New Mexico
    statistics.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of American Rivers

        American Rivers, on behalf of more than 500 national, regional and
    local organizations representing more than 5 million constituents
    concerned with river conservation,\1\ urges the Committee to provide
    $7,776,233,000 for the following programs in the Interior and Related
    Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. I request that this
    testimony be included in the official record.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ These groups and individuals have endorsed the Citizen's Agenda
    for Rivers which includes the ``River Budget'' for fiscal year 2007, a
    report of national funding priorities for local river conservation. For
    more information on the Citizen's Agenda for Rivers go to
    www.healthyrivers.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Funds.--
    The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) provides capitalization
    grants to states, which in turn provide low-cost loans to communities
    for a variety of programs to clean up impaired water bodies and protect
    pristine waters. This program has been extremely effective in helping
    communities to improve water quality and provide safe drinking water.
    However, the needs to improve, repair and replace the nation's aging
    water infrastructure are tremendous. Postponing necessary water
    infrastructure investments will only defer and increase costs that must
    eventually be met. The annual need for clean water funding is close to
    $20 billion. Historically, the federal government has provided between
    10 and 20 percent of those funds or what should be $2 to $4 billion.
    The SRF programs have also been used to fund nonstructural projects
    that reduce non-point source pollution, protect estuaries, prevent
    contamination of drinking source waters, and reduce polluted runoff by
    protecting natural areas and other ``green infrastructure,'' such as
    stream buffers. These approaches are often more cost-effective then
    traditional pipe and cement options and provide a wide array of
    environmental and social benefits, including open space, wildlife
    habitat, recreation, and improved water supply. American Rivers urges
    the Committee to appropriate $3.2 billion for the Clean Water SRF and
    $2.0 billion for the Drinking Water SRF in fiscal year 2007.
    Additionally, within the funds appropriated for the Clean Water SRF
    $250 million should be used for nonstructural projects.
        Enforcement of Discharge Permits under the Clean Water Act.--The
    Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ability to enforce
    environmental laws is critical to our nation's efforts to fulfill the
    Clean Water Act's stated objective of restoring waters to fishable and
    swimmable conditions. It is essential that EPA maintain a strong
    enforcement presence working with the states to undertake civil and
    criminal enforcement activities at facilities that can result in real
    improvements in environmental quality. American Rivers urges the
    Committee to appropriate $492 million for EPA's Enforcement programs in
    fiscal year 2007.
        Water Efficiency.--EPA established a water efficiency market
    enhancement program in the fiscal year 2005 budget similar to the
    Energy Star program that promotes energy efficient appliances and
    practices. Promoting water efficient products and practices would
    represent a significant step forward in moving the nation towards more
    efficient water use. American Rivers urges the Committee to appropriate
    $2 million for the Water efficiency program in fiscal year 2007.
        Total Maximum Daily Loads.--The establishment of Total Maximum
    Daily Loads (TMDLs) allow states and the Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA) to identify all sources of water quality impairment to
    rivers, streams and lakes that do not meet water quality standards,
    develop specific goals for improvement, and design plans to reduce
    pollutant loads into receiving water bodies. The development of strong
    TMDLs by the states done through funding under Section 106 of the CWA
    requires a commitment of adequate resources. American Rivers urges the
    Committee to appropriate $250 million for State Program Management
    Grants in fiscal year 2007.
        Non-point Source Management Program, Clean Water Act Section 319.--
    The Section 319 Non-point Source Management Program provides grant
    money that states, territories, and Indian tribes can use for a wide
    variety of non-point source pollution reduction activities including
    technical and financial assistance, education, training, technology
    transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring. American Rivers urges
    the Committee to appropriate $250 million for Section 319, the Non-
    point Source Management Program in fiscal year 2007.
        Chesapeake Bay Program.--The Chesapeake Bay Program focuses on
    restoring tributaries, underwater bay grasses and fish passage, and
    also reducing agricultural runoff pollution and toxics. American Rivers
    urges the Committee to appropriate $30 million for the Chesapeake Bay
    Program, including $3 million Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants
    Program in fiscal year 2007.
        Targeted Watersheds Grants.--The Targeted Watersheds Grants program
    provides direct grants to a limited number of watershed groups, tribes
    and communities working to improve water quality. Portions of these
    funds are designated for technical assistance programs and to train
    community groups engaged in watershed-level protection and restoration
    projects. This training is essential to protect and restore the
    nation's rivers and watersheds. American Rivers urges the Committee to
    appropriate $35 million, including $3.5 million dedicated to technical
    assistance for Targeted Watersheds Grants in fiscal year 2007.

                             NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

        Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA).--This
    program has helped produce some of the best examples of conservation
    based local-federal partnerships by providing communities with
    assistance to help revitalize riverfronts, protect open space, and
    build trails and greenways. If funded at $15 million, RTCA could expand
    to assist approximately 250 additional projects in some 25 new and
    currently underserved locations. American Rivers urges the Committee to
    fund the RTCA program at $15 million in fiscal year 2004 in fiscal year
    2007.
        Elwha River Restoration.--Removal of Glines Canyon and Elwha dams
    will restore salmon access to the Elwha river's wilderness heart in the
    Olympic National Park for the first time in 100 years. This dam removal
    will produce a landmark in river restoration for our national parks and
    an unprecedented opportunity to study a large dam removal and its
    impact on the river and wild salmon populations. American Rivers urges
    the Committee to provide $35 million to complete the restoration of the
    Elwha River ecosystem and its fisheries.
        Dam Safety Program.--Dams that have outlived their average life
    expectancy now threaten the health of rivers inside the National Park
    System. Of the 482 dams in the Park System, some 330 are in poor or
    fair condition. Since its formation, the Dam Safety program has
    repaired 198 dams and removed 159 hazardous dams. American Rivers urges
    the Committee to fund the Dam Safety Program at $3.6 million in fiscal
    year 2007.

                         U.S FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

        National Fish Passage Program.--Working with local, state, tribal,
    and federal partners, the Fish Passage Program has used $2.3 million,
    with partners matching $6.2 million (73 percent) of total costs to
    initiate projects, opening more than 3,000 miles of river and 60,000
    acres of wetlands for fish spawning and rearing habitat. This program
    is key to the success of the Administration's new small dam removal
    initiative coordinating with NOAA and NRCS. American Rivers urges the
    Committee to appropriate the National Fish Passage Program with $5
    million in fiscal year 2007.
        Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act Program (FRIMA)
    is a unique voluntary program that helps improve anadromous and
    resident fish passage through installing better fish screens for
    irrigation and water diversions in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and
    western Montana without impairing existing water withdrawals. American
    Rivers urges the Committee to fund Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation
    Mitigation Act Program at $5 million in fiscal year 2007.
        Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program.--This program has worked
    with more than 27,000 landowners to restore 574,800 acres of wetlands;
    884,800 acres of native prairie, grassland, and other upland habitats;
    and 4,190 miles of riparian and in-stream aquatic habitat. American
    Rivers urges the Committee to appropriate $52.2 million for the
    Partners for Fish and Wildlife program in fiscal year 2007.
        Coastal Program.--The Coastal Program has worked through
    partnerships to reopened 3,300 miles of coastal streams for anadromous
    fish passage; restored 54,160 acres of coastal wetlands, 19,670 acres
    of coastal upland habitat, 645 miles of riparian habitat; and protected
    230,000 acres of habitat through conservation easements since 1994.
    American Rivers urges the Committee to fund the FWS's Coastal Program
    at $15 million in fiscal year 2007.
        National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF).--Every
    Congressionally appropriated dollar given to the Foundation translates
    into an average of three dollars in on-the-ground conservation. NFWF
    has made more than 5,000 grants and committed more than $226 million in
    federal funds. Matched with non-federal dollars, NFWF funds have
    delivered more than $617 million for conservation. American Rivers
    urges the Committee to fully fund the National Fish and Wildlife
    Foundation at $28 million in fiscal year 2007.

                             U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

        These water resource investigation programs provide vital
    information on water quality conditions and trends on the health of our
    nation's rivers and water supply. American Rivers urges the Committee
    to provide the following amounts in fiscal year 2007:
      --National Water Quality Assessment Program: $70 million
      --Toxic Substances Hydrology Program: $17.4 million
      --National Streamflow Information Program: $28.4 million

                            OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING

        Abandoned Mine Land Program--Clean Streams Initiative.--The Clean
    Streams Initiative coordinates and funds community, citizen, and
    government abandoned mine reclamation efforts. American Rivers urges
    the Committee to appropriate $285 million to the Abandoned Mine Land
    Program and should earmark $20 million for the Clean Streams Initiative
    in fiscal year 2007.

                             WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

        Bureau of Land Management: Land Use Planning--National Landscape
    Conservation System.--The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for
    managing 36 wild and scenic rivers, as part of the National Landscape
    Conservation System. American Rivers urges the Committee to appropriate
    $7 million for WSR Management and $5 million for completion of WSR
    studies in fiscal year 2007.
        U.S. Forest Service: National Forest System--Recreation, Heritage,
    and Wilderness.--The U.S. Forest Service has responsibility for the
    largest number of wild and scenic rivers and has a mandate to complete
    studies of potential wild and scenic rivers through its forest planning
    process. American Rivers urges the Committee to appropriate $9 million
    for Forest Service wild and scenic river management, $3 million for the
    creation of river management plans, and $3 million for completion of
    wild and scenic river studies in fiscal year 2007.
        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: National Wildlife Refuge System.--
    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages nine wild and scenic rivers
    and must study rivers located on national refuge lands for potential
    designation. American Rivers urges the Committee to appropriate
    $1,787,000 for FWS wild and scenic river management, restoration and
    studies in fiscal year 2007.
        National Park Service.--The National Park Service manages 36 wild
    and scenic rivers and is responsible for studying rivers both in
    National Park areas and outside of federal lands.
      --Rivers and Trails Studies.--American Rivers urges the Committee to
            appropriate $1 million for wild and scenic rivers studies and
            $16 million for wild and scenic river management in fiscal year
            2007.
      --Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers.--American Rivers urges the
            Committee to appropriate $1.846 million for Partnership Wild
            and Scenic rivers in fiscal year 2007
        None of these agencies currently receives sufficient funding to
    adequately protect our nation's Wild and Scenic Rivers System and to
    ensure that a broad diversity of rivers are represented.

                      PENOBSCOT RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT

        An unprecedented approach to river restoration that will
    reconfigure hydropower facilities and maintain energy production while
    opening up more than 500 miles of habitat to 10 native species of
    anadromous fish, improve water quality, boost wildlife and create new
    opportunities in communities along New England's second largest river.
    American Rivers urges the Committee to appropriate $10 million for the
    Penobscot River Restoration Project for in fiscal year 2007.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) provides much-needed
    dollars for purchasing ecologically important lands. LWCF has proven
    highly successful, projects have helped states and localities purchase
    some 2.3 million acres of land and advanced river restoration through
    acquisition of riverside lands to serve as buffer zones. In particular,
    there are three river protection projects that deserve funding this
    fiscal year: the USFS Goose Creek, Phase 3 (CA) needs $2.7 million in
    fiscal year 2007; the USFS Beaver Creek and Marsh (WA) needs $1.5
    million; and the BLM Sandy River (OR) needs $1 million. American Rivers
    urges the Committee to appropriate $900 million for the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2007.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Public Service Company of New Mexico

        We are requesting your support for the following appropriations in
    fiscal year 2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper
    Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River
    Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as recommended in the
    President's budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Ecological
    Services Activity; Endangered Species Sub activity; Recovery Element;
    $697,000 within the $5,631,000 item entitled ``General Program
    Activities'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS
    to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado River
    Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
        2. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
    Operations & Maintenance Sub activity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
    support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
    in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $211,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year
    2007 to meet FWS' Region 2 expenses managing and implementing the San
    Juan Recovery Program.
        We thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee's
    assistance for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians

        Mr. Chairman, my name is Herman Dillon, Sr., Puyallup Tribal
    Chairman. We thank the Committee for past support of many tribal issues
    and in your interest today. We share our concerns and request
    assistance in reaching objectives of significance to the Congress, the
    Tribe, and to 32,000+ Indians (constituents) in our Urban Service Area.
        U.S. Department of Interior--Bureau of Indian Affairs.--The
    Puyallup Tribe has analyzed the President's fiscal year 2007 budget and
    submit the following detailed written testimony to the Senate Interior
    Subcommittee on the proposed funding bill for the Dept. of Interior and
    Related Agencies. In the fiscal year 2006 budget process, the Puyallup
    Tribe supported actions of Congress to restore the base level funding
    for various programs. We look forward to working with the 109th
    Congress to insure that funding levels for programs necessary for the
    Puyallup Tribe to carry-out our sovereign responsibility of self-
    determination and self-governance for the benefit of Puyallup tribal
    members and the members from approximately 435 federally recognized
    Tribes who utilize our services are included in the fiscal year 2007
    budget. The following provides a brief review of the Puyallup Tribe's
    priorities and special appropriation requests for fiscal year 2007;
        Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement.--The Puyallup Reservation is
    located in the urbanized Seattle-Tacoma area of the State of
    Washington. The 18,061 acre reservation and related urban service area
    contains 17,000+ Native Americans from over 435 Tribes and Alaskan
    Villages. The Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division currently has
    twenty-six (26) commissioned officers to cover 40 square miles of
    reservation in addition to the usual and accustomed areas. The officers
    are charged with the service and protection of the Puyallup Reservation
    seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. We currently operate with
    limited equipment, patrol vehicles requiring constant repair and
    insufficient staff levels. With the continuing increase in population,
    increase in gang related activities on the Puyallup Reservation and the
    impact of the increase in manufacturing of meth amphetamines in the
    region, the services of the Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division
    are exceeding maximum levels.
        A major area of concern is the status of the Tribe's Regional
    Detention Facility. Due to damages from the February 2001 Nisqually
    earthquake, we have had to relocate to modular/temporary facilities. As
    a regional detention facility, the relocation to the modular facility
    not only impacts the Tribe's ability to house detainee's but also the
    approximately 173 native inmates that were incarcerated at the Puyallup
    Incarceration facility during the period of 2001-2002. Relocation to
    the modular facility has also impacted the Tribes ability to house
    juvenile detainees. With no juvenile facilities, Native American youth
    are sent to non-native facilities. These and other issues regarding the
    deplorable conditions existing in Indian Detention facilities is
    documented in the September 2004 report issued by the U.S. Department
    of Interior Inspector General's Office.
      --Request Subcommittee support to fund the BIA Public Safety and
            Justice Law Enforcement activities at the $201 million level
            proposed in the fiscal year 2007 budget to operated law
            enforcement services.
      --Support from the Subcommittee on the Tribes request for funding to
            design and construct an Adult & Juvenile Detention Facility on
            the Puyallup Reservation, in the amount of $6.5 million.
      --Support from the Subcommittee to restore proposed funding cuts to
            the Tribal Courts budget in the amount of $5.3 million and
            request that the Subcommittee issue directive language to the
            BIA to include this amount as line item funding for the Tribal
            Courts in the fiscal year 2008 budget.
        Fisheries & Natural Resources Management.--The Puyallup Tribe as
    steward for land and marine waters in the Usual and Accustomed fish and
    shellfish areas has treaty and Governmental obligations and
    responsibilities to manage natural resources for uses beneficial to the
    regional community. Despite our diligent program efforts, the fisheries
    resource is degrading and economic losses are incurred by Indian and
    Non-Indian fisherman, and surrounding communities. Our Resource
    Management responsibilities cover thousands of square miles in the
    Puget Sound region of the State of Washington with an obligation to
    manage production of anadromous, non-anadromous fish and shellfish
    resources. Existing levels of support are inadequate to reverse the
    trend of resource/habitat degradation. Resource management is
    constrained due to funding shortfalls. We seek support and endorsement
    in the following areas:
      --Tribal Fisheries Resource Management, Hatchery Operation and
            Maintenance funding via Public Law 93-638 contracts have not
            increased substantially since establishment of base budgets in
            1984. The demand on Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Program has grown
            exponential since the eighties and is currently faced by
            Endangered Species Act listings on Bull Trout and Chinook
            Salmon which is in an highly urbanized setting more so than any
            other Pacific Northwest Tribe. We request Committee support to
            increase base contract funding in the amount of $350,000.00 for
            additional fisheries staff. We further support the Northwest
            Indian Fisheries Commission's request for the existing BIA
            hatchery maintenance budget be increased to $1.5 million per
            year for the next decade to meet basic infrastructure
            maintenance costs for tribal hatcheries.
      --Western Washington Timber-Fish-Wildlife Program/Forest and Fish
            Report (TFW-FFR) The TFW-FFR Program has allowed for the
            expansion of tribal participation in the state forest practice
            rules and regulations that have an affect on listed salmon
            populations. Tribes bring a high level of skills and technical
            capabilities that if appropriately funded, would greatly
            facilitate and enhance a successful outcome in state forest
            practice, rules, regulations and greater fish protection.
            However, base funding for this program is being proposed to be
            discontinued in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget.
            Continued funding in this area is essential to facilitate
            tribal participation in monitoring, research, data analysis and
            adaptive management processes that are a cornerstone to the
            TFW-FFR process. We request Committee support for base funding
            level of $3 million in base funding for the TFW fiscal year
            2007 budget. We further support the Northwest Indian Fisheries
            Commission's request that the Subcommittee issue directive
            language to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to include this amount
            in their fiscal year 2008 budget.
      --Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights Program.--The Medicine Creek
            Treaty secured the Puyallup Tribe and other tribes the right to
            hunt on open and unclaimed lands. This treaty right is reserved
            in the same paragraph that also reserved the right to fish and
            gather shellfish. Unfortunately, the BIA program that is
            designed to support this treaty activity has not received
            adequate, if any, appropriations in the last several years.
            Funds that were made available to tribes have been on a
            competitive basis with a maximum amount per program due to
            limited funding. The Puyallup Tribe has established a Hunting-
            Wildlife Management program that works cooperatively with
            signatory Tribes to the Medicine Creek Treaty, Washington
            Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service and the
            National Park Service. For further development and
            participation in unresolved hunting issues, the Puyallup Tribe
            is requesting Committee support for establishment of base
            funding of $95,000.00 for the Hunting-Wildlife Management
            Program. We further support the Northwest Indian Fisheries
            Commission's request to restore $320,000 to the Unresolved
            Hunting and Fishing Rights line item and request that these
            funds be appropriated to the base budget.
        Operation of Indian Programs & Contract Support Costs.--The
    President's fiscal year 2007 budget calls for $1.966 billion to be
    allocated to the Bureau of Indian Affairs Operation of Indian Programs,
    which is an increase of $4.4 million from the fiscal year 2006 enacted
    level. For the fiscal year 2007 budget, the Department of Interior
    reformulated its presentation of the Operation of Indian Programs
    funding. Previous formulations were based on Tribal Priority
    Allocations (TPA). The Interior's new format groups program funding
    according to functions which are; Tribal Government; Human Services;
    Trust-Natural Resources Management; Trust-Real Estate Services;
    Education; Public Safety and Justice; Community and Economic
    Development; and Executive Direction and Administrative Services. These
    budget functions include the majority of funding used to support on-
    going services at the ``local tribal'' level, including; law
    enforcement, natural resources management (fisheries), child welfare,
    housing, tribal courts and other tribal governmental services. These
    functions, as detailed in previous ``TPA'' allocations have not
    received adequate funding to allow tribes the resources to fully
    exercise self-determination and self-governance. Further, the small
    increases ``TPA'' has received over the past few years has not been
    adequate to keep pace with inflation. At a minimum, we request your
    support and endorsement in the following:
      --Support by Congress to fund the Operation of Indian Programs fiscal
            year 2007 request, at a minimum, at the requested amount of
            $1,966,000,000, an increase of $4.4 million.
      --Support by Congress to restore funding for the Johnson O'Malley
            Program in the amount of $16,300,000.
        Another concern the Puyallup Tribe has with the fiscal year 2007
    budget request is the on-going issue of contract support costs. The
    President's fiscal year 2007 budget request includes an increase of $19
    million over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level for BIA Contract
    Support Costs. At a minimum, we request your support and endorsement in
    the following;
      --Support by Congress to fund, at a minimum, BIA Contract Support
            Costs for fiscal year 2007 as proposed in the President's
            budget request. Full funding of Contract Support is a mandate
            towards the full realization of Self-determination and Self-
            governance.
        DHHS Indian Health Service.--Funding for the Indian Health Service
    fails to meet the needs of health services for Native Americans. The
    Puyallup Tribe has been operating their health care programs since 1976
    through the Indian Self-determination Act, Public Law 93-638. The
    Puyallup Tribal Health Authority (PTHA) operates a comprehensive
    ambulatory care program to an expanding population in Tacoma and Pierce
    County, Washington. There are no IHS hospitals in the Portland Area so
    all specialties and hospital care have been paid for out of our
    contract care allocation. In recent years our Health Authority has had
    the highest patient visits in both medical and dental services in the
    Portland Area of Washington, Oregon and Idaho. It is operating at twice
    the capacity it was designed and staffed for. In fiscal year 2005 our
    contract health budget went $2.8 million over what is provided by the
    IHS. The Puyallup Tribe is now faced with having to subsidize the
    Puyallup Tribal Heath Authority when its own tribal members constitute
    only 14 percent of the patient population. Because of the excessive
    demand for service we have had to add staff without the IHS funding in
    order to match the workload. An additional $6 million is needed to
    operate at this rate.
        Adequate funding for the continued operations and delivery of
    quality care is essential. PTHA, like most IHS and tribal facilities,
    are annually asked to do more with less whether the federal budget is
    in a surplus or a deficit. This is no longer possible. This continued
    philosophy has put our clinic system into a funding crisis. IHS has
    lost $1.9 Billion in purchasing power since 1992. Preserving purchasing
    power and ensuring that medical needs are met must be paramount to
    Tribes, IHS and HHS.
        The IHS Budget request is for an increase of $130 million over the
    fiscal year 2006 level for pay costs, population growth, inflation and
    staffing requirement at new facilities. It is, however, estimated that
    it will take an increase of $482 million to maintain current facilities
    and services in fiscal year 2007. We request congressional support for
    the fiscal year 2007 IHS budget in the following areas:
      --Fund IHS Contract Support Costs at 100 percent. While the
            President's budget includes an increase of $2 million for
            Contract Support Costs funding, this will not fund tribe's
            actual contract support costs. It is estimated that the IHS
            Contract Support Cost shortfall is currently over $70 million.
            Funding for IHS Contract Support Costs at 100 percent is
            requested and essential;
      --We oppose the proposed elimination of the Urban Indian Health
            Program, which was funded at $32.7 million in fiscal year 2006.
            The budget request states that this program duplicates other
            community health center services, with no evaluation or
            evidence to support this contention or the impacts of
            eliminating funding for this program will have on the American
            Indian and Alaska Native populations. We urge the Subcommittee
            to restore funding for the Urban Indian Health Program, at a
            minimum $32.7 million, and issue directive language to the
            Indian Health Service to include this amount in their fiscal
            year 2008 budget.
      --Fund the Puyallup Tribal Health Authority contract health care fund
            an additional $4.8 million to match expenditures.
      --Fund the Puyallup Tribal Health Authority's direct care services
            the additional $6 million it needs to match its doubled
            workload since it was staffed in 1993.
      --Index Contract Care to population growth and the medical inflation
            rate. Contract care is most vulnerable to inflation since
            services are provided by vendors constrained by IHS guidelines.
            There are no IHS hospitals in the Pacific Northwest which makes
            our clinic dependent on Contract Care for necessary specialty
            referrals and hospital care. Contract Health Services should be
            increased by $62.3 million for fiscal year 2007;
      --The Indian Health Care Improvement Act (Public Law 94-437) provides
            funding for the Indian Health Services. Re-authorization of
            this Act was due in 2000 and subsequently has been extended by
            Congress. IHCIA re-authorization was introduced in the 107th
            and 108th Congress. While the Health and Human Services
            Secretary has pledged support for re-authorization of the
            IHCIA, the bill has failed to satisfy the Administration for
            re-authorization. The Puyallup Tribe of Indians supports all
            efforts by Congress and the Administration to pass the Indian
            Health Care Improvement Act during this session of Congress.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Quabbin to Cardigan Conservation
                                 Collaborative

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate
    the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $3,000,000 from the Forest Legacy Program for the Robb
    Reservoir/Willard Pond tract in New Hampshire, a $2,500,000
    appropriation from the Forest Legacy Program to the Southern Monadnock
    Plateau project in Massachusetts, and a $1,000,000 appropriation from
    Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund to the Temple Mountain project
    in New Hampshire.
        The Quabbin to Cardigan Collaborative (Q2C) is a public/private
    partnership of more than twenty private conservation organizations and
    public agencies seeking to protect a broad corridor of interconnected
    public and private conservation lands along the Monadnock Highlands,
    which stretch more than one hundred miles from the Quabbin Reservoir in
    central Massachusetts north to New Hampshire's Mt. Cardigan, and beyond
    to the White Mountains. Thanks to a long history of farsighted private
    and public land protection and stewardship, the region contains one of
    the largest remaining areas of intact contiguous forest in central New
    England. But today an unprecedented combination of factors--the
    globalization of the forest products industry, growing development
    pressure, and sharply rising land values--threaten the future of the
    region's unique landscape and way of life.
        Harnessing the full resources and expertise of the region's public
    and private conservation organizations in a coordinated effort, the
    Collaborative seeks to conserve large forest blocks while they are
    still in relatively unfragmented ownerships, and secure links between
    new and existing conservation lands to form a continuous corridor of
    conservation and protected working forest land. In keeping with the
    region's traditions, the Collaborative supports conservation on a
    strictly willing-seller basis through a combination of conservation
    easements and fee acquisitions, managed by private owners, conservation
    organizations and public agencies. The three projects that are the
    subject of this testimony are all high priorities for the Quabbin to
    Cardigan Collaborative.

            ROBB RESERVOIR/WILLARD POND, 1,667 ACRES, NEW HAMPSHIRE

        The Quabbin to Cardigan Collaborative supports a $3,000,000
    appropriation from the Forest Legacy Program to the Robb Reservoir/
    Willard Pond project in New Hampshire. The project would protect a
    1,667-acre tract in Cheshire County, one of the few areas in southern
    New Hampshire where large unfragmented blocks of forestland can still
    be found. Protection of the property will link together the 1,466-acre
    Willard Pond New Hampshire Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary with two other
    private easements. Altogether these conservation efforts will link a
    block of over 40,000 acres of permanently protected forestland in a
    densely populated area of the state.
        Under the terms of a conservation easement, the project area would
    continue to provide public access for hunting, hiking, nature viewing,
    cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing, as well as fishing for warm and
    cold water species in the North Branch River and Robb Reservoir. A
    network of established recreation trails will connect this property to
    an adjacent trail network at the Audubon wildlife sanctuary.
    Mountainous portions of the property offer unobstructed views of the
    reservoir and surrounding mountains, and provide excellent vantage
    points for wildlife viewing. The Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond property
    is home to diverse and interesting plant and animal species. Several
    state threatened and endangered species have been documented on the
    property including the bald eagle, pied-billed grebe, osprey, purple
    martin, and northern harrier.
        New Hampshire has recognized Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond as its
    number one priority for the Forest Legacy Program this year, and $3
    million has been included for the project in the President's fiscal
    year 2007 Budget. This year, a total appropriation of $3 million of
    Forest Legacy funding is needed to acquire and protect the 1,667-acre
    Willard Pond/Robb Reservoir property.

         SOUTHERN MONADNOCK PLATEAU PROJECT, 2,270 ACRES, MASSACHUSETTS

        The Quabbin to Cardigan Collaborative also supports a $2,500,000
    appropriation from the Forest Legacy Program to the Southern Monadnock
    Plateau project in Massachusetts. The project would permanently protect
    approximately 2,270 acres of forested land in the towns of Ashburnham
    and Westminster. The Southern Monadnock Plateau Project seeks to weave
    a viable network of permanently protected forested landscapes linking
    more than 15,000 acres of currently protected land held by the state,
    local governments and land trusts in both Massachusetts and New
    Hampshire. The MA Natural Heritage and Endangered Species program has
    identified 1,595 acres of the project as containing significant
    wildlife habitat and the project includes lands containing three state-
    listed rare species: the Sand Violet, Ebony Boghaunter and Subarctic
    Darner dragonfly.
        The entire Southern Monadnock Plateau project falls within the
    designated region of the Quabbin to Cardigan Collaborative. In
    addition, the Q2C Collaborative has identified the Midstate/Wapack
    Trail corridor as a special focus area for conservation efforts with
    over 800 acres of the land proposed for protection in this project are
    within this focus area. Complementary strategic efforts underway in NH
    to protect large contiguous blocks of forest land along the Wapack
    Trail. Currently only approximately 50 percent of the overall Midstate
    Trail corridor is protected (only 30 percent in Westminster), and like
    the forestland is threatened by fragmentation due to increasing
    development pressures. This project protects over three miles of
    Midstate Trail, ensuring continued public access along this popular 92-
    mile, historic trail. Safeguards the public's right to use the trail by
    securing formal easements across project lands.

                   TEMPLE MOUNTAIN, 352 ACRES, NEW HAMPSHIRE

        The Quabbin to Cardigan Collaborative supports a $1,000,000
    appropriation from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund to the
    Temple Mountain project in New Hampshire. Monadnock Conservancy, in
    partnership with the New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic
    Development, is seeking the appropriation for the protection of a 352-
    acre property on Temple Mountain in the towns of Temple, Sharon, and
    Peterborough.
        Temple Mountain is one of the most visible and beloved landmarks in
    southern New Hampshire. The subject property includes a prominent
    ridgeline, seven distinct natural communities, a spectacular section of
    the 21-mile Wapack Trail, a cross-country ski trail network, and remote
    wildlife-rich wetlands. The land abuts existing conservation areas,
    including Miller State Park on Pack Monadnock. The Conservancy and the
    state are working to establish a new state park at the site of the
    former Temple Mountain Ski Area. The state park proposal enjoys the
    public support of local, state, and federal officials. If successful,
    the Temple Mountain acquisition would be the first new state park in
    southern New Hampshire in more than 25 years, and is the NH Department
    of Resources and Economic Development's highest priority for
    acquisition anywhere in the state.
        The mountain's owners are currently offering the property to the
    state for $1,000,000, which is below appraised value. They are very
    supportive of conservation, but cannot afford to hold the land for much
    longer. It is important that the acquisition be completed no later than
    June 2007.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of this request.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee

        Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished Committee, my name
    is Lew Meibergen. I am Chairman of the Board of Johnston Enterprises
    headquartered in Enid, Oklahoma. It is my honor to serve as Chairman of
    the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, members of which are
    appointed by the governors of the great states of Arkansas, Colorado,
    Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.
        In these times of war on terrorism, homeland defense and needed
    economic recovery, our thanks go to each of you, your staff members and
    the Congress. Your efforts to protect our nation's infrastructure and
    stimulate economic growth in a time of budget constraints are both
    needed and appreciated.
        Our nation's growing dependence on others for energy, and the need
    to protect and improve our environment, make your efforts especially
    important. Greater use and development of one of our nation's most
    important transportation modes--our navigable inland waterways--will
    help remedy these problems. At the same time, these fuel-efficient and
    cost-effective waterways keep us competitive in international markets.
    In this regard, we must maintain our inland waterway transportation
    system. We ask that the Congress restore adequate funding to the Corps
    of Engineers budget--$6.7 billion in fiscal year 2007--to keep the
    nations navigation system from further deterioration. If this
    catastrophic problem is not addressed immediately, we are in real
    danger of losing the use of this most important transportation mode.
        As Chairman of the Interstate Committee, I present this summary
    testimony as a compilation of the most important projects from each of
    the member states. Each of the states unanimously supports these
    projects without reservation. I request that the copies of each state's
    individual statement be made a part of the record, along with this
    testimony.

                           EQUUS BEDS AQUIFER--KANSAS

        Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project.--Continuation of a
    City of Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2 and State of
    Kansas project to construct storage and recovery facilities for a major
    groundwater resource supplying water to more than 20 percent of Kansas
    municipal, industrial and irrigation users. The project will capture
    and recharge in excess of 100 million gallons per day and will also
    reduce on-going degradation of the existing groundwater by minimizing
    migration of saline water. Federal authorization of the project through
    House Bill 1327 introduce last year or through similar legislation this
    year. Construction Phase One is scheduled for completion in 2007.
    Continued federal funding is requested for fiscal year 2007 consistent
    with this legislation which will authorize funding for 25 percent of
    the project cost up to a maximum of $30 million during the construction
    phases.

                     ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS

        Mr. Chairman, Public Law 108-137 authorized a 12-foot channel on
    the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.--The Corps is now
    obligated to operate and maintain the system as a 12-foot channel. Over
    90 percent of the system currently is adequate for a 12-foot channel.
    Deepening the remainder of the channel to 12 feet will allow carriers
    to place 43 percent more cargo on each barge, which will reduce the
    amount of fuel consumed and emissions released. Other environmental
    benefits include the creation of new aquatic habitat through new dike
    construction and the construction of least tern islands through
    beneficial use of dredged material.
        Therefore, we request $40 million to construct dike structures to
    scour out the channel, and dredge necessary areas for improving the
    depth of the channel. This investment will increase the cost
    competitiveness of this low cost, environment-friendly transportation
    mode and help us combat the loss of industry and jobs to overseas.

                        TOW HAULAGE EQUIPMENT--OKLAHOMA

        We request funding of $5.0 million to initiate the installation of
    tow haulage equipment on the locks located along the Arkansas River
    portion of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. Total
    cost for these three locks is $5 million. This project will involve
    installation of tow haulage equipment on W.D. Mayo Lock and Dam #14,
    Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam #15, and Webbers Falls Lock and Dam #16, on
    the Oklahoma portion of the waterway. The tow haulage equipment is
    needed to make transportation of barges more efficient and economical
    by allowing less time for tows to pass through the various locks.
        The testimony we present reveals our firm belief that our inland
    waterways and the Corps of Engineers' efforts are especially important
    to our nation in this time of trial. Transportation infrastructure like
    the inland waterways need to be operated and maintained for the benefit
    of the populace. Without adequate annual budgets, this is impossible.
        Mr. Chairman, Members of this Committee, we respectfully request
    that you and members of your staff review and respond in a positive way
    to the attached individual statements from each of our states which set
    forth specific requests pertaining to those states.
        We sincerely appreciate your consideration and assistance.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you
    for the opportunity to present testimony in support of an appropriation
    of $2.5 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for
    acquisition projects in the Chequamegon National Forest in Wisconsin.
        The northern hardwood forests of Wisconsin are a considerable
    natural treasure in our state. The ``Northwoods'' is a place where the
    forests are interspersed with an abundance of lakes, rivers, and
    streams providing residents and visitors outstanding recreational
    opportunities. The beauty of the area has historically lured many of
    our national leaders here include President Eisenhower who loved to
    fish muskies in the pristine waters of Wisconsin, and President Kennedy
    found the area so rich in beauty and natural resources that he
    protected a portion of it as the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.
    The Northwoods provides tens of thousands of acres of prime habitat for
    a variety of fish and wildlife, include a growing wild elk herd that
    was reintroduce to this area in 1995.
        The Forest Service has recognized the unique attributes of the
    northern forests in Wisconsin and has undertaken a land protection
    program focused on undeveloped properties along lakes and rivers and
    the consolidation of publicly owned lands for the benefit of recreation
    and natural resources. The Wild Wisconsin Waterways program has been
    supported by annual congressional funding from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund. This year two properties are available for
    acquisition.
        The 1,150-acre Venison Creek property in Sawyer County is located
    along a tributary of the West Fork of the Chippewa River. Critical to
    the consolidation of the national forest and the expansion of
    recreational opportunities, this inholding is surrounded on three sides
    by the Chequamegon. The forests and riparian areas of the property
    support habitat for bald eagles and a known pack of gray wolves, in
    addition to the reintroduced elk herd that lives in the area.
        The 240-acre Indian Farms property in Taylor County is located on
    the North Fork of the Yellow River. This inholding is completely
    surrounded by the national forest and holds many cultural and historic
    resources. Two Native American settlements and a related cemetery are
    located on the property.
        The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation supports these two acquisitions.
    The Venison Creek tract is particularly important as it falls within
    the dispersal area of the wild elk herd. I am very proud to say that
    the Elk Foundation is involved with the purchase of this property and
    is working with other organizations to permanently conserve and secure
    Venison Creek for future generations.
        Due to increased development and conversion of land from forest
    uses in northern Wisconsin, these two properties and their important
    natural, cultural, and recreational resources are highly threatened. An
    appropriation of $2.5 million will protect these properties in the
    Chequamegon National Forest and ensure the continued success of the
    Wild Wisconsin Waterways program.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration of this testimony
    in support of Venison Creek and Indian Farms projects.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Ramah Navajo Chapter, Ramah Band of Navajos

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: As the Vice-President of
    the Ramah Navajo Chapter, Ramah Band of Navajos, I am pleased to
    present this testimony on the Department of the Interior-Bureau of
    Indian Affairs Budget and the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) budget for
    fiscal year 2007. My testimony today focuses on providing additional
    funding for the following:
        1. To improve and meet jail standards for our Law Enforcement
    Detention facility for the amount of $500,000.00 (BIA)
        2. Funding request under the Indian Reservation Roads Program and
    Public Lands Discretionary Fund (IRRHPP) for road construction/
    improvements for BIA Routes RN 122 and RN 125 for $12 million (IRR
    Funding).
        3. Windmill Repair & Maintenance funding request for $90,000.00 to
    abate urgent water safety and supply issues for our people and our
    livestock (BIA)
        4. Civic Center Building for the amount of $1,808,000.00 (BIA)

                      LAW ENFORCEMENT DETENTION FACILITIES

        The current detention facility was constructed in 1972 as a
    temporary, 48--hour holding facility. Long-term inmates were to be
    transported to Navajo Nation jails in Window Rock, AZ and Crownpoint,
    NM. However, due to court decree issued against the Navajo Nation jail
    system, inmates from our facility are no longer accepted. This is a
    serious problem for the Ramah Navajo Police Department, which is forced
    to use a short term holding facility for long-term inmates, which has
    created severe overcrowding conditions.
        According to the BIA Standards for Adult Detention Facilities, our
    detention was designed to hold six male inmates and four female
    inmates. However, the average daily population increased from 7.5 in
    1997 to 9.2 in 2005. With these conditions, there are no secure cells
    for segregation or detoxification, nor are there separate rooms for
    visitations and recreation. Furthermore, supervision of inmates is a
    constant problem. The other problem with our current facility is
    structural deterioration. During recent inspections by the Indian
    Health Service's, Environmental Health Department, several structural
    deficiencies were noted. This includes cracks in the walls indicating
    that the foundation is settling and that the facility does not meet
    handicapped accessibility standards. With these overcrowding and
    security issues, and the fact that the facility does not meet modern
    jail standards, the Ramah Navajo Police Department, the Ramah Navajo
    Chapter and the Navajo Nation are extremely vulnerable to liability and
    litigation.
        To compound the problem, the Director of BIA Law Enforcement
    Services recently issued a directive to tribal jails limiting the
    number of inmates to its current capacity. Should a tribal facility
    continue to hold inmates above the established capacity, the facility's
    funding from the BIA would be withdrawn. Since our detention facility
    receives funds from the BIA for operations, we had to adhere to this
    directive thus, further limiting the number of inmates we can hold. By
    our compliance, it is also placed a limitation on our District Court
    Judge on sentencing. This creates a concern when a person facing a
    mandatory jail sentence cannot serve a jail term such as a multiple DUI
    offender.
        In an attempt to address the need for a new jail facility, the
    Ramah Navajo Community has committed ten acres of land for the
    construction of a new facility. Since then, the Chapter officials have
    presented proposals for construction of new facility to the State of
    New Mexico, Cibola County, Department of Justice and Congress. Funding
    for a new facility was estimated at $5 million. To this date, none of
    these proposals have received funding.
        Without the realization of funds to construct a new facility, the
    Chapter has initiated plans to add on and renovate the existing
    structure. Included in this effort is to purchase a separate office
    facility. By moving office space out, the current office space would be
    used to add additional holding cells.
        The Chapter has estimated the total cost of additions and
    renovations at $500,000.00. The following is a budget of this amount:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Modular Office Building.................................        $100,000
    Modular Cell Unit.......................................         300,000
    Renovations to existing facility........................         100,000
                                                             ---------------
          Total Amount Requested............................         500,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS FUNDING

        The Ramah Navajo Chapter receives approximately $1.1 million per
    year for road construction, and to complete the two roads BIA RN-125
    and RN-122, it will require approximately twenty years to complete
    under the current Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program. The previous
    transportation authorization has authorized million of dollars for
    Public Land Discretionary Projects. The two roads mentioned are
    projects vital to the Ramah Navajo Chapter because they will
    dramatically improve school bus routes that are in grave disrepair on
    the reservation. They will also serve New Mexico's overall
    transportation infrastructure by providing improved access to
    Interstate Route 40, which is important, both for the traveling public
    and for the Chapter's homeland security needs. RN 125 is a north-south
    paved road traversing the entire length of the community. In addition
    it serves as a major connector for two New Mexico state roads, State
    Road 53 and 602. If RN 125 is completed, it will provide additional
    access for the traveling public and address the need for additional
    access to I-40 in case of emergency.
        RN 122 is a school bus route that loops off of RN 125 on the north
    and reconnects on the south to RN 125. Because RN 122 is unimproved,
    the cost of transporting students to and from school each day on this
    road is ever-increasing due to mounting fuel cost and vehicle
    maintenance. The school must either reduce the amount of
    transportation---which isn't a realistic option---vehicle maintenance
    and repair or divert money from other school programs to pay for the
    increase. This funding will enable us to both transport our students to
    school, and to keep education funds where they belong: in the
    classroom.
        The Chapter has estimated the total cost for RN 122 & RN 125 in the
    following budget:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RN 122..................................................      $5,000,000
    RN 125..................................................       7,000,000
                                                             ---------------
          Total Amount Requested............................      12,000,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        WINDMILL REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE

        The Ramah Navajo community has a traditional pastoral economy. It
    has been the mainstay of the people and at present, one third of all
    community producer income is still derived from livestock production
    and a few dry--land farms. This winter and previous winters have been
    particularly dry, and there is no evidence that the summer will be much
    different. We know we are facing yet another drought situation, which
    will severely affect the community livestock and subsequently,
    livestock producer income.
        Approximately 60 percent of the Ramah Navajo community members who
    have no running water and live far from domestic water systems. The
    members are using water from windmills for domestic use, including
    drinking water. These sources of water are not potable and do not meet
    any health standards, thus endangering the well---being of community
    members. The second is supplying water to livestock through use of well
    and windmills. The community cannot depend on water collection in a
    series of earth stock tanks and diversions in a drought situation. The
    third is providing feed for livestock. The community cannot depend on
    rangeland, which is adversely affected by the drought.
        We are experiencing severe water shortages in the outlying areas of
    our reservation due to the ill state of repair of our windmill-driven
    water wells. The BIA originally installed these wells as far back as
    twenty and thirty years ago and have failed to maintain them, thus
    leading to current water shortage. There are no funds available from
    the BIA, the Chapter or the Navajo Nation to initiate the repairs
    needed to keep our outlying wells in proper operation or to repair and/
    or upgrade wells that are no longer producing efficiently or at all.
    Repairs and upgrades includes structural repairs, replacement of pumps
    as needed, upgrading or out-changing power source and pump systems,
    repairs and segregation to stock troughs and spigots to prevent wastage
    and cross-contamination of potable water, and installation of special
    isolation conditions adapted filtered tanks for potable water.
        The Chapter has estimated the following total cost of windmill
    operations and maintenance:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Windmill Repair & replacement...........................         $50,000
    Domestic Water Development..............................          30,000
    Livestock Feed Assistance...............................          20,000
                                                             ---------------
          Total Amount Requested............................         100,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             CIVIC CENTER BUILDING

        The Ramah Navajo Chapter House was constructed in the 1950's of
    low-grade materials that are beginning to show their age. The cement
    slab floor is cracking and settling; the cinderblock walls have no
    insulation; the windows (though more recently replaced) are drafty
    allowing dust, snow, and cold wind to enter the building; weathering
    and staining are apparent; the restrooms' plumbing is nearly shot and
    need of constant repair; and there is little sunlight or structural
    aesthetics. Though a central government building should be a pride for
    any community, our Chapter House building is in dire state of repair,
    even though we conduct regular maintenance and upkeep.
        The Chapter government administration is scattered about the
    Chapter complex in portable dilapidated and condemned trailers and
    mobile homes that has been cited by the Environmental Health Service
    with the IHS. One of these is a fairly new metal building but the rest
    are older converted mobile homes. The one housing the offices of the
    Chapter President and other elected officials is in deplorable
    condition.
        The proposed facility would include a Civic Center Building for the
    Community Government and Administration Facility with a Wellness Center
    in the basement. The Administrative Facility will provide accommodation
    for public community meetings. The Wellness Center will accommodate
    community members to have better health through regular aerobic and
    other therapeutic exercise programs, especially for a community with
    very high diabetes rates that threatens the lives of our members.
        The Chapter estimated the total cost of the Civic Center Building
    in the following budget:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Architectural and engineering fees......................        $108,000
    Construction............................................       1,700,000
                                                             ---------------
          Total Amount Requested............................       1,808,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc.

        Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Nancy
    Martine-Alonzo, and I am the President of the Board of Trustees of the
    Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc. (RNSB), which governs the BIA-funded
    Pine Hill School on the Ramah Navajo Reservation in Pine Hill, New
    Mexico. RNSB administers its federal programs under the auspices of the
    Navajo Nation through contracts under the ``Indian Self-Determination
    and Education Assistance Act'' of 1975, as amended (Public Law 93-638).
    My testimony is on the need for Congress to adequately fund BIA schools
    so they will have a fair opportunity to meet the mandates of the ``No
    Child Left Behind Act.''

                       BIA EDUCATION REORGANIZATION PLAN

        The Ramah Navajo School Board (RNSB) requests that Congress direct
    the BIA, through language in the fiscal year 2007 BIA/OIEP budget, to
    transfer the RNSB/Pine Hill School to the Ramah Navajo Agency, or, in
    the alternative, to transfer the RNSB/Pine Hill School to ``SPA/ELO New
    Mexico South,'' under the ``BIA/OIEP Reorganization Plan,''
        In 2005, the BIA proposed a Reorganization Plan for the Office of
    Indian Education Programs whereby OIEP offices and their assigned
    schools would be reorganized on a national level; held consultation
    hearings with tribal leaders; finalized its Plan; and is now proposing
    to implement this Plan. Under the proposed Plan, the RNSB/Pine Hill
    School is scheduled to be moved to ``Navajo Nation South (Grants NM),''
    along with Alamo Navajo and Tohajiilee Navajo schools. We object to
    this transfer of the Pine Hill School to ``Navajo Nation South'' for
    several reasons.
        First, the proposed move is being done despite objections raised by
    the RNSB School Board President during the BIA's consultation hearings.
    Second, there is no apparent reason for this move other than that Pine
    Hill is a Navajo community school. Third, this move is contrary to
    local control in Indian education in that the expressed wishes of the
    community are being ignored, once again, by the BIA. Fourth, since its
    founding in 1970, the Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc., has established
    a successful relationship with the BIA's Southern Pueblo Agency (SPA),
    as witnessed by: (a) The growth of the Pine Hill School to a K-12
    school with nearly 500 students; (b) the addition of the four preschool
    programs of Head Start, FACE, Early Intervention and the Child Care
    Center; (c) the building of the School Farm and its Fair & Rodeo
    Grounds; (d) the establishment of the KTDB Radio Station, greatly
    needed in this rural community; and many other programs for the support
    of the school and community, such as the health clinic, social
    services, behavioral health, college scholarships, adult education, and
    other services. Therefore, the Ramah Navajo School Board respectfully
    requests that Congress direct the BIA to transfer the RNSB/Pine Hill
    School to the Ramah Navajo Agency or, in the alternative, to the ``SPA/
    ELO New Mexico South'' under its Reorganization Plan.

                    RAMAH NAVAJO RESERVATION SCHOOL BUILDING

        The Ramah Navajo School Board requests that Congress authorize $5
    million for the construction of an ``Education Multipurpose Building''
    for the Pine Hill School on the Ramah Navajo Reservation at Pine Hill,
    New Mexico.
        The K-12 Pine Hill School is a BIA-funded Grant School that opened
    in 1975 and serves nearly 500 Ramah Navajo students in its K-12
    programs. Since the completion of all the school's buildings in 1980,
    there has been no new construction, meaning that all six major school
    buildings are at least 25 years old and are now in constant need of
    repair and renovation.
        A new multipurpose school building is needed for the following
    reasons: First, over the past 25 years, school enrollment has greatly
    increased, which requires us to add more classroom space to meet
    federal and state classroom size requirements. Second, new programs and
    services are continuously being added to the school's services,
    especially services that we were required or recommended to add in
    order to help us meet standards set under the ``No Child Left Behind
    Act.'' Third, the new ``Pine Hill School Dormitory'' that will open for
    the 2006-07 School Year will further impact school facilities since the
    new dorm will bring 100 students residing within two blocks from the
    school, instead of 25 miles away in the village of Ramah. These
    students will be using the school buildings during evenings and
    weekends as well. Therefore, a new educational multipurpose building
    will provide the additional space and functional rooms needed by the
    school's students, staff and parents. The proposed building will
    include a gymnasium and athletic training room; a computer tech room to
    enable us to link all students, teachers, staff, parents and programs
    electronically, and to keep up with advances in computer technology;
    administration offices; meeting and conference rooms with audio visual
    conferencing; classrooms for distance learning access; a school nurse's
    office; a dining area; and the usual support rooms. Our preliminary
    estimate is for a building of 24,000 square feet for $5 million.

                         BIA SCHOOL OPERATIONS SUPPORT

        The Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc., requests that Congress
    increase SEP funding by $7 million in the fiscal year 2007 budget for a
    total of $360 million, which would be at the fiscal year 2006 ISEP
    funding level. This will raise the WSU level to $4,131, $80 more than
    the fiscal year 2006 level.
        The Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) has not received any
    meaningful increases since fiscal year 2002, when Congress increased
    ISEP by $14 million, which resulted in a WSU of $3,916 per student. In
    fiscal year 2004, ISEP received $349 million for a WSU of $3,966; in
    fiscal year 2005, ISEP was $348 million for a WSU of $3.985; in fiscal
    year 2006, ISEP was $353.5 million for a WSU of $3,974. The proposed
    budget for all School Operations is cut $9 million, from $529.6 million
    to $518.1 million. It is unlikely that the fiscal year 2007 WSU will be
    increased, but will most likely remain at the fiscal year 2006 level of
    around $4,000. While we support the intent of the ``No Child Left
    Behind Act,'' the cost of meeting the law's mandates has made it
    difficult financially to reach the standards for BIA schools. Needs
    that have built over the past 40 years continue to plague BIA schools,
    such as transportation, facilities, technology, teacher recruitment and
    retention, curricula, standards, assessments, parent involvement, fuel
    cost, and so on. Yet, these are all necessary components of education
    vitally important for American Indian students in BIA schools, who now
    may be even more ``left behind'' before the Act because of inadequate
    funding.
        It is becoming ever more difficult for BIA schools to recruit and
    retain qualified teachers since we cannot compete with New Mexico's
    public school districts, which are paying teachers an entry level
    salary of $31,000, plus sign-on bonuses as high as $14,000. And it will
    become even harder when New Mexico's proposed three-tiered licensure
    classification system is fully implemented, for then a teacher's salary
    schedule will start around $32,000 for Tier I, $45,000 for Tier II, and
    $50,000 for Tier III. BIA schools near public school districts will
    encounter drastic teacher shortages when their teachers start to
    migrate to public schools with these higher salaries. BIA schools have
    to budget, on the average, about 80 percent of their total school
    operation cost for personnel. What is left has to cover the rest of
    school operations: staff development, school supplies, curricula
    development, text books, technology, consultants, and extracurricular
    activities.

                           ADMINISTRATIVE COST GRANTS

        The Ramah Navajo School Board requests that Congress fund
    administrative cost grants at 100 percent, or $63.5 million for the
    fiscal year 2007 budget, and provide separate start-up funding for BIA-
    operated schools converting to new ``grant'' and ``contract'' school
    status.
        Administrative Cost Grants (ACG) should enable tribes to exercise
    their self-determination rights guaranteed by Congress under the
    ``Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975.'' (An
    Act which, by the way, was largely based on the initiative and
    successful grassroots movement in the Ramah Navajo community in the
    late 1960s and early 1970s to establish its own local community-
    controlled school.) Yet, Congress has only once approved Administrative
    Cost Grants at 100 percent for Grant and Contract schools.
    Consequently, the Self-Determination Act can never be fully realized
    until Congress funds the program at the 100 percent level. Until this
    happens, tribes will have to continue to administer their school
    programs with less support for their schools due to fiscal constraints.
        Administrative Cost Grants funding has gone from 74 percent to 71
    percent this year. The amount for fiscal year 2004 was $44.6 million;
    for fiscal year 2005, $44.7 million; for fiscal year 2006, $44.5
    million: and proposed for fiscal year 2007, $44.06 million. Thus,
    Administrative Cost Grant funding has decreased $596,000 in four years.
    During that time, four schools became Grant-operated schools and a
    special congressional set-a-side was authorized for their start up
    costs. However, additional set-a-sides were not reauthorized.
    Administrative Cost Grants are funded at only a 71 percent, thus
    creating less ACG grant amounts for schools that have been in the
    system. If more schools become Grant Schools (Public Law 100-297)
    without any increase in Administrative Cost Grants, the negative
    impacts becomes greater for existing Contract and Grant schools in the
    BIA system.
        The negative impact created by the shortfalls is not myth, but
    reality. Many BIA-funded school boards had to make tough decisions in
    reductions-in-force, terminating well-trained staff members and
    consolidating required programs. Some BIA schools have even switched to
    ten-month operations, which imposes more problems since there is no
    time for year-end administrative close-out work and preparation for the
    up-coming school year, not to mention the work required for the annual
    audit. Therefore, the Ramah Navajo School Board requests that Congress
    honor Public Law 93-638 and Public Law 100-297, which provide that
    American Indian and Alaskan Native entities have the right to operate
    their own education programs with adequate funding through
    Administrative Cost Grants, and that Congress must realize that without
    adequate funding, BIA schools cannot be expected to succeed or meet the
    mandates under the ``No Child Left Behind Act.''

                             STUDENT TRANSPORTATION

        The Ramah Navajo School Board requests that Congress fund the BIA
    Student Transportation Program to match the national level of $3.67 per
    mile.
        For the last 25 years, Indian tribes have requested an increase for
    student transportation funding. The failure of Congress to do so can
    only be attributed to a failure to fully understand the rural settings
    and road conditions on most Indian reservations. Every day, many BIA
    schools run their buses as many as 140 miles crisscrossing between
    paved and unpaved roads, good and terrible roads, dry and then knee
    deep in mud roads for 180 days a year. Bus transmission and drive line
    repairs are constant problems and the cost associated with school
    transportation repairs and the high cost of gasoline and diesel fuel
    absorbs most of the student transportation funds before the year is
    over. Consequently, schools have no choice but to dip into their
    limited ISEP funds to pay for transportation cost since students must
    be transported to the school before any education can begin. This then
    increases the financial burden on the total school operation costs.
    Some school buses have approached or exceeded 120,000 miles. It used to
    be that GSA would provide new buses after 60,000 miles, but that has
    not happened for the past 10 years.
        Since the 2002-03 School Year, BIA-funded schools have received
    less than $2.20 per mile: $2.17 per mile in 2002-03; $2.13 per mile in
    2003-04; and $2.15 per mile in 2004-05. Even with the increased funding
    in fiscal year 2006, the mileage support will not increase since the
    total miles increases every year, and it is likely that the per mile
    rate will stay under $2.20 per mile. We do not foresee Congress
    providing an increase that would enable BIA-funded schools to receive
    transportation support on par with public schools. A level of about
    $2.20 per mile is anticipated for fiscal year 2006, but even this falls
    far below the nationwide average of $3.21 that was reported for public
    schools in 2002. In addition to that amount, public schools also
    receive separate additional funding for fuel and maintenance, whereas
    the funds for BIA-funded schools for transportation covers all expenses
    associated with school transportation.
        On behalf of the Board of Trustees for the Ramah Navajo School
    Board, Inc., I would like to express our appreciation for your support
    for Indian education programs. I hope that our testimony will help you
    better understand the situation of American Indian schools at the
    grassroots level throughout the country.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Rivers & Trails Coalition

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the Rivers & Trails
    Coalition, composed of local, regional, statewide, and national
    organizations representing hundreds of thousands of Americans
    nationwide committed to conservation and recreation, respectfully asks
    that you fund the National Park Service Rivers, Trails and Conservation
    Assistance (RTCA) program at $10.1 million in fiscal year 2007.
        Through its Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program, the
    National Park Service (NPS) implements its natural resource
    conservation and outdoor recreation mission in communities across
    America. The Rivers & Trails Coalition formed many years ago to support
    this valuable field-based technical assistance program that yields
    enormous conservation and recreation benefits to communities by
    fostering partnerships between federal, state, and local interests. The
    resulting cooperation of local, state, and federal partners restores
    rivers and wildlife habitat, develops trails and greenway networks,
    preserves open space, and revitalizes communities--all contributing to
    improved quality of life and close-to-home recreation.
        RTCA is a very successful and popular program, coordinating nearly
    300 projects annually. On average, the program partners protect nearly
    700 miles of rivers, create more than 1,300 miles of trails, and
    conserve more than 61,000 acres of open space each year. RTCA staff
    provide on-the-ground assistance solely at the request and invitation
    of communities in coordinating projects, facilitating public meetings,
    serving as a liaison and convener of government and non-profit groups,
    assessing and mapping resources, developing promotional materials and
    events, and identifying sources of funding. Current demand for RTCA
    services greatly exceeds the program's capacity.
        In addition to regional trail systems and greenway development, and
    open space and river corridor protection, projects include
    transportation alternatives, brownfield redevelopment, youth
    conservation projects, and floodplain planning, among numerous other
    conservation and recreation initiatives. RTCA plays a critical role in
    creating a nationwide, seamless network of parks and open spaces,
    supporting conservation partnerships, promoting volunteerism, and
    encouraging physical activity. The Administration's HealthierUS
    Initiative explicitly highlights RTCA for its efforts in promoting
    physical activity through the development of local trails, greenways,
    and parks.
        Despite RTCA's demonstrable successes each year, RTCA funding has
    remained relatively stagnant during the last decade and has lagged well
    behind the rate of inflation. The program's funding was decreased by
    $200,000 in fiscal year 2006, resulting in significant cuts to staff
    and reduced staff participation in on-the-ground projects, diminishing
    essential services of this field-based program. RTCA currently has
    approximately 75 program staff, compared to about 90 staff in 2002.
        RTCA receives .003 of the NPS budget, less than a third of 1
    percent of the total funding for the National Park Service, yet
    succeeds in leveraging the federal investment many times over by
    building partnerships, and securing local and state funding for
    projects. The RTCA program multiplies the original federal investment
    in both direct funding and in-kind matches from local and state
    sources. Each year, the modest amount of National Park Service funding
    spent for staff time has helped leverage millions of dollars from other
    sources for its projects. Highly effective and cost efficient, the RTCA
    program is an excellent value for the American taxpayer and merits
    increased funding to accomplish its mission as a community-based NPS
    technical assistance and outreach program.
        The President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2007 calls for a
    reduction of $500,000 to the RTCA program. The Rivers & Trails
    Coalition strongly opposes the President's proposed program budget cut
    of $500,000 and respectfully requests that Congress restore funding to
    this program and increase the program budget by $2 million to meet the
    real needs that this program serves.
        The President's proposed budget cut of $500,000 would reduce
    overall funding for the program to $7.7 million. If the Administration-
    proposed fiscal year 2007 funding level were to be enacted, it would
    result in severe cuts to this valuable program and put many of the
    projects presently underway at risk. It would result in a further loss
    of staff and likely closure of field offices. RTCA is not a program
    that should be cut by any amount and it actually requires a $2 million
    increase to redress its declining real budget and enable the program to
    continue and expand upon its successes throughout the country. In 2004,
    the Senate approved a funding increase of $1.5 million, but the entire
    amount was never approved by the Congress.
        We see evidence in communities across America of the tremendous
    value of RTCA-assisted projects and partnerships, and we can report the
    unparalleled success of RTCA in bringing greenways, blueways, and
    creative conservation partnerships to fruition. The requested funding
    level by the Coalition would allow this extremely beneficial program to
    continue current projects without interruption, restore recent cuts,
    put staff closer to the people they serve, and meet the outstanding
    requests from communities around the nation. We strongly believe the
    National Park Service and Congress should strengthen programs such as
    RTCA that support communities through partnerships and capacity-
    building, enabling local stakeholders to better manage and conserve
    their recreational and natural resources from the bottom-up.
        We urge you to fund the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance
    program at $10.1 million in the fiscal year 2007 Interior
    Appropriations bill to remedy the program's continued erosion,
    compensate for losses due to inflation, and enable the program to
    respond to growing needs and opportunities in communities throughout
    the country. Thank you for your consideration.
        Respectfully submitted by the Rivers & Trails Coalition, comprised
    of the following organizations: The Accokeek Foundation; American Canoe
    Association; American Hiking Society; American Outdoors; American
    Rivers; American Society of Landscape Architects; American Trails;
    American Volkssport Association; American Whitewater; Appalachian
    Mountain Club; Association of State Floodplain Managers; Bicycle
    Federation of America; Bikes Belong Coalition; Conservation District of
    Southern Nevada; East Coast Greenway Alliance; International Mountain
    Bicycling Association; Jacksonville Woodlands Association; Land Legacy;
    Land Trust Alliance; League of American Bicyclists; National
    Association of Service & Conservation Corps; National Audubon Society;
    National Parks Conservation Association; National Recreation and Park
    Association; New York-New Jersey Trail Conference; New York Parks and
    Conservation Association; North American Water Trails; Northern Forest
    Canoe Trail; Ohio & Erie Canal Corridor Coalition; Outdoor Industry
    Association; Outside Las Vegas Foundation; Parks & Trails New York;
    Partnership for the National Trails System; Pennsylvania Organization
    for Watersheds and Rivers; Rails to Trails Conservancy; River Network;
    Scenic America; South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism;
    Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association; Student Conservation
    Association; Trout Unlimited; Walk Boston; Washington Area Bicyclist
    Association; Washington Trails Association; and Washington Water Trails
    Association.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Society of American Foresters, The Nature
       Conservancy, and the National Association of State Departments of
                                  Agriculture

        The Society of American Foresters, The Nature Conservancy and the
    National Association of State Departments of Agriculture urge the
    Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies to appropriate $130
    million for the USDA Forest Service Forest Health Management Program.
    We also applaud your leadership in past years in securing funding for
    this vital program at levels significantly above the Administration's
    request.
        Our proposed figure would provide a slight increase over the
    program's current funding level. As a result, the Forest Service could
    continue programs vital to protecting America's forests from highly
    damaging introduced insects and diseases, including such threats as the
    Asian long-horned beetle, emerald ash borer, sudden oak death, the
    hemlock woolly adelgid, and gypsy moth. The Forest Health Management
    program also counters other introduced insects that have attracted less
    attention, but that still damage America's forests. These include a
    pathogen killing redbay and sassafras trees in coastal Georgia and
    South Carolina; and several insects and pathogens on the islands of
    Hawai`i and Guam.
        Such a funding level will also enable the USFS to continue vital
    support for the pest eradication and containment programs carried out
    by the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Forest Service
    expertise in the pests' biology and detection and management
    methodology is crucial to the success of these programs. Failure to
    complete eradication of the Asian long-horned beetle will expose to
    destruction hardwood forests reaching from New England into Minnesota
    and smaller areas of the West. Particularly threatened are the hardwood
    timber, maple syrup, and autumn foliage tourism industries of the
    Northeast, and street trees across the Nation valued at $600 billion.
        The threat posed by the emerald ash borer is particularly critical.
    If it spreads from Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana to the rest of the
    country, it could cause undiscounted losses of city trees worth $20 to
    $60 billion. Losses to the timber industry would be $25 billion in
    Eastern states. It is vitally important that the Forest Service effort
    targeting this insect not be reduced.
        The Forest Service has the lead responsibility for detecting and
    combating any outbreaks of sudden oak death in the hardwood forests of
    the East. While these detection efforts can be scaled back to some
    extent after several years of intense surveys, they must not be halted
    completely as the risk of this pathogen being spread by infected
    nursery plants has not been eliminated. Furthermore, greater vigilance
    is needed to prevent introductions from Europe or elsewhere of other
    pathogens threatening to cause similar levels of damage.
        Finally, the Forest Service needs adequate funding to expand its
    Early Detection project. This program has been responsible for
    detecting more than a dozen introduced insects, including two which
    threaten the economically important pine forests of the Southeast: the
    Mediterranean pine beetle and Sirex wood wasp. Steady or increasing
    funding is necessary to expand this program to cover all states and to
    develop and deploy methodologies to detect the highly damaging wood-
    boring beetles.
        The agency bearing the principal responsibility for eradicating
    newly introduced forest pests is not the USDA Forest Service, but
    rather the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
    USDA APHIS falls outside your jurisdiction. However, the Subcommittee
    cannot achieve its goal of protecting the Nation's forests' health as
    long as funding shortfalls undermine USDA APHIS eradication programs.
    The Society of American Foresters, The Nature Conservancy and the
    National Association of State Departments of Agriculture encourage the
    Subcommittee to work with the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee
    to find ways to increase funding for forest pest line items in the USDA
    APHIS Emerging Plant Pest account.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fish and
                               Wildlife Agencies

        On behalf of our America's fish and wildlife agencies, I urge the
    Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies to support funding in the
    amount of $85 million for the State Wildlife Grants Program in the
    fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
        The State Wildlife Grants Program is our nation's core program for
    keeping wildlife from becoming endangered. State fish and wildlife
    agencies enjoy a strong partnership with the federal government in
    managing our nation's wildlife resources. Working together, we are able
    to ensure robust fish and wildlife populations and keep species from
    declining to the point of becoming endangered. State Wildlife Grants is
    an integral element of this partnership, providing the federal
    government's share of support for proactive on-the-ground conservation
    projects aimed at declining fish and wildlife species and their
    habitats. State Wildlife Grants is not just a grants program. It truly
    is a core program of the Department of Interior for advancing a
    pressing national need.
        The President's budget includes $74.7 million, an increase of $5
    million above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $68.5 million. We
    appreciate the Administration's continued support for this program as a
    core component of their collaborative conservation agenda.
        Although the budget is tight, America's fish and wildlife agencies
    are recommending that Congress provide a funding level of at least $85
    million in order to restore this program back up to the highest level
    of funding it has ever received, in fiscal year 2002. Consistent
    funding is essential to the long-term success of this program, and the
    completion of wildlife action plans in every state and territory only
    underscores the need for adequate and reliable resources. A funding
    level of $85 million would send an important message about the
    Congress's commitment to following through on providing the support
    needed to implement the wildlife action plans. We are pleased that 170
    Representatives have already formally signed on to this commitment in
    the form of a ``dear colleague'' and we hope you will match that strong
    demonstration of support.
        We also urge your consideration of additional language to provide
    an incentive for states to cooperate on projects with other states as
    well as federal agencies when implementing the actions in their plans.
    Allowing implementation projects that include several states working
    together to implement actions identified in their comprehensive state
    wildlife strategies at a 75:25 match (vs. 50:50) will provide greater
    benefits to the nation. In addition, allowing federal funds to be used
    as a match for a particular State Wildlife Grants project will
    encourage greater cooperation between a federal entity within that
    state and the state wildlife agency in implementing the strategies/
    plans together. The strategies/plans have the potential to encourage
    everyone to work together resulting in a greater cumulative impact as
    well as avoiding costly duplication and unnecessary overlap.
        The President's budget includes a proposal to set aside $5 million
    of the new funds recommended for State Wildlife Grants for a new
    program of competitive grants. While we appreciate the intent to reward
    effective conservation proposals, we believe that the time is not yet
    right for a new competitive program to be created within State Wildlife
    Grants. The creation of such a program should be predicated on the
    attainment of higher levels of funding. State Wildlife Grants has
    provided a tremendous enhancement to the capacity of every state to
    address wildlife conservation. While we cannot currently support the
    creation of a competitive funding program, we are committed to making
    any programs that are enacted by Congress a success. If Congress deems
    that this is an appropriate course of action, we will work together
    with the Fish and Wildlife Service to make it a success.
        In closing, I again extend the appreciation of America's wildlife
    agencies for your continued support for the state-federal wildlife
    conservation partnership. We sincerely urge you to provide our
    requested level of $85 million for State Wildlife Grants.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Stoddard Conservation Commission

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate
    the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $3 million from the Forest Legacy Program for the Robb
    Reservoir/Willard Pond tract in New Hampshire.
        Stoddard is a small hilltop town perched on the high, rocky divide
    between the Connecticut and Merrimack River valleys. While its
    population is relatively small, Stoddard is the second largest town in
    Cheshire County, geographically. Stoddard has a long history of
    sustainable timber management due in large part to the vision and
    forward thinking of the Stoddard Lumber Company's founder Christopher
    Robb, who is also Robb Reservoir's namesake. Today the town of
    Stoddard's newly prepared Master Plan clearly underscores the
    importance of maintaining the quality of life and protecting the
    natural resource beauty of the town by protecting important blocks of
    unfragmented forestland, wildlife corridors, and wetlands, including
    the Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond tract. Because of this, the Stoddard
    Conservation Commission whole-heartedly supports this request for $3
    million from the Forest Legacy Program to purchase and protect this
    ``keystone'' parcel of land.
        New Hampshire's forests are the economic engine that drives tourism
    and the majority of manufacturing in the state. Private landowners and
    industries own eighty percent of the state's forestland. The New
    Hampshire Forest Legacy Program seeks to protect blocks of forestland
    of varying sizes and values that are threatened by conversion to
    nonforest uses, so that they may provide for the continuation of
    traditional forest uses. To date, more than 200,000 acres of forestland
    in New Hampshire have been protected through the Forest Legacy Program.
        The Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond project is a 1,667-acre tract in
    Cheshire County, one of the few areas in southern New Hampshire where
    large unfragmented blocks of forestland can still be found. Protection
    of the property will link together the 1,466-acre Willard Pond New
    Hampshire Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary with two other private easements.
    Altogether these conservation efforts will link a block of over 40,000
    acres of permanently protected forestland in a densely populated area
    of the state.
        The Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond project area has also been
    identified as a critical target for protection due to its ecological
    value and central location in the Quabbin-to-Cardigan Conservation
    Initiative, an inter-organizational collaborative effort organized to
    establish a contiguous conservation corridor from the southern White
    Mountains in New Hampshire to the Quabbin Reservoir in Massachusetts.
    Approximately 75 percent of the property is productive forestland and
    will be managed to provide for sustainable timber production. This
    property is under considerable development pressure because of its
    commuting distance to Concord, Manchester and Keene.
        Under the terms of a conservation easement, the project area would
    continue to provide public access for hunting, hiking, nature viewing,
    cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing, as well as fishing for warm and
    cold water species in the North Branch River and Robb Reservoir. A
    network of established recreation trails will connect this property to
    an adjacent trail network at the Audubon wildlife sanctuary.
    Mountainous portions of the property offer unobstructed views of the
    reservoir and surrounding mountains, and provide excellent vantage
    points for wildlife viewing. Documented archaeological sites, located
    along the north branch of the Contoocook River, reveal clues to the
    lifestyle of the Penacook people, who lived on this landscape for
    millennia. A historic Native American travel route, the Kon-weg-ti-ok
    Trail, once ran through the property along the river, connecting Native
    American villages.
        The Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond property is home to diverse and
    interesting plant and animal species. Several state threatened and
    endangered species have been documented on the property including the
    bald eagle, pied-billed grebe, osprey, purple martin, and northern
    harrier. In addition, a state listed endangered plant species, the
    arethusa, is found growing on the property within the three state
    designated Exemplary Natural Communities: Atlantic white cedar swamp,
    southern New England level bog, and southern New England acidic seepage
    swamp. Of these three, the Atlantic white cedar swamp is designated as
    ``critically imperiled'' due to its extreme rarity. In 1991, the north
    branch of the Contoocook River, which runs through the property, was
    designated as protected by the New Hampshire Rivers Management
    Protection Program.
        New Hampshire has recognized Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond as its
    number one priority for the Forest Legacy Program this year, and $3
    million has been included for the project in the President's fiscal
    year 2007 Budget. This year, a total appropriation of $3 million of
    Forest Legacy funding is needed to acquire and protect the 1,667-acre
    Willard Pond/Robb Reservoir property.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of this request.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the State of Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation
                                   Commission

        I am writing to urge you to prioritize funding for a project that
    will streamline oil and gas permitting, enhance oil and gas production,
    and protect the environment on federal lands. The U.S. Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM) would like to take advantage of the Risk Based Data
    Management System (RBDMS) and associated electronic commerce
    applications developed by the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC).
    This innovative project will allow western oil and gas producing state
    agencies and the BLM to exchange permitting and other environmental
    data seamlessly. Opening this avenue for data sharing will help the BLM
    comply with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 365, Pilot Project
    to Improve Federal Permit Coordination. The BLM, state agencies, and
    industry all are supportive of this project. Please consider
    appropriating $400,000 for the GWPC to manage the project.
        State oil and gas agencies and industry have relied on RBDMS
    applications to store and analyze data to make decisions that result in
    the best possible balance of exploration and environmental
    considerations. Smaller producers are often in the most need of access
    to the data in such a system because the costs associated with
    regulatory compliance affects them the most. The RBDMS electronic
    commerce approach is one of the best examples of how government,
    working with industry, can improve both production and environmental
    protection at the same time. Using this system to manage permitting and
    related data on federal lands will reduce the time, cost, and burden
    for oil and gas producers seeking federal environmental permits before
    drilling or exploration.
        I will be glad to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for
    your support.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the San Diego County Water Authority

        Your support is needed in securing adequate fiscal year 2007
    funding for the Bureau of Land Management's participation in the
    federal/state Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. This
    important program is vital to the Colorado River water, users in San
    Diego County, as well as to the water users throughout the seven-state
    Colorado River Basin.
        The Colorado River is the primary source of drinking water for more
    than 3 million people in San Diego County. Excess salinity causes
    economic damages in the San Diego region worth millions of dollars
    annually. It also hinders local water agency efforts to stretch limited
    supplies by recycling and reusing water. The local impacts of excess
    salinity include:
      --reduced crop yields for farmers, who produce more than $1 billion
            of agricultural products in the San Diego region;
      --the reduced useful life of commercial and residential water pipe
            systems, water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes
            washers, and dishwashers;
      --the increased household use of expensive bottled water and water
            softeners;
      --increased water treatment facility costs;
      --difficulty meeting federal and, Califomia wastewater discharge
            requirements; and
      --fewer opportunities for recycling due to excess salt in the product
            water, which limits usefulness for commercial and agricultural
            irrigation.
        The Salinity Control program has proven to be a very cost-effective
    approach to mitigate the impacts of increased salinity in the Colorado
    River. Continued federal funding of the Bureau of Land Management's
    portion of this important program is essential.
        Maintenance of the Colorado River's water quality through an
    effective salinity control program is an investment that avoids
    millions of dollars in economic damages caused by excess salinity.
        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), on behalf
    of the seven Colorado River Basin states, submitted testimony to your
    Subcommittee requesting that Congress appropriate $5,200,000 to BLM in
    fiscal year 2007 for activities that help control salt contributions
    from BLM-managed lands in the Colorado River Basin. The Water Authority
    agrees with this request, and urges your support for these needed
    funds.
        The Water Authority appreciates your support of the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Program and asks for your assistance in securing
    adequate funding for fiscal year 2007.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Swan Ecosystem Center

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: Thank you for
    the opportunity to testify in support of continued federal investment
    in the Swan Valley, Montana and to specifically urge a fiscal year 2007
    $16.2 million appropriation to the U.S. Forest Service from the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and a $6.2 million appropriation to
    the State of Montana from the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) for the Swan
    Valley conservation effort. The Swan Valley is unique in Montana
    because land is exceptionally good at growing trees, the rich and
    diverse habitat provides for a diversity of species, and the scenic and
    recreation amenities are superb. The people in the Swan Valley care
    deeply about this place and need help protecting it.
        Swan Ecosystem Center formed in 1996 as an inclusive 501(c)(3)
    nonprofit community group in the Swan Valley of northwest Montana.
    Anyone who lives in the Swan Valley and participates is a member. Swan
    Ecosystem Center has an office and visitor center in the U.S. Forest
    Service Condon Work Center through a partnership with the Forest
    Service. Three full-time staff and 4-7 part-time staff develop programs
    to meet SEC's mission, goals and objectives. Volunteers with diverse
    backgrounds and opinions annually contribute over 4,000 hours each
    year, a substantial commitment from a community of about 900 people.
    According to surveys, most people in the Swan Valley want to protect
    forests, wildlife and public access. This request is an important
    component of our multi-stakeholder strategy as indicated in the Swan
    Ecosystem Center Mission: We, citizens of the Upper Swan Valley,
    Montana, have a self-imposed sense of responsibility to maintain a
    strong, vital community, one involved in setting its own destiny
    through partnerships that encourage sustainable use and care of public
    and private land.
        The Swan Valley conservation effort is a cooperative venture among
    private landowners, public land management agencies, public resource
    management agencies, the community, and non-governmental organizations.
    These groups are working to develop a multi-faceted, long-term
    conservation strategy that effectively protects the significant
    ecological and recreational resources of the Swan Valley, while
    promoting the sustainable management of the valley's forest resources.
    This process has included a science-based assessment of wildlife and
    fisheries resources, timber productivity, and recreational activities
    as well as considerable input from a broad base of Swan Valley
    residents. Conservation strategies include:
      --Land and Water Conservation Fund program to protect critical
            habitat and public recreation opportunities through Forest
            Service acquisitions.
      --Forest Legacy Program to protect working timberlands with multiple
            resource values through conservation easements and limited
            acquisitions by the State of Montana.
      --Residential land conservation easement program through local land
            trusts.
      --Habitat Conservation Plan program and other mitigation programs to
            protect core habitat for threatened or endangered species.
      --Special conservation areas to be managed by a nonprofit community
            group with a broad representation of interests and backgrounds.
      --Private foundation funding and investment capital to further
            conservation objectives.
        This year, five properties totaling 2,680 acres are available for
    acquisition through the Land and Water Conservation Fund to continue
    the conservation efforts in the Swan Valley. The parcels are located
    within grizzly bear habitat and are important for species recovery.
    Some parcels also contain stream reaches important for bull trout
    habitat and other native species, important habitat for elk and other
    big game, and/or recreation resources important to Montana residents
    and visitors alike. These acquisitions will prevent further
    fragmentation of forestland ownership and land uses, and improve
    coordinated land management through blocking up of public ownership in
    areas of checkerboard ownership.
        The Swan Forest Legacy Program conservation easements and
    acquisitions will promote a sustainable working forest in the Swan
    Valley in order to maintain the forest-based economy of the Valley by
    protecting the most productive forestlands from conversion to non-
    forest uses. This year's proposal helps to protect access to public
    lands, maintain traditional outdoor recreation activities and conserve
    important wildlife and fisheries habitats. The proposal includes
    acquisition of 1,655 acres of Plum Creek lands within the Swan River
    State Forest checkerboard area, which would be conveyed to the State of
    Montana for on-going forest management.
        It should be noted that private investment and commitment to
    conservation in the Swan Valley plays a significant role alongside the
    public conservation efforts. There is growing recognition that the
    conservation resources of the area blanket much of the Swan Valley,
    regardless of land ownership boundaries and that effective resource
    protection requires a multi-faceted approach. The efforts of private
    landowners, the Swan Ecosystem Center, other organizations, and private
    foundations are all contributing toward successful implementation of
    the conservation strategy.
        The funding this committee has most generously provided for fee and
    easement acquisitions in the Swan Valley in previous fiscal years has
    reduced the checkerboard ownership pattern in the area, protected
    sensitive habitat and recreation lands from development, and protected
    forestlands from conversion to non-forest uses. We are extremely
    grateful for those past appropriations, and we ask you for your
    continued support as the committee considers the fiscal year 2007
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation bill. Please support the
    Swan Valley Conservation Effort. Thank you for the opportunity to
    present this request.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Sterling Forest Partnership

        On behalf of over 2,000 supporters of Sterling Forest Partnership
    which advocates for the protection of Sterling Forest State Park and
    its surrounds in both New York and New Jersey, we would like to thank
    you for the opportunity to comment on the fiscal year 2007 Subcommittee
    on Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
        In particular, we urge you to provide:
      --Full $10 million funding for the Highlands Conservation Act
            conservation partnership projects,
      --$1 million for USDA Forest Service technical assistance and
            research programs in the Highlands, and
      --$85 million for the Forest Legacy program.
        Sterling Forest Partnership is an all-volunteer grass roots
    organization which has worked successfully over the past ten years to
    rally strong support to conserve Sterling Forest State Park lands and
    the environment of the region. We are a member of the Highlands
    Coalition and together with them strive to conserve priority lands in
    the Highlands region of NY and NJ.
        In the fall of 2004, Congress enacted and President Bush signed the
    Highlands Conservation Act, recognizing the national significance of
    the more than three-million acre Highlands region as a source of
    drinking water, productive forests and farms, wildlife habitat and
    recreation within an hour of major metropolitan areas including
    Philadelphia, New York City, Newark and Hartford. The Act authorized
    $10 million annually to assist the Highlands states in conserving
    priority lands from willing landowners, and to continue USDA Forest
    Service research and assistance to private landowners in the Highlands.
    Under the Act, the states are required to match federal funds for land
    conservation partnership projects on an equal basis to greater leverage
    these funds.
        However, in the President's budget for 2007, only $2 million has
    been included as funding for the Highlands Conservation Act which is to
    support several projects in all 4 qualifying states. We urge you to
    restore full funding of this appropriation as authorized in the
    original act.
        The Governors of the four Highlands States have jointly submitted
    projects totaling $10 million in need to the Department of the Interior
    for funding in fiscal year 2007. Our particular concern is for critical
    funding for:
                   great swamp and sterling forest areas (ny)
        Cost--$10,600,000
        HCA Request--$2,500,000
        Size--1,300 Acres
    Description
        Arrow Park.--New York requests funds to assist in the acquisition
    of an addition to Sterling Forest State Park. The Arrow Park property
    is situated adjacent to the northeastern corner of Sterling Forest
    State Park and in close proximity to the Appalachian National Scenic
    Trail. The property contains a highly scenic lake, woodlands and
    wetlands, as well as significant frontage on Orange Turnpike, a well
    maintained access road. The Arrow Park lake drains into Little Dam
    Lake, a wetland within Sterling Forest State Park which supports a
    healthy population of the NY State endangered Northern Cricket Frog.
    Portions of the property were acquired in 2002 as additions to the
    State Park, while the disposition of the remaining 350 acres was being
    considered by the owners who are now willing sellers.
        Great Swamp.--New York State requests funds to assist in the
    acquisition of properties that will further protect the Great Swamp,
    one of New York's most important wetland complexes and the largest and
    highest quality red maple hardwood swamp in the State. It also contains
    breeding habitat for more than 80 bird species and migratory habitat
    for more than 150 species of waterfowl and other birds. The Great Swamp
    also contains a south flowing section based on the East Branch Croton
    River, a critical part of New York City's water supply system; and a
    north flow section based on the Swamp River which flows into the
    Housatonic and, ultimately, to Long Island Sound.
        We are also very concerned about the proposed cuts to the Land &
    Water Conservation Fund, which is slated to receive only $85 million in
    the President's budget, the lowest level of funding in over three
    decades. Without adequate funding to the Highlands Conservation Act,
    Forest Legacy Program and Land & Water Conservation Fund, precious
    natural treasures of the Highlands may be developed in this rapidly
    growing area and lost to conservation forever.
        Thank you again for considering our comments on the fiscal year
    2007 Interior, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
                                     ______

                      Prepared Statement of STRONGER, Inc.

        The State Review Process is a joint project of the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency and State-Review of Oil and Natural Gas
    Environmental Regulations, Inc. (STRONGER) It implements requirements
    under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and its prime
    objective is to improve the environment by helping state oil and gas
    regulatory programs improve their performance. Since the first review
    in 1992, thirty have been conducted of nineteen state regulatory
    programs representing over 95-percent of U.S. onshore oil and gas
    production. Recent initial reviews have been undertaken in Indiana,
    Michigan and Virginia. Recent follow-up reviews undertaken include
    California, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas and West
    Virginia. A second follow-up review was undertaken in Pennsylvania,
    with a review currently underway in Kentucky. Additional follow-up
    reviews are planned for New York in 2006 and Colorado in 2007. These
    reviews have resulted in documented improvement of state programs which
    identify strengths and weaknesses and urge environmental improvements
    to address those weaknesses.
        The State Review Process is highly valuable. Congress told the
    industry and the states to do exactly what STRONGER does. The Process
    was developed to implement the conclusions of EPA's 1987 Regulatory
    Determination. The Regulatory Determination concluded that direct
    federal regulation of certain oil and gas exploration and production
    wastes was inappropriate and unnecessary under the RCRA Subtitle C
    because states were effectively regulating these wastes and the
    Subtitle C structure was not suited to regulation of them. The
    Determination also concluded that reviews of the state programs would
    assure that they remained effective. The Process is unique in that it
    brings the environmental community, state agencies and the industry to
    work together assisting the states to identify strengths and weaknesses
    in the programs and urge ongoing environmental improvements.
        Several key aspects of the Process were innovations in regulatory
    program quality improvement in 1990, and remain unique today. They
    include:
      --That state environmental regulatory programs are reviewed and
            benchmarked against published national Guidelines to evaluate
            the effectiveness of the programs in protecting public health
            and the environment;
      --That the guidelines standards are stakeholder consensus of the
            necessary elements of a successful regulatory program, and are
            developed by the process participants;
      --That the reviews are performed by multiple-stakeholder teams
            composed of representatives of the regulated industry, other
            state and federal agencies, and the environmental/public
            interest communities, and are open for public observation;
      --That the reviews address environmental performance, and evaluate
            state program measurements for their effectiveness in tracking
            environmental results;
      --That the review reports document program strengths and program
            areas needing improvement; and make specific recommendations to
            improve program performance; and,
      --That follow-up reviews are conducted to examine state responses to
            earlier recommendations and review additional program areas.
        In this spring of 2006, the State Review Process is threatened and
    unnecessarily so. During the Process' lifetime, funding has been
    provided by USEPA and the U.S. Department of Energy through a USEPA
    grant and by the American Petroleum Institute (API). In fiscal year
    2005, Congress appropriated $300,000 from the EPA budget to expand and
    carry the process forward. STRONGER has demonstrated the benefits and
    substantial cost savings of the State Review Process and received a new
    three-year grant. No fiscal year 2006 funds were provided, and that
    last grant will soon expire.
        For fiscal year 2007 and beyond, STRONGER is requesting
    programmatic funding. Programmatic funding for STRONGER is entirely
    appropriate because it recognizes that the State Review Process is an
    ongoing function of USEPA and is not a state or local specific project
    or activity. Stated within the contexts of this year's appropriations
    deliberations, its funding should not be included in contemplated
    constraints on earmarked funds, for funds for the Process should never
    have been regarded as earmarks. USEPA funding for this Process should
    have been among its fiscal year 2007 Budget Message requests for
    customary USEPA programs. For whatever reasons, it was not. This is
    unfortunately the case despite this USEPA sponsored program providing a
    needed and well thought through stakeholder-driven process to improve
    state regulatory program oversight of oil and natural gas exploration
    and production activity. The exploration and production industry fully
    supports this program and provides 25 percent of the funding.
    Ultimately, the best and most credible way to fund Congress and EPA's
    mandate, which serves the national public good, is through public
    dollars. If the industry's contribution percentage were any higher, the
    environmental community may well retreat for fear of industry
    dominance; the credibility of the Process would be at stake.
    Participating environmental organizations are reimbursed for their
    participation during reviews.
        Therefore, STRONGER requests $300,000 in programmatic funding in
    fiscal year 2007 appropriations, this actual amount being needed to
    sustain the Process' commitment level and the balanced federal, state,
    industry and environmental relationships. To ``cut the baby in two''
    here would threaten the entire Process for that reason.
        We are supported in this request by: The Independent Petroleum
    Association of America (IPAA), US Oil & Gas Association, New Mexico Oil
    and Gas Association, Independent Oil and Gas Association of West
    Virginia, Independent Oil and Gas Association of Pennsylvania,
    Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association, Michigan Oil and Gas Association,
    Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, California Independent Petroleum
    Association, Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States,
    Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association, Colorado
    Oil and Gas Association, Kansas Independent Oil and Gas Association,
    Kentucky Oil and Gas Association, Illinois Oil and Gas Association, and
    Association of Energy Service Companies.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the San Juan Water Commission

        The San Juan Water Commission is requesting your support for the
    following appropriations in fiscal year 2007 to the Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program,
    as recommended in the President's budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Ecological
    Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element;
    $697,000 within the $5,631,000 item entitled ``General Program
    Activities'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS
    to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado River
    Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
        2. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
    Operations & Maintenance Subactivity; Hatchery Operations Project) to
    support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
    in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $211,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year
    2007 to meet FWS' Region 2 expenses managing and implementing the San
    Juan Recovery Program.
        The San Juan Water Commission is requesting the Subcommittee's
    assistance for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs. Thank you
    for your past support and please call me at 505-564-8969 if you have
    any questions regarding this important issue.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Salt Lake City Corporation

        On behalf of Salt Lake City and those cities with urban Indian
    healthcare facilities, I write to express strong support for full
    funding of Urban Indian Health Program. There are currently 34 urban
    Indian healthcare facilities in operation throughout the country, and
    eliminating funding for this program would mean devastating cuts in the
    provision of services or outright closure of many facilities.
        The Urban Indian Health Program provides critical funding for our
    local urban Indian health facility. Recent data indicates that over 66
    percent of all Native Americans live in urban areas. Federal funding
    for this program is critical to ensuring the federal government
    maintains its commitment to providing quality health care services to
    this important population. The fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $32.7
    million for this program is estimated to be only 22 percent of the
    total need of this population. Further reductions in funding will only
    serve to further deteriorate healthcare services to our urban Indian
    populations.
        Given the dramatic impact the President's proposed funding
    reduction would mean to the Urban Indian Health Program, I strongly
    support its full funding in fiscal year 2007. Each year, appropriators
    must make priority decisions regarding the distribution of limited
    resources against expanding needs. The Urban Indian program has
    provided needed, high-quality, and effective services to our urban
    Indian populations for many years.
        Thank you for your time and attention to this request.
                                     ______

                      Letter From Governor Bill Richardson
                                   State of New Mexico,
                                        Office of the Governor,
                                                     February 27, 2006.
    Hon. Conrad Burns, Chairman,
    Hon. Byron Dorgan, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on
            Appropriations, U.S. Senate.
        Dear Chairman Burns and Ranking Member Dorgan: I am writing this
    letter to request your support and assistance in insuring continued
    funding for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
    and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. These
    ongoing cooperative partnership programs involve the States of New
    Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes, federal agencies and
    water, power and environmental interests; and have as their dual
    objectives recovery of the four Colorado River endangered fish species
    while water use continues and water development proceeds in compliance
    with the Endangered Species Act, state law, and interstate compacts. I
    respectfully request your support and action by the Subcommittee to
    provide for the following:
        1. Allocation of $211,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Ecological
    Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element;
    $211,000 within the $5,631,000 item entitled ``General Program
    Activities'') for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation
    Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2007 to meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) Region 2 expenses for managing and implementing the San
    Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
        2. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Ecological
    Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element;
    $697,000 within the $5,631,000 item entitled ``General Program
    Activities'') to the FWS for fiscal year 2007 to allow FWS Region 6 to
    continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado River
    Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the same level of funding
    appropriated to the FWS in fiscal years 2004, 2005 and 2006.
        3. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
    Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
    support the ongoing operation of the FWS Ouray National Fish Hatchery
    in Utah during fiscal year 2007.
        These two programs rely upon substantial state and other non-
    federal cost-sharing reflecting strong commitment to these effective
    partnership efforts and have the support of the Department of the
    Interior, who has pointed to them as national models of effective
    conservation partnerships. The requested FWS appropriations will be
    used in conjunction with other funding to continue vitally important
    recovery program activities. We in New Mexico thank the Subcommittee
    for your past assistance and again seek the Subcommittee's assistance
    again this year to ensure adequate FWS funding for the upcoming federal
    fiscal year.
                Sincerely,
                                               Bill Richardson,
                                                              Governor.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the State of Colorado

        The State of Colorado is an active partner in the Upper Colorado
    River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin
    Endangered Fish Recovery Program, both of which have been very
    successful in working toward recovery of four endangered and threatened
    fish species in the Upper Colorado River Basin while allowing water
    development to continue.
        Today I request your consideration and support for two items
    funding these Programs which appear in the President's Budget for the
    upcoming fiscal year:
        (1) Appropriation of $697,000 in recovery funds to the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (Service) for fiscal year 2007. This appropriation
    allows the Service to continue its participation in the Upper Colorado
    River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The specific designation of
    this appropriation is under ``Ecological Services Activity; Endangered
    Species Subactivity; Recovery Element'' and this would appropriate
    $697,000 within the $5,631,000 entitled ``General Program Activities''.
        (2) Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds to
    the Service's Ouray National Fish Hatchery in Utah for fiscal year
    2007. These specific dollars would be appropriated under the Service's
    budget designated ``Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries
    Activity; Hatchery Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery
    Operations Project''.
        Furthermore, I request that your Committee strongly urge the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service to allocate $211,000 in recovery funds to the
    San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. Such an
    allocation will allow the Service's Region 2 offices to pursue ongoing
    recovery work and undertake new recovery processes as they continue
    doing the good work of species conservation in the San Juan Basin.
        As you know, these programs accomplish the recovery of the four
    endangered fish species while allowing the ongoing water development in
    the basins. To date, over 1,000 separate water depletion projects
    representing over 2.9 million acre feet of water per year carry on with
    these Programs serving as the means of Endangered Species Act
    compliance. Thank you for your help with these important projects.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of the State of Utah

        I am writing to urge you to prioritize funding for a project that
    will streamline oil and gas permitting, enhance oil and gas production,
    and protect the environment on federal lands. The U.S. Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM) would like to take advantage of the Risk Based Data
    Management System (RBDMS) and associated electronic commerce
    applications developed by the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC).
    This innovative project will allow western oil and gas producing state
    agencies and the BLM to exchange permitting and other environmental
    data seamlessly. Opening this avenue for data sharing will help the BLM
    comply with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 365, Pilot Project
    to Improve Federal Permit Coordination. The BLM, state agencies, and
    industry all urge support of this project and ask that $400,000 be
    appropriated for the GWPC to manage the project.
        State oil and gas agencies and industry have relied on RBDMS
    applications to store and analyze data to make decisions that result in
    the best possible balance of exploration and environmental
    considerations. Smaller producers are often in the most need for access
    to the data in such a system because the high cost associated with
    regulatory compliance hits them the hardest. RBDMS is the only
    comprehensive, fully relational, PC-based, oil and gas regulatory
    system now in use in many state agencies in the country. RBDMS is one
    of the best examples of how government, working with industry, can
    improve both production and environmental protection at the same time.
    Using the highly successful RBDMS program to manage permitting and
    related data on federal lands will reduce the time, cost, and burden
    for oil and gas producers seeking federal environmental permits before
    drilling or exploration.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the State of Utah, Office of the Governor

        I am writing to request your support and assistance to ensure
    continued funding for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program.
    These ongoing cooperative partnership programs involve the states of
    Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes, federal agencies
    and water, power and environmental interests; and have as their dual
    objectives recovery of the four Colorado River endangered fish species
    while water use continues and water development proceeds in compliance
    with the Endangered Species Act, state law and interstate compacts.
    Utah respectfully requests support and action by the subcommittee that
    will provide the following:
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Ecological
    Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element;
    $697,000 within the $5,631,000 item entitled ``General Program
    Activities'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for fiscal
    year 2007 to allow FWS to continue its necessary participation in the
    Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the same
    level of funding appropriated to the FWS in fiscal years 2004, 2005 and
    2006.
        2. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
    Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
    support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
    in Utah during fiscal year 2007.
        3. Allocation of $211,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year
    2007 to meet FWS's Region 2 expenses managing and implementing the San
    Juan Program's diverse recovery actions.
        As the subcommittee members know, these two programs rely upon
    substantial state and other non-federal cost-sharing (reflecting strong
    commitment to these effective partnership efforts) and have the support
    of the Department of the Interior who has pointed to them as national
    models of effective conservation partnerships. The requested FWS
    appropriations will be used in concert with other funding to continue
    vitally important recovery program activities. I thank the subcommittee
    for their past assistance, and we seek that assistance again this year
    to ensure adequate FWS funding for the upcoming federal fiscal year.
    Thank you.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the State of Wyoming, Office of the Governor

        I am writing to request your support and assistance in ensuring
    continued funding for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program.
    These ongoing cooperative partnership programs involve the States of
    Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, Indian tribes and federal
    agencies, as well as water, power, and environmental interests. The
    dual objectives of these programs are the recovery of the four Colorado
    River endangered fish species while continuing water use and
    development in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, state law,
    and interstate compacts. Wyoming respectfully requests support and
    action by the Subcommittee that will provide the flowing:
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Ecological
    Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element;
    $697,000 within the $5,631,000 item entitled ``General Program
    Activities'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for fiscal
    year 2007 to allow FWS to continue its necessary participation in the
    Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the same
    level of funding appropriated to the FWS in fiscal years 2004, 2005,
    and 2006.
        2. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
    Operation & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
    support the ongoing operation of the FWS's Ouray National Fish Hatchery
    in Utah during fiscal year 2007.
        3. Allocation of $211,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year
    2007 to meet FWS's Region 2 expense managing and implementing the San
    Juan Program's diverse recovery actions.
        As the Subcommittee members know, these two programs rely upon
    substantial state and other non-federal cost-sharing (which reflects
    strong commitment to these effective partnership efforts) and have the
    support of the Department of the Interior. DOI points to these programs
    as nation models of effective conservation partnering. The requested
    FWS appropriations will be used in concert with other funding to
    continue vitally important recovery program activities. Wyoming thanks
    the Subcommittee for its past assistance. We seek that assistance again
    this year to ensure adequate FWS funding for the upcoming federal
    fiscal year. Thank you.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes

        I write to support the Bureau of Indian Affairs' request for full
    funding of indirect contract support costs in fiscal year 2007 (and for
    a technical correction to the appropriations language); to ask that the
    Committee closely scrutinize and correct the failure of the Indian
    Health Service to make a comparable request for added contract support;
    and to request that the Committee press Secretary Leavitt to finally
    settle the outstanding five year old Zuni contract support litigation
    before Tribes witness a repeat of the Cobell litigation.
        While we share many criticisms across Indian country over the BIA's
    Budget, one bright spot is the Bureau's recognition after last year's
    Supreme Court Cherokee decision that contract support costs are a
    contract obligation that must be paid. As the Supreme Court said, all
    government contracts, including contracts with Tribes, are legal
    obligations that cannot simply be ignored. The BIA has gone out of its
    way in a very difficult budget climate to correctly prioritize payments
    under those contracts, payments that will benefit every Tribe in the
    Nation.
        By contrast, IHS has utterly failed to meet its legal obligations
    to Tribal contractors. This is particularly shocking given that the
    Secretary and IHS lost the Cherokee decision and have had more than a
    year to make necessary adjustments. NIHB, NCAI and Tribal leaders have
    repeatedly urged IHS to prioritize full funding of contract support
    costs, and the failure to do so risks further litigation in the years
    ahead.
        Finally, the time has come for the Secretary and IHS to settle all
    outstanding contract support cost claims. The Supreme Court has spoken.
    The liability is clear. The shortfall amounts are known. And yet, HIS
    is now fighting CSC claims more vigorously than ever, as if protecting
    the Treasury were more important than honoring legal obligations owed
    the Tribes. Before the ongoing litigation becomes another Cobell for
    Indian country, I ask that the Committee bring its influence to bear so
    that these historic claims might at long last be resolved.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Board of Selectmen, Newry Owner, Sunday River
                               Inn, Bethel, Maine

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $2 million from the Forest Legacy Program for the
    Grafton Notch, Maine's #1 Forest Legacy Project this year. The
    President's budget for fiscal year 2007 includes a recommendation of $2
    million for Grafton Notch.
        Programs that fulfill ``essential priorities'' is what President
    Bush called the areas that would get funding in his federal budget for
    2007. My neighbors and I were pleased and proud to see that Maine's top
    conservation priority, Grafton Notch, was also the Bush
    administration's top Forest Legacy priority in the country. The Forest
    Legacy Program helps states conserve private forests and maintain
    traditional forest uses, such as timber production and recreation.
        Recently, 112 Bethel area residents turned out to attend the first
    public meeting dealing with the fate of Grafton Notch and the Mahoosuc
    Range, the spine of the Appalachian Mountains running out of eastern
    New Hampshire into western Maine. They represented a cross-section of
    Maine, a multi-generational group from every walk of life. All in
    attendance shared feelings of enthusiasm and pride in the fact that the
    Grafton Forest project led the list of Forest Legacy projects and
    expressed a desire to protect the Mahoosucs and our rural way of life.
    We are a community that continually comes together to develop and
    support our vision for conserving forests and our forest-based local
    economy, and the Grafton Notch project represents a successful outcome
    of our collaboration.
        Residents of communities in western Maine realize that the 3,688
    acres of the Grafton Forest are essential to keeping the new 42-mile
    Grafton Loop Trail intact, and preserving the east slope of Old Speck
    Mountain and a renowned section of the Appalachian Trail. Mainers have
    long recognized the importance of this parcel as an outlot in a mosaic
    of otherwise conserved lands in the heart of the rapidly developing
    western Maine mountains. The parcel is virtually surrounded by over
    27,000 acres of other conservation lands, including the Grafton Notch
    State Park.
        The effort to protect this wild link between New Hampshire's North
    Country and Maine's North Woods has brought conservation groups,
    community and business groups and individual citizens together in an
    innovative collaboration focused on reinforcing connections between
    economic vitality, quality of life, and land protection. This portion
    of the North Woods is dotted with small towns where a relatively large
    proportion of jobs are directly related to timber harvesting and
    processing. Under the long-term ownership of wood products companies,
    the North Woods have long supported local jobs and small businesses
    through harvesting, wood products manufacture and outdoor recreation.
    Living close to the land has also shaped a way of life as generation
    after generation grew up hunting, fishing, camping, hiking and canoeing
    in the industrial forests where owners gave the public the gift of
    access to their lands. Now, with large-scale economic changes underway
    in the forests, these rural communities are facing a more uncertain
    future, both in terms of job creation and impacts to quality of life.
        As owner of an inn focused on serving outdoor enthusiasts from hard
    core backcountry skiers and whitewater canoeists to wildflower seekers
    and bird watchers. The forests, rivers, streams and mountains of
    Western Maine are the essential resources that attract our guests and
    enable us to educate and entertain them as we guide them through the
    area. The fact that 75 percent of our guests return, many for years and
    years, is testament to their enjoyment of our surroundings and our
    ability to interpret the value of those surroundings to them. In fact,
    the entire economy of this area is dependent upon the continued
    existence of large blocks of undeveloped land where the pursuits of
    forestry, recreation, education and relaxation can coexist. The Grafton
    Forest is an integral part of the conservation mosaic that will insure
    that these activities and business opportunities are available to our
    neighbors and guests and to future generations.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony to your Subcommittee on behalf of the Grafton Notch Forest
    Legacy project.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Skyline Sportsmen's Association

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of
    the Skyline Sportsmen's Association of Butte, Montana, I appreciate the
    opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $2.6 million
    appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the second
    phase of the Selway Creek conservation project in the Beaverhead-
    Deerlodge National Forest.
        Skyline Sportsman's Association has been at the forefront of
    conservation in Southwest Montana for many years. Skyline's early
    activity included reintroducing elk to western mountain ranges and
    continues today in efforts to maintain habitat for wildlife and hunting
    opportunities.
        Organized into nine separate units, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
    National Forest in southwest Montana covers over 3.3 million acres and
    is the largest national forest in the state. Lying in eight southwest
    Montana counties, the forest blends stunning 11,000-foot mountain peaks
    with renowned blue-ribbon fly-fishing streams that have cut deep
    valleys into the lush landscape. The result is an enormous public
    playground that begins in the semi-arid grassland foothills, climbs up
    to the coniferous forests of lodegpole pine and Douglas fir, and
    culminates in the peaks of the Bitterroot and Centennial ranges. An
    extensive system of roads and trails makes it easy for visitors to make
    their own discoveries and adventures within the forest, such as it's
    wilderness trekking in the Lee Metcalf Wilderness, driving the Pioneer
    Mountains Scenic Byway, or camping in one of the fifty campgrounds in
    the forest. Campers, anglers, hikers, skiers, equestrians,
    snowmobilers, and many others enjoy 1,500 miles of trails, 155 high
    mountain lakes, 1,050 miles of great fishing streams, two wilderness
    areas, numerous picnic and boating sites, two downhill ski areas, and
    250 miles of groomed snowmobile trails.
        Located approximately 35 air miles west of Dillon within the
    Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest is the 1,240-acre Selway Creek
    Property. In the second phase of this project, approximately 873 acres
    are now available for acquisition. The property is part of the Dragging
    Y Ranch--one of the largest cow-calf operations in the northern
    Rockies. It has extraordinary scenic, recreation, wildlife and
    fisheries values and is the number one land acquisition priority for
    the forest. It also includes a large wetland system and approximately
    three and a half miles of Selway Creek, an extremely productive fishery
    with large populations of brook and rainbow trout. The creek and its
    many tributaries are regarded by local fishermen as some of the best
    fly-fishing waters in the local area. It also provides an important
    food source for bald eagles, which can often be seen flying up and down
    the valley patrolling for fish. Occupying a long, lush valley bottom,
    the Selway property also provides exceptional habitat for deer and elk,
    particularly in the calving season, which generally lasts from May to
    July. During this period, more than 200 head of elk can often be seen
    on the property at the same time. Other animals routinely occupying or
    migrating through the Selway property include pronghorn antelope, black
    bear, moose, and an occasional gray wolf.
        It should be noted that this project includes two separate
    conservation easements, which the owners will make available for
    purchase once the second phase of the Selway Creek purchase is
    complete. One of these easements would be placed on a nearby 1,381-acre
    property known as the Hilger Ranch, which includes a two-mile stretch
    of Horse Prairie Creek and some of the best riparian bottomland in the
    local area. The other easement would be placed on a 7,249-acre property
    known as the Knox Ranch, which is located approximately 20 miles south
    of Dillon. Both easements would conserve incredible wildlife habitat
    and allow public hunting access every fall. No additional federal
    funding will be required for either of these easement purchases, but
    the impact on the broader landscape will be enormous. However, without
    the federal funding needed to complete the Selway purchase, this
    broader resource protection opportunity will be lost.
        An appropriation of $2.6 million from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2007 is needed to complete the second
    and final phase of this property's acquisition and to ensure that 1,240
    acres of prime wildlife habitat and recreation lands within the
    Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF are forever preserved. It would also serve as a
    catalyst in conserving 8,630 additional acres of private ranchland in
    nearby area.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of a $2.6 million appropriation from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund for the second phase of the Selway Creek
    conservation project in Montana.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
       Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control
                                   Officials

        The State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
    (STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
    (ALAPCO) appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony regarding the
    fiscal year 2007 proposed budget for the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA), particularly federal grants to state and local air
    quality agencies under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act.
    STAPPA and ALAPCO are extremely concerned that EPA's proposed $35.1
    million cut--16 percent--in grants to state and local agencies will be
    devastating and will impair our ability to provide clean, healthful air
    throughout the country. Accordingly, our associations recommend that
    Congress restore this funding and increase the budget request by at
    least $35.1 million, for a total of $220.3 million. Additionally,
    grants for the PM monitoring program should not be shifted from Section
    103 authority to Section 105.
        STAPPA and ALAPCO are the national associations of air quality
    officials in 53 states and territories and over 165 metropolitan areas
    across the country. The Clean Air Act gives state and local air quality
    officials the primary responsibility for implementing our country's
    clean air program. These agencies, on the frontlines of implementation,
    must work to limit or prevent emissions of many pollutants, such as
    particulate matter (PM), ground-level ozone and toxic air pollution.
    They must implement activities designed to reduce those pollutants and
    protect public health and welfare, including, among many others,
    monitoring air quality, developing emissions inventories, preparing
    State Implementation Plans, permitting sources, inspecting facilities,
    enforcing regulations, educating the public and responding to citizens'
    complaints.
        Our concern about the effects of the proposed funding cuts is
    shared by many members of the United States Senate. In fact, a
    bipartisan group of 33 Senators sent a letter on April 7, 2006 to
    Senators Conrad Burns and Byron Dorgan of this Subcommittee urging that
    funding for state and local air grants be restored to $220.3 million in
    fiscal year 2007 and that funds for PM monitoring not be shifted from
    Section 103 authority to Section 105.

                            AIR POLLUTION IN AMERICA

        While great strides have been made in reducing levels of air
    pollution, millions of Americans continue to breathe unhealthful air.
    Over 160 million tons of pollution are emitted annually in this country
    and more than 150 million people live in areas that violate at least
    one of the six health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards
    (NAAQS). Fine PM alone is responsible for up to 30,000 premature deaths
    each year and causes other health problems, such as aggravation of
    existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, damage to lung tissue,
    impaired breathing, irregular heart beat, heart attacks and lung
    cancer.
        There are many other pollutants that threaten the health of the
    public. New information just released as part of EPA's National-Scale
    Air Toxics Assessment presents a very troubling picture about the
    prevalence of toxic air pollutants. For example, when the cancer risks
    from all air toxics compounds listed as known, probable or possible
    carcinogens based on human data are combined, EPA estimates that more
    than 270 million people live in census tracts where the combined upper-
    bound lifetime cancer risk exceeded 10 in one million risk (one in one
    million risk is generally considered acceptable). Additionally, more
    than 92 percent of the population in this country lives in areas with
    ``hazard index'' values for respiratory toxicity greater than 1.0 (with
    1.0 being the level above which adverse effects to the respiratory
    system occur).

                     FUNDING FOR STATE AND LOCAL AIR GRANTS

        State and local air pollution control programs are funded through
    state and local appropriations, the federal permit fee program under
    Title V of the Clean Air Act, state and local permit and emissions
    fees, and federal grants under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air
    Act. Section 103 has usually funded specific monitoring efforts, while
    Section 105 supports the foundation of state and local air quality
    programs, including, but not limited to, personnel.
        The Clean Air Act authorizes the federal government to provide
    grants up to 60 percent of the cost of state and local air quality
    programs, while state and local agencies must provide a 40-percent
    match (as per Section 105). In reality, however, the federal government
    provides approximately 25 percent of the total state/local air budget,
    while state and local governments supply 75 percent (not including
    income from Title V permit fees, which state and local agencies collect
    from major sources and can fund only permit-related activities). In a
    time of limited state and local resources, where state and local
    governments are straining to maintain existing programs, additional
    federal funding is needed to meet the challenges of air quality
    programs.
        The total amount needed for state and local efforts to implement
    the Clean Air Act is estimated to be in excess of $1 billion each year.
    If EPA were to supply 60 percent of that amount, as the Clean Air Act
    envisioned, federal grants would amount to close to $600 million
    annually. However, the fiscal year 2006 budget for state and local air
    quality grants under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act was
    $220.3 million, which is far short of the amount needed. Furthermore,
    over the past decade, federal grants for state and local air agencies
    to operate their programs (not including the Section 103 monitoring
    program) have decreased by 25 percent in terms of purchasing power
    (based upon U.S. Department of Labor inflation statistics).

                        FISCAL YEAR 2007 PROPOSED BUDGET

        The President's fiscal year 2007 budget request not only fails to
    provide necessary additional funds, but would decrease state and local
    grants by $35.1 million (16 percent), from $220.3 million to $185.2
    million in the following manner: (1) $15.6 million from the Section 105
    grant program; (2) $17 million from the Section 103 fine particulate
    monitoring program (also, under the fiscal year 2007 budget request,
    the funds remaining in the fine particulate monitoring program--$25
    million--would be funded under the Section 105 authority, rather than
    the Section 103 authority, so state and local agencies would have to
    provide additional matching funds, pursuant to Section 105
    requirements); and (3) $2.5 million from the regional planning
    organizations.

       BUDGET CUTS WOULD SEVERELY UNDERMINE STATE AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY
                                    EFFORTS

        Cuts of this magnitude would severely hamper state and local
    efforts to provide important public health protections. The reductions
    would be detrimental to critical efforts to reduce ozone, small
    particle and toxic air pollution, enforcement and compliance
    activities, monitoring and a host of other programs that are key to
    improving and preserving healthful air quality. The impacts of the cuts
    would be further exacerbated by the budget's proposal to shift grants
    in the PM monitoring program from Section 103 authority (which does not
    require a 40-percent match) to Section 105 authority. Under the budget
    proposal, state and local agencies would need to supply additional
    funds in order to accept the federal grants.
        State and local air quality agencies face several very important
    new requirements that will be costly to implement. For example, EPA has
    designated over 475 counties across the nation as nonattainment for the
    PM and ozone air quality standards. States must develop and submit
    State Implementation Plans (SIPs) by 2007 and 2008, identifying
    specifically how those areas will meet the health based standard by the
    deadlines.
        Very recently, STAPPA and ALAPCO asked state and local air agencies
    to estimate the real-world ramifications of a 16-percent budget cut to
    their programs. The associations compiled those estimates into a report
    entitled, Impact of Proposed fiscal year 2007 Budget Cuts on State and
    Local Air Quality Agencies (March 14, 2006), which paints a vivid
    picture of the difficulties state and local air agencies would have
    accommodating such deep cuts. This report has been provided to each
    member of the Appropriations Committee and additional copies are
    available from STAPPA/ALAPCO (www.4cleanair.org).
        The report contains alarming information about what the proposed
    budget could mean for air agencies. If the proposed reductions occur,
    on average, each state will lose $700,000 (i.e., an average reduction
    of approximately $340,000 in fine particulate monitoring and $360,000
    from the other elements of the air quality program). While some
    agencies will experience greater or lesser reductions than the average,
    all agencies will likely be affected by these decreases.
        Most state and local agencies reported that they would be forced to
    lay off staff or leave current vacancies unfilled. This loss of staff
    and expertise is very significant because, even if there are budget
    increases in future years, the trained personnel that leave the agency
    would likely be unavailable to the agency in the future and training
    new staff would be very costly.
        Many agencies reported that they would have to shut down existing
    monitors or otherwise curtail their monitoring programs. Many also
    reported that the reductions would impair their ability to conduct
    inspections and carry out enforcement activities, thus rendering the
    clean air requirements less effective. Additionally, permits for non-
    Title V sources (e.g., minor sources) will take longer to process and
    customer service will diminish.
        The funding cuts could seriously impair the ability of state and
    local agencies to prepare new plans for implementing ozone and PM
    standards. The development of effective State Implementation Plans
    (SIPs) is essential to ensure that measures will be adopted that reduce
    air pollution and protect public health. Without funds to develop and
    carry out the SIPs, several areas currently meeting the standards may
    no longer attain them. Not only would air quality worsen, but
    nonattainment areas are subject to more onerous requirements.
        Several agencies noted that they could be forced to return portions
    of their programs to EPA due to a lack of funds to carry them out. Not
    only will this place excessive burdens on EPA, but there would be an
    additional loss of resources for the air program as state and local
    funds that are currently leveraged as part of the matching requirements
    would no longer be spent on those Clean Air Act activities.
        The budget cuts would be further exacerbated by the proposal to
    shift the fine particulate monitoring program from Section 103 to
    Section 105 authority, requiring a 40-percent match. Some agencies do
    not currently have additional funds for the match. Because of two-year
    legislative cycles or the timing of budget development, some agencies
    can not supply additional matching funds without a reasonable
    transition period in which to make adjustments. They could be forced to
    turn away grant funds.
        Perhaps most troubling of all, if the proposed reductions occur,
    several local air quality agencies face the very real possibility of
    having to close their operations entirely. This would be a terrible
    loss for those local areas.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The proposed budget for fiscal year 2007 calls for a significant
    reduction in Section 103 and 105 grants at the same time that the
    workload of state and local air agencies is dramatically increasing.
    Such cuts will have a devastating effect on many state and local air
    agencies' programs. We understand that the federal budget is finite and
    Congress must make very difficult choices. However, air pollution poses
    a very serious threat to public health and the environment. In fact, we
    are not aware of any other environmental problem that presents a
    greater risk. The benefits of air quality programs have been estimated
    to exceed their costs many times over. Therefore, when establishing
    priorities for federal funding, it is prudent to identify the
    improvement and protection of air quality as one of the government's
    highest priorities.
        STAPPA and ALAPCO recommend that the fiscal year 2007 budget for
    federal grants to state and local air quality agencies under Sections
    103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act be increased above the President's
    request by at least $35.1 million (from $185.2 million to $220.3
    million), restoring it to the final fiscal year 2006 level.
    Additionally, grants for the particulate monitoring program should not
    be shifted from Section 103 authority to Section 105.
        Thank you very much for your consideration of our recommendations.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Skokomish Tribe

        My name is Gordon James, I am Chairman of the Skokomish Tribe of
    Washington State. The Skokomish Indian Reservation is a rural community
    located at the base of the Olympic Peninsula with a population of over
    1,000 people. The Skokomish Tribe appreciates the work of the
    Subcommittee and ask that you provide funding in areas that are key to
    the continuing development of tribal communities: Law Enforcement and
    Education.

                                LAW ENFORCEMENT

        The Skokomish Tribe requests increased funding for law enforcement
    programs within the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        In the last ten years, the Skokomish Tribal Police Department has
    grown from one (1) untrained officer, to a force of thirteen (13)
    Washington State/BIA certified law enforcement officers. In addition,
    the Skokomish Tribe's Public Safety Department provides the only marine
    law enforcement and rescue services in a thirty-five mile radius of the
    southern Hood Canal. The Police Department works very closely with non-
    Tribal law enforcement agencies to combat the scourge of drug
    trafficking in this isolated rural area. These Tribal officers play a
    key role in the detection and bust of methamphetamine labs on the
    Reservation.
        The Tribe experienced a significant growth in the Reservation's
    population during the 1980s and early 1990s. Along with the increased
    population, the Skokomish Indian Tribe experienced an alarming increase
    in the extent and severity of drug abuse among the residents of the
    Reservation. According to data from the Tribe's Alcohol Service
    Program, more than 53 percent of young adults ages 18-24 are presently
    impacted by drug abuse dependency. Unfortunately, along with increased
    drug use, the community has had to endure a significant escalation in
    associated crimes, including drug manufacturing and selling, armed
    assaults, domestic violence, and burglary. In the last six months, the
    Tribe's officers have responded to 1,800 calls, which resulted in 300
    arrests--many involving non-Indian people. More than one-third of these
    arrests involved substance abuse. It is clear to the community and the
    partnership of law enforcement personnel and agencies involved that if
    the Tribe is forced to close its department, this rural community will
    become a haven for drug manufacturing and selling, and associated
    crimes.
        Despite the growth in law enforcement need, there has not been a
    corresponding growth in law enforcement funding. The Skokomish Tribe is
    not receiving an appropriate share of funding from the BIA, as compared
    to other Tribes in the state. To address this we ask that Congress
    increase this funding overall.

                                   EDUCATION

        The BIA is proposing the elimination of Johnson O'Malley funding.
    The Johnson O'Malley program provides funding to local public schools
    to provide outreach and academic assistance to Indian children
    attending these schools. At Skokomish we have a number of children who
    attend two public schools. Hood Canal Elementary and Jr. High and
    Shelton High School. Both are public schools, and without the JOM
    program, we could not track or assist our children to succeed
    academically. We believe the JOM funding is money well spent and we
    would urge Congress to maintain funding for this Program.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Southwestern Water Conservation District

        The Southwestern Water Conservation District was established by the
    Colorado General Assembly in 1941 to conserve and protect the water of
    the San Juan and Dolores Rivers and their tributaries in nine counties
    in Southwest Colorado. Therefore, we are requesting your support for
    the following appropriations in fiscal year 2007 to the Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS) for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
    Implementation Program and the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
    Recovery Program, as recommended in the President's budget.
        1. Allocation of $211,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year
    2007 to meet FWS' Region 2 expenses managing and implementing the San
    Juan Recovery Program.
        2. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
    Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
    support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
    in Utah.
        3. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Ecological
    Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element;
    $697,000 within the $5,631,000 item entitled ``General Program
    Activities'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to allow FWS to
    continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado River
    Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
        We thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee's
    assistance for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the South Yuba River Citizens League

        The South Yuba River Citizens League (SYRCL) appreciates the
    opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $2.5 million
    appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Tahoe
    NF Middle Yuba projects.
        SYRCL was established in 1983 as a river education and advocacy
    group and was legally incorporated as a 501(c)3 organization shortly
    thereafter. SYRCL has an annual operating budget of over $800,000 and
    is regarded as a highly-effective and multi-faceted watershed
    organization regionally, state-wide and nationally. In 2003 Governor
    Arnold Schwartzenegger awarded SYRCL the ``Governor's Environmental and
    Economic Leadership Award'' in the area of ``watershed and ecosystem
    restoration.'' With a membership base of 5,000 people and mission of
    protecting the 1,300 square mile Yuba Watershed, SYRCL serves scores of
    small rural communities as well as rapidly expanding towns and cities
    in the Sierra Nevada mountains.
        In fiscal year 2007, lands important to SYRCL are available for
    acquisition in the Tahoe National Forest:
        Middle Yuba (Phase I).--Twenty-one parcels of land, covering over
    4,000 acres, are available for acquisition over the next two years in
    the vicinity of the Middle Yuba River in Sierra and Nevada Counties.
    The first phase of this project calls for the acquisition of eleven
    parcels, consisting of approximately 2,550 acres in fiscal year 2007.
    According to Forest Service biologists, there have been bald eagle
    sightings nearby, and the area has historically served as spotted owl
    territory. The Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) crosses one of the parcels and
    this higher-elevation mixed conifer forest is especially popular with
    PCT hikers. In addition to its recreational values, these parcels
    provide riparian corridor habitat for numerous species, not only along
    the Middle Yuba, but also along key tributaries of the North Yuba
    River, such as Milton Creek. Acquisition of these important lands can
    go forward with a $2.5 million appropriation from the Land Water
    Conservation Fund.
        The first phase of this project can be acquired with an
    appropriation of $2.5 million in fiscal year 2007. Once protected, they
    will help ensure public access, critical habitat protection, and water
    protection in the High Sierra. I urge you to include this project in
    the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
        Thank you for considering this request.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Penobscot Nation of the State of Maine

        Chairman Burns, Ranking Member Dorgan and Honorable Subcommittee
    Members, thank you very much for accepting and reviewing the testimony
    of the Penobscot Nation of the State of the Maine. The Penobscot
    Nation's specific requests for the fiscal year 2007 Department of
    Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs budget includes $250,000 for the
    Tribe's Wildlife Management Program, to fund four full-time game
    wardens, $150,000 for Community Fire Protection, and $100,000 for
    Economic Development.
        The Penobscot Nation has a number of serious concerns with the
    Administration's proposed fiscal year 2007 Bureau of Indian Affairs
    budget. While the President proposed a nominal increase of $4.4 million
    to overall Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA), a number of programs that
    are of vital importance to the Penobscot Nation would be decreased or
    even completely eliminated, including the Community Fire Protection
    Program. The Penobscot Nation, as do most tribal communities, relies
    heavily upon BIA funding to support their essential community needs,
    such as fire protection, law enforcement, education, and housing, among
    other things. Further, the Penobscot Nation is working on several
    economic development projects with the anticipation that they will come
    to fruition and the economic gains will assist us in attaining our
    ultimate goal of self-sufficiency. However, if Congress enacts the
    proposed budget reductions, all of our already strained resources will
    once again be expended on maintaining limited basic human needs with no
    community hope of achieving the ``American Dream'' or more importantly,
    our ``Self-Sufficiency Dream''.
        What is more, Congress must consider the impact of inflationary
    costs. We direct your attention to the ``Quiet Crisis--Federal Funding
    and Unmet Needs In Indian Country'' a report prepared by the U.S.
    Commission on Civil Rights in 2003. After a detailed analysis, the
    Commission concluded that funding for programs for Indian tribes simply
    has not kept up with spending for non-native programs, or with the
    increase in population growth in Indian country. Specifically, for BIA
    the Commission noted that, when adjusting for inflation, the impact of
    TPA funding shortfalls becomes more evident as the TPA budget has
    diminished the real spending power of tribal governments dramatically.
    Over the period of the report, 1998-2003, TPA spending power has lost
    $36.5 million or 4.4 percent.
        These inflationary costs coupled with flat spending or reductions
    make it impossible for tribal governments to continue to operate
    programs that the Federal government has a legal obligation through
    treaties, settlement acts, and statues to provide. Tribal self-
    determination will be endangered if these reductions are enacted.
    Tribes, like the Penobscot Nation, who have no other funding sources to
    pay for the program operational shortfalls may be left with no
    alternative but to consider retrocession of these programs. Under the
    Indian Self-Determination Act we can retrocede a program we are
    operating back to the United States and the agency involved (BIA or IHS
    for instance) would be required to send personnel to Maine, establish
    offices and take over the management and operation of that program. We
    can assure you there is no way they could operate these programs at the
    funding levels they are providing to us.
        Specific concerns regarding the proposed fiscal year 2007 Bureau of
    Indian Affairs budget are as follows:
        Wildlife Management Program.--Under the Maine Indian Land Claims
    Settlement Act of 1980, the Penobscot Nation has exclusive jurisdiction
    over lands held in trust for the Tribe by the United States. With a
    recent acquisition of 26,000 acres in trust, the Penobscot Nation now
    has approximately 100,000 acres of land in trust. However, the Tribe
    only has funding sufficient to employ two full-time game wardens to
    enforce tribal fish and wildlife regulations on our lands. The
    Penobscot Nation has a severe need for additional funding, in the
    amount of $250,000, to employ four additional full-time game wardens to
    help protect our fish and wildlife resources. As anecdotal evidence of
    the acute need for increased regulation on our lands, the first day
    tribal game wardens patrolled our recently-acquired lands they issued
    five citations for violations of tribal fish and wildlife regulations.
    There are also homeland security concerns, as three years ago a tribal
    game warden incarcerated five individuals crossing the border from
    Quebec at Alderstream, one of whom was on the U.S. terrorist's list.
        Fire Protection.--One major concern that the Penobscot Nation has
    regarding the fiscal year 2007 BIA budget pertains to the proposed
    total elimination of the Community Fire Protection program. Proposed
    elimination of this program directly contradicts the Department of
    Interior's Strategic Plan (2003-2005) which clearly identifies it as
    one of its four missions to provide for the ``Protection of Lives,
    Resources, & Property''. Certainly, the BIA's Community Fire Protection
    contributes to fulfilling this mission.
        Currently, the Penobscot Nation's BIA funding for Community Fire
    Protection is only $70,000. This inadequate funding level provides only
    enough funds to pay for 1 part-time firefighter and minimal operational
    costs, such as insurance, fuel, equipment/vehicle maintenance, and fire
    pagers. Over the last few years, it has become increasingly evident
    that the Penobscot Nation's population and infrastructure has grown to
    the extent that it warrants a full-time fire department. The Penobscot
    Nation has approximately 300 single-family homes which house
    approximately 545 people, 16 elderly apartments, a school with 100+
    students in attendance, a six bed assisted living complex, and six
    tribal buildings housing approximately 125 employees. Additionally, we
    are currently in the planning stages of building 15 new single family
    homes.
        In addition to our infrastructure growth, it has become
    progressively more difficult to operate the fire department on a
    volunteer basis. Many of the volunteers have outside employment
    obligations and are not available to attend fire calls throughout the
    day. Additionally, many of these volunteer firefighters have lost their
    required firefighter certifications because of their inability to
    attend the required training sessions. In realizing that the Penobscot
    Nation was unable to provide adequate fire protection to our community
    because of inadequate funding, we met with our neighboring town's (Old
    Town, Maine), Fire Department officials to discuss the possibility of
    contracting with them for our fire protection needs. Unfortunately, the
    town reported to us that they could not enter into a contractual
    agreement. Further, at this meeting the mutual-aid agreement between
    Old Town and the Penobscot Nation was reviewed and we were reminded
    that this agreement contained a provision that affirmed we would be
    responsible for providing 4 full-time firefighters for fire calls.
    Currently, we are unable to comply with this provision and are
    potentially jeopardizing this mutual-aid agreement. The Penobscot
    Nation's requests that funding for the Community Fire Protection
    Program be restored and an additional $150,000 be added to our TPA Base
    to provide for the protection of the lives, resources, and property or
    our people and our government. These funds will be utilized to employ
    full-time firefighters.
        Economic Development.--Presently, economic development within our
    community is non-existent and it's an on-going challenge each day in
    determining how to pay for basic essential community services.
    Furthermore, with the escalating decline in federal funding it is
    becoming increasingly more evident that our community's welfare relies
    upon our own self-sufficiency. The Penobscot Nation is currently
    working on several economic development projects, including a Mail-
    Order Pharmacy Service and a Native American Manufacturing Initiative.
    The Penobscot Nation is confident that these projects have the
    potential to change our devastating economic conditions. In fact, the
    State of Maine in recognizing the tribe's economic plight and potential
    of these projects, is being supportive and is working with us. They
    have assisted us in obtaining State grant funds for both the Mail-Order
    Pharmacy Service and the Native-American Manufacturing Initiative. In
    the latter instance, the Maine Technology Center is helping us to try
    and obtain government contracts in the manufacturing industry.
    Unfortunately, the State of Maine is dealing with its own budget crisis
    and can only provide very limited financial resources.
        However, in developing both of these projects it has become
    apparent that the Penobscot Nation needs an Economic Development
    Specialist. Regrettably, we have not been able to secure the financial
    resources to employ such a person and are presently forced into relying
    upon existing staff to perform this function. However, these staff
    persons do not have the expertise or required time to devote to these
    economic development initiatives. Therefore it is imperative for the
    successful development of these projects and other economic ventures
    that we secure funding to employ a full-time Economic Development
    Specialist. Once these two economic development ventures are realized
    the Penobscot Nation will be financially capable of retaining the
    Economic Development Specialist.
        The Penobscot Nation requests that one-time funding in the amount
    of $80,000 be added to their BIA TPA to obtain a full-time Economic
    Development Director. We feel confident that this funding will assist
    us in achieving our ``self-sufficiency'' goal, including our ability to
    retain this position.
        Direct Contract Support.--The Penobscot Nation applauds the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs for taking positive steps toward proposing a policy
    that recognizes contract support costs associated with tribal Self-
    Determination programs and for taking similar approaches taken by the
    Indian Health Service, particularly with regards to direct contract
    support costs. However, the Penobscot Nation supports the
    recommendation of the National Contract Support Cost Policy Work Group
    (composed of tribal and Bureau representatives) to utilize existing
    Awarding Officials in the negotiation of ``direct contract support
    cost'' instead of BIA proposal to utilize the National Business Center
    (NBC). This concern relates to staffing and the cost of implementing
    the policy.
        With the number of tribes operating Bureau programs under the
    Indian Self-Determination Act, it would be extremely difficult for the
    NBC to negotiate the agreements in a timely manner. Not only are there
    a sufficient number of Awarding Officials, but they are more
    knowledgeable of the true costs associated with operating Self-
    Determination programs than are officials at NBC. We are also opposed
    to the Bureau's use of contract support funds to pay the NBC for
    performing this function.
        Our second recommendation concerns a ``transition period''
    strategy. We propose the Bureau adopt an approach similar to that used
    by the Indian Health Service in adopting a formula that essentially
    represents 15 percent of direct salaries in the initial year then
    allowing tribes to renegotiate their ``direct contract support costs''
    amounts in subsequent years. This approach will: (1) ease the burden of
    negotiating ``direct contract support cost'' amounts in the initial
    year and in subsequent years; (2) reduce the amount of funding required
    to implement the new policy; (3) allow the Bureau, Department and
    tribes to seek increased appropriations for ``direct contract support
    costs'', and (4) allow the Bureau and tribes to become familiar with
    the new policy. Again, we commend BIA commitment to establish an annual
    Contract Support Cost Work Group and its commitment to collect data and
    prepare an annual contract support cost shortfall report. However, we
    are requesting your assistance in directing the Bureau of Indians to
    move forward in adopting a Contract Support Policy with meaningful
    consultation with the Tribes.
        Finally, the Penobscot Nation would like to see the integration of
    employee fringe benefits into the calculation of direct contract
    support costs. This is another area where parity between tribal and
    non-tribal funding for similar programs and functions is necessary.
        The Penobscot Nation appreciates the opportunity to express their
    concerns pertaining to the proposed fiscal year 2007 Department of
    Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs budget and your attention to these
    crucial matters. Thank you.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Tri-County Water Conservancy District

        We are requesting your support for the following appropriations in
    fiscal year 2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper
    Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River
    Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as recommended in the
    President's budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Ecological
    Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element;
    $697,000 within the $5,631,000 item entitled ``General Program
    Activities'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS
    to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado River
    Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
        2. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
    Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
    support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
    in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $211,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year
    2007 to meet FWS' Region 2 expenses managing and implementing the San
    Juan Recovery Program.
        We thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee's
    assistance for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Highlands Coalition, the Litchfield County
           League of Women Voters, and the Garden Club of Litchfield

        Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments about the fiscal
    year 2007 appropriations for the Highlands Conservation Act.
      --I urge you to provide full funding of the Highlands Conservation
            Act.
      --I also call your attention to the Litchfield Farms project.
        The four-state Highlands region includes the northwestern portion
    of the state of Connecticut, including the towns of Litchfield, Kent,
    Salisbury, Cornwall and New Milford, to name only a few of the historic
    and scenic places nestled into the Litchfield Hills.
        Tourism is a major industry and source of employment in the
    Litchfield Highlands. Our fall foliage and pristine rolling hills
    attract visitors not only from other states but from the entire world.
    But we are facing a serious threat.
        Our treasured natural resources may be ``sprawled'' out of
    existence in the next decade or two. We are in a desperate ``save it or
    pave it'' race to preserve our most important environmental assets
    before they are bulldozed for strip malls and housing developments.
        Thus we put an extremely high priority on full funding under the
    new Highlands Conservation Act. We urge you to provide the entire $10
    million authorized, plus the $1 million authorized for USDA Forest
    Service technical assistance and research in the Highlands area.
        This is a new program enacted, with bipartisan support, too late in
    2004 to be included in last year's fiscal year 2006 appropriations
    cycle. Therefore, fiscal year 2007 is the first opportunity to fund
    this very important and urgently needed program.
        The Connecticut Highlands region is facing an inundation of people
    pushing outward from the major metropolitan areas to our south. For us,
    protection of our open spaces with their incredible environmental
    values--drinking water source lands, forests and farms, wildlife and
    endangered plant and animal habitats, and passive recreation--is a top
    priority.
        Connecticut is putting its own public and private money where its
    mouth is on this issue.
      --Last summer, the state enacted legislation to impose a $30 real
            estate document recording fee which will generate nearly $15
            million annually for matching grants for preserving open space
            and farmland.
      --State bonding authority for open space and farmland preservation
            also was increased.
      --This year, a major push is being made in the state legislature to
            enact even more bonding authority for land preservation.
      --Locally, the town of Litchfield established an ``Open Space and
            Land Acquisition Fund.''
      --Private citizens are participating through half a dozen area land
            trusts in raising private funds locally for acquisition of high
            priority parcels.
      --Local corporate, nonprofit and individual donors sponsored the
            Litchfield Hills Greenprint, a GIS mapping project to identify
            places that have significant environmental values.
      --More than 130 people turned out in the tiny borough of Bantam on a
            cold February week night to attend a Garden Club public forum
            on how we could work together to preserve high priority open
            spaces.
        The Litchfield Farms in our town is one of those high value places
    with especially strong environmental values. This is a 753-acre
    property spanning two watersheds (Bantam and Naugatuck). It has large
    areas of wetlands, prime agricultural soils, diverse forests, state-
    listed endangered species, and extraordinary scenic vistas. In fact,
    elevations of up to 1,300 feet make it one of the highest points in the
    Litchfield Township and the adjoining city of Torrington.
        This exceptional property is under imminent threat of development.
    It is difficult to know whether or for how long the window can be kept
    open for groups to amass the very substantial funds needed to acquire
    this special land and prevent it from becoming rolling hills of condos,
    town houses, starter mansions and shopping centers.
        Connecticut's Governor Jodi Rell has designated the Litchfield
    Farms in the request to the Interior Department jointly submitted by
    the four Highlands states (Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and
    Pennsylvania). She asked for $2.5 million for the Litchfield Farms.
        Federal support for acquisition of the Litchfield Farms at this
    $2.5 million level would be possible only if the Highlands Conservation
    program receives full funding at the $10 million level for land
    conservation partnership. The Administration's request of $2 million
    for all four states combined would not be sufficient to assure that the
    Litchfield Farms could be saved.
        A $10 million full-funding appropriation, which would allow $2.5
    million for the Litchfield Farms lands, not only would indicate that
    the federal government places a high value on the Litchfield Farms
    lands, it also would encourage national, state and local groups to
    redouble their efforts to raise the additional funds required to
    acquire these exceptional lands for conservation purposes.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of the Mountaineers

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $1.7 million for the Cascade Checkerboard Program in
    the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington.
        The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest extends more than 140
    miles along the western slopes of the Cascade Mountains from the
    Canadian border to Mt. Rainier National Park. The forest covers
    portions of Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, and Pierce Counties. Over
    3.5 million people, or 62 percent of the state's population, live
    within a 70-mile drive of the forest. Another 1.5 million residents of
    the Vancouver, British Columbia, metro area are also within easy reach
    of the northern part of the forest. This large population base, coupled
    with easy road access, makes the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest
    one of the most visited national forests in the country.
        The central Cascades are bisected east and west by the Burlington
    Northern Santa Fe Railroad and by Interstate 90. The original railroad
    through the Snoqualmie Pass was constructed by the Northern Pacific
    Railway, which received land grants from the federal government in
    alternating square miles along the route. The legacy of this 19th
    century land grant system is the large checkerboard ownership pattern
    that threatens this critical area of wildlife connectivity and
    migratory movement north and south. Because of the checkerboard pattern
    in the Central Cascades and the relatively limited amount of protected
    land, this region has acted as a bottleneck for migratory wildlife.
    Private timber companies continue to log their land grant parcels and
    have started to sell off cut over lands for real estate development.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 are two parcels
    located in the vicinity of Stampede Pass and Dandy Pass along the crest
    of the Cascade Mountains. Located less than 50 miles from Seattle,
    these proposed acquisitions are primarily within the boundaries of the
    Mt Baker-Snoqualmie NF, with a corner of the Stampede Pass parcel lying
    in the adjacent Wenatchee NF. In addition to their key role in
    providing wildlife connectivity, they are very important for
    recreational purposes.
        The 618-acre Stampede Pass parcel, which is available for $975,000,
    contains two miles of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT). It
    is a priority of the Pacific Crest Trail Association and its
    acquisition will provide permanent protection for this segment of the
    trail.
        The 640-acre Dandy Pass parcel lies just south of the PCT and is
    available for $725,000. Its acquisition will provide additional
    protection for the landscape visible from the trail. In addition to
    hiking, visitors can enjoy camping and cross-country skiing. Public
    ownership will also ensure public access to adjacent Forest Service
    lands.
        Acquisition of these parcels is part of an ongoing, multi-year
    program of consolidating lands in the central Cascades, which has long
    been a Forest Service priority. This program seeks to consolidate
    federal land management priorities and prevent future fragmentation due
    to subdivision and other development. Fragmented forestlands present
    difficult and expensive challenges to forest managers with respect to
    fire suppression, containment and eradication of invasive species,
    maintaining wildlife habitat, limits on public access, and protection
    of watersheds. Although several parcels were acquired by the Forest
    Service through its I-90 Option Lands project, many more critical
    parcels, including Stampede Pass and Dandy Pass, also need to be
    protected.
        The acquisitions of the Stampede Pass and Dandy Pass parcels will
    improve forest management on a landscape level that will enhance
    recreational activities and secure vital wildlife migration corridors.
    An fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $1.7 million from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund for the Forest Service Cascade Checkerboard
    program is necessary to bring these lands into protected public
    ownership.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity to present this testimony
    and for your consideration of this request.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this
    opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's recommendations for
    fiscal year 2007 appropriations. My name is Jimmie Powell and I am the
    Director of Government Relations at the Conservancy.
        The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit organization
    dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is
    to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent
    the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they
    need to survive. Our on-the-ground conservation work is carried out in
    all 50 states and in 27 foreign countries and is supported by
    approximately one million individual members. We have helped conserve
    nearly 15 million acres of land in the United States and Canada and
    more than 102 million acres with local partner organizations globally.
        Wildland Fire Management.--The Conservancy commends the President
    for maintaining stable levels of Hazardous Fuels Reduction funding. We
    have five priorities to promote the restoration of fire-dependent
    forests. First, we recommend that the Committee establish funding for
    emergency fire suppression to avoid the problem of ``fire borrowing''
    that diverts program dollars away from their primary purpose in years
    when fire suppression needs exceed the annual appropriation. The
    Conservancy also supports the President's budget direction to allow
    Forest Service regions to retain unobligated fire suppression funds for
    use in hazardous fuel reduction in subsequent years as a critical
    incentive to control suppression costs. Second, we recommend that the
    Committee direct the agencies to spend Hazardous Fuels Reduction
    funding on projects that are collaboratively developed (through a
    Community Wildfire Protection Plan or other collaborative developed
    forest or watershed plans). Third, restoration of altered fire regimes
    will, in the long run, result in diminished costs for wildfire
    suppression. Therefore, we request that the Committee encourage
    Wildland Fire Use by directing the agencies to report acres burned
    through Wildland Fire Use as fuels treatments. Fourth, we recommend
    that the Committee direct the agencies to use hazardous fuel reduction
    performance measures that include Fire Regime Condition Class as the
    metric to gauge treatment effectiveness. Fifth, the Conservancy
    believes that forest health cannot be addressed without developing
    commercial markets for the wood by-products of restoration. Thus, we
    support an appropriation of $50 million in the Hazardous Fuels budget
    line item for implementation of Section 210 of the Energy Policy Act of
    2005 (commercial biomass use).
        Forest Health Management.--America's forests are under siege by
    numerous exotic insects and diseases, and the pace of introductions
    appears to be increasing. We recommend that the Forest Health
    Management (FHM) program receive $130 million. This is the principal
    Forest Service program that protects the Nation's forests from
    economically and ecologically damaging non-native pests and pathogens,
    including the Asian Longhorned Beetle, Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock
    Woolly Adelgid, Sudden Oak Death, Sirex woodwasp, and redbay wilt.
    Additional funds to this program, for example, are important to help
    contain the Emerald Ash Borer. This introduced pest threatens ash
    forests across North America. Its quarantine area now covers nearly
    20,000 square miles in Michigan's Lower Peninsula and nearby areas in
    Ohio and Indiana and Ontario. Expanded USFS engagement would help
    detect additional infestations, assist in outreach programs designed to
    curtail movement of firewood and other vectors, and advise states and
    private landowners on management practices. A particularly important
    FHM program element is the Early Detection project which provides
    flexibility to address immediate needs when new pests are discovered.
    In 2005 and 2006, for example, FHM provided crucial immediate funding
    to assess the impacts of the redbay wilt in Georgia and South Carolina
    and two introduced insects in Guam. Sustained investments in this
    program are essential to containing the growing threat to the
    ecological and economic values of the Nation's forest resources caused
    by an ongoing invasion of introduced insects and pathogens.
        Invasive Species.--Next to habitat loss, invasion by non-native
    species is the most pervasive threat to native biodiversity. The
    Conservancy supports funding at the President's request, or greater,
    for the Interdepartmental National Invasive Species Crosscut Budget. It
    is important to coordinate Federal agency actions to achieve
    prevention, early detection, rapid response, control and management and
    restoration of invasive species problems. We also support enhanced
    funding for three areas identified by DOI as fiscal year 2007
    priorities: leafy spurge on the Great Plains, tamarisk in the Southwest
    and invasive plant control in Florida. We also support continuation of
    the highly successful program of spartina eradication in Willapa Bay
    and request $600,000 in refuge operations for Willapa National Wildlife
    Refuge and $600,000 in targeted Partners for Fish and Wildlife funds
    for this purpose.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund.--We are very concerned with the
    declining levels of support for the nation's principal source of
    federal land acquisition funding. The nation is richer because of our
    historic commitment to protecting biologically significant lands. Yet,
    development pressures are unrelenting, threatening to degrade
    nationally significant resources in once remote areas as diverse as the
    Eastern Shore of Virginia NWR, Georgia's Chattahoochee NF and Montana's
    Blackfoot Valley. We recommend a funding level of $220 million, the
    average of funding over the past 5 years and about the same as the
    President's fiscal year 2005 request. The Conservancy specifically
    proposes funding of 25 biologically rich land acquisition projects
    totaling $57.8 million. Priorities include multi-year projects to
    protect Ivory-billed woodpecker habitat in the Cache River NWR and a
    key inholding at St. Marks NWR. Several projects, including the Rocky
    Mountain Front Conservation Area and Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR,
    utilize conservation easements to achieve important conservation
    objectives while maintaining the integrity of working landscapes. We
    also urge the Subcommittee to restore funding for the state-side of
    LWCF.
        Forest Legacy.--This program is an increasingly popular and
    successful model of a non-regulatory conservation approach based on
    partnerships between federal and state governments and private
    landowners. The huge potential of this program to achieve conservation
    goals while maintaining sustainable use of private lands requires a
    significant funding increase. We strongly support an $80 million
    appropriation for this program, including such priority projects as the
    Upper Great Lakes Forest in Michigan, North-South Corridor in Rhode
    Island, Moro Big Pine in Arkansas, and the Pee Dee and Savannah Rivers
    projects in South Carolina.
        Payments in Lieu of Taxes and Refuge Revenue Sharing programs
    provide payments to counties where land has been taken off the local
    property tax roles and put into federal ownership. In some counties,
    protection of significant natural resources impacts the tax base that
    funds local government services, including schools and public safety.
    We urge the Committee to provide full funding for these programs and
    honor the federal government's commitment to impacted communities.
        USGS.--We support the President's increases for the new LANDSAT 8,
    a critically important investment for ecological monitoring in this
    country and globally. Within the USGS Water Resources programs, we
    support the $2.325 million increase for streamgages in the National
    Streamflow Information program.
        Following the 2005 hurricanes, biological assessments are needed to
    map the overall extent of natural resource loss, identify priorities
    for remedial action and inform decisions regarding rebuilding and
    recovery of the Gulf coast. The USGS Biological Resources Division
    through the National Wetlands Research Center in Lafayette, LA is
    taking the lead for federal agencies in collecting and centralizing
    information on Gulf coast-wide impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
    and has developed a three-year plan for assessment of hurricane
    impacts. To begin the initial phase of this effort, we request report
    language that designates $12 million to the National Wetland Research
    Center for collection and synthesis of data on hurricane impacts to
    natural resources.
        Endangered Species.--The Conservancy supports $90 million for the
    FWS's Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, an effective and flexible
    tool for building cooperative, voluntary partnerships. The Conservancy
    and its partners have used the Habitat Conservation Plan and Recovery
    Land Acquisition programs to secure key habitat for numerous endangered
    species in Southern California, as well as Atlantic salmon in Maine,
    Karner Blue Butterflies in New York and endangered freshwater mussels
    in Tennessee. We have also worked with states to develop HCP Plans
    funded by this program, including the bi-state Tennessee and Kentucky
    Northern Cumberland's plan. The requested increase reflects the
    importance and unmet public funding needs of collaborative conservation
    strategies to protect critically rare species on non-federal land, and
    state and local acquisition of habitat necessary for the survival of
    listed and candidate species. We have also worked with states to
    implement HCP plans.
        State Wildlife Grants.--The Conservancy strongly supports this
    program and concurs in the Teaming with Wildlife Coalition in
    recommending funding of $85 million. State wildlife agencies and their
    many partners are working to protect wildlife habitat by implementing
    the comprehensive wildlife conservation plans that were completed last
    fall.
        Cooperative Conservation.--Cooperative conservation partnerships
    are a cornerstone of the Conservancy's work around the world. By
    finding common ground with communities and developers, ranchers and
    farmers, government agencies and corporations, we develop creative and
    practical solutions that balance human needs with conservation goals.
    The Administration's Cooperative Conservation Initiative supports
    innovative partnerships between private landowners, local communities,
    states and the federal government. We endorse the President's request
    of $24.4 million for the Landowner Incentive Program and $9.4 million
    for Private Stewardship Grants. We support the $15 million for the FWS
    Coastal Program. We also support the President's request of $20.296
    million for the BLM, FWS and NPS Challenge Cost Share programs. These
    programs leverage appropriated dollars through 1:1 matches with State
    and private partners to implement important restoration and protection
    projects. We support $50 million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
    Program. The Conservancy supports the Administration's request of $3
    million for the National Fish Habitat Initiative.
        Migratory Bird Programs.--The Conservancy supports funding equal to
    or greater than the President's request of $45,000,000 for the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Fund. More than $1.6 billion in partner
    contributions has been raised to match $573 million in federal funds in
    order to save 20.6 million acres of wetlands. The Conservancy supports
    an increase of funding to $15.1 million for Joint Ventures.
        Coral Reefs.--The Conservancy supports the President's request for
    an additional $1.2 million to implement Local Action Strategies to
    address threats to coral reefs. These strategies are the product of
    collaborative efforts between federal agencies, states and territories,
    and local NGOs. We also support an increase in funding to $1 million
    for the Coral Reef Initiative.
        International Programs.--The Conservancy, as part of an alliance of
    major international conservation groups, supports the International
    Conservation Budget, which calls for $10.5 million to the FWS'
    Multinational Species Conservation Funds. This reflects $2 million each
    for the African and Asian Elephants and the Great Ape fund, the same
    for the new Marine Turtle fund, and $2.5 million for the Rhinoceros/
    Tiger fund. We support $5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
    Conservation Fund. We support $8 million for the Forest Service's
    International Programs.
        Environmental Protection Agency.--The EPA Gulf of Mexico Program
    works to protect the health and productivity of the Gulf of Mexico and
    is the only federal program solely focused on the five Gulf coast
    states. The Program's successes have led to an ever increasing demand
    to extend their technical services to reach more coastal communities
    across the region. The Program was well on its way toward helping build
    more resilient coastal communities before the historic storm season of
    2005, and the demand for the Program's assistance has continued to rise
    as the Gulf coast rebuilds. In an effort to achieve long-term
    protection of the Gulf of Mexico and ensure environmental and economic
    recovery from the 2005 hurricanes, we support $10 million for the EPA
    Gulf of Mexico program. We also support $22.7 million for the Great
    Lakes National Program Office. This program funds and conducts projects
    to protect, maintain and restore the chemical, biological and physical
    integrity of the Great Lakes--the largest freshwater ecosystem on
    Earth.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
    recommendations for the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations
    bill.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Town of Ophir, Colorado

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: As Mayor of
    the Town of Ophir located in southwest Colorado, I am writing to
    respectfully request that $2.5 million be allocated to the U.S. Forest
    Service's fiscal year 2007 budget from the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund. These funds will be used for the first phase of a public purchase
    of 1,200 acres of privately owned patented mining claims in the Ophir
    Valley. During the first phase, the Forest Service would acquire 600
    acres of this incomparable Colorado landscape. An additional $2.5
    million LWCF appropriation will be needed in fiscal year 2008 to
    complete this outstanding land conservation project.
        This project enjoys broad and deep community support in San Miguel
    County, and throughout southwest Colorado, for the following reasons:
        (1) The Ophir Valley is one of Colorado's most outstanding places,
    and is a cherished corner of San Miguel County. Against a backdrop of
    unsurpassed alpine scenery, the Valley offers an abundance of
    recreational opportunities for residents and visitors. Hiking, camping,
    mountain biking, cross-country skiing, four-wheeling, and fishing are
    all popular pastimes. In addition, the Valley supports habitat for the
    Canadian lynx, a federally listed threatened species, and provides
    important habitat for the endangered Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly
    and other sensitive species. It also contains the headwaters of the
    Howards Fork, a key tributary to the San Miguel River, which sustains
    globally rare streamside habitats.
        (2) Federal acquisition of this property will facilitate improved
    public lands management in eastern San Miguel County and will protect
    access to surrounding public lands. The property to be acquired
    consists of patented mining claims that occur as inholdings within
    surrounding national forest system lands. Purchasing these inholdings
    will ensure that they can be managed for their natural and recreational
    values in a manner that is consistent with management of adjacent lands
    already in public ownership. Importantly, acquisition of the property
    will guarantee access to surrounding public lands, and will help avoid
    conflicts between traditional public access expectations and private
    property rights.
        (3) The current property owner, Mr. Glenn Pauls, is a willing
    seller. Mr. Pauls has purchased the mining claims that comprise his
    property from many different sellers over the last several years. He
    has offered them for sale to the public through the Trust for Public
    Land (TPL), a national non-profit land conservation organization with a
    successful track record of acquiring thousands of acres of mining
    claims in the area under the Red Mountain Project. The opportunity that
    Mr. Pauls has afforded the public to acquire such a large number of
    mining claims from a single seller is a rare one that should not be
    missed.
        The Town of Ophir is located in San Miguel County, approximately 10
    miles south of Telluride, in an alpine mountain valley at an elevation
    of 9,600 feet, surrounded by mountain peaks and ridges rising to 13,000
    feet. Incorporated in 1881, Ophir has a long and colorful history,
    beginning as a mining town, then becoming a ghost town, and now is a
    thriving residential mountain community. The mountainsides surrounding
    the town, are as of yet undeveloped, but these hillsides are
    checkerboarded with fee simple patented lode claims, which are
    developable, privately owned inholdings within the national forest.
        Recognizing the development potential of the patented claims, the
    Ophir community has actively sought to protect this stunning area from
    sprawl development for more than 12 years through a town-funded and
    staffed Open Space Protection Program. With limited financial
    resources, the town has shown its commitment to conservation over the
    past 15 plus years. By working cooperatively with landowners, Ophir has
    acquired and conserved over 160 acres of remote lands, which are
    protected through conservation easements and are open to the public for
    recreational purposes.
        This is an exciting regional project. The scenic value of the high
    country in the San Juan mountains has long been recognized by San
    Miguel, Ouray, and San Juan counties. All three counties have portions
    of dramatic mountain jeep passes within their jurisdictions. The Ophir
    project is part of a larger San Juan Skyway initiative to protect key
    landscapes and to develop and protect outdoor recreation opportunities.
    Protection of the high country open space will protect scenic vistas
    that are an important asset to the regional economic engine.
        We want to thank you for your support and leadership in conserving
    Colorado's land and water resources. Protection of the Ophir Valley
    with LWCF funding will contribute greatly to ensuring that Colorado
    remains the special place that it is.
        Thank you for your consideration of this request.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of The Wilderness Society

        Mr. Chairman, The Wilderness Society (TWS) would like to thank you
    for the opportunity to provide recommendations and comments on the
    fiscal year 2007 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill. On behalf of the more than 250,000 members and
    supporters of TWS, a 70-year-old organization dedicated to preserving
    America's last remaining wild places, I provide below our fiscal year
    2007 funding recommendations for a number of important conservation
    programs.
        Adequate funding for the programs discussed below is vital to
    protect America's wild areas and environmental values, essential
    components of our American identity and our heritage. The land and our
    relationship with it infuse our history, our heroes, and our hearts. We
    hope to work with you to find the resolve and funding to protect those
    values that are a national birthright.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund.--The Land and Water Conservation
    Fund (LWCF) is our nation's premiere tool to create and preserve parks,
    forests, wildlife refuges and open space. And while the administration
    says its budget funds the program at $533 million, in reality the
    fiscal year 2007 budget provides only $85 million for LWCF's core
    programs--funding federal land acquisition at $84 million and
    eliminating stateside assistance. As it did last year, the budget then
    attempts to cloak this glaring shortfall by declaring more than a dozen
    other ongoing programs to be part of the LWCF. National treasures from
    the Everglades to our neighborhood parks will suffer from the resulting
    net loss in funds for expanding and consolidating parks, refuges and
    forests.
        We urge the Subcommittee to provide $450 million for Federal Land
    Acquisition and reinstate state-side LWCF to $100 million. For decades,
    LWCF has been a premier tool to fund two things: federal land
    acquisition and the state assistance program. Again this year, in an
    attempt to make LWCF look full, the Administration shoehorns in
    numerous additional unrelated programs. This was done to mask real cuts
    in funding for land acquisition. Funding in the President's Budget for
    National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land
    Management and U.S. Forest Service land acquisition is cut from a
    proposed $130 million in fiscal year 2006 to $84 million proposed for
    fiscal year 2007. Americans have long relied on federal land
    acquisition to protect and complete its parks, forests and refuges, and
    the Administration's cuts would result in smaller, more degraded lands
    and fewer recreation experiences--and the words ``Land and Water
    Conservation Fund'' would lose the meaning they have had since 1965.
        We support the administration's requested project list for LWCF and
    Forest Legacy. In addition to the administration's projects, we
    recommend LWCF federal land acquisition funding for 43 priority
    projects for fiscal year 2007, listed in Appendix A. Federal
    acquisition of these lands is necessary to address immediate
    environmental threats with the potential for permanent damage, and to
    help protect and restore wildlands of significance (e.g. those with
    rare ecosystems, endangered species, and/or other special qualities).
        Forest Legacy.--We support $80 million for the Forest Legacy
    program. Since its inception, the Forest Legacy program has proven an
    extremely popular means to combat the conversion of privately-owned
    timberlands to development. According to the recent USDA Forest Service
    report, ``Forests on the edge,'' over 40 million acres of private
    forestlands are likely to be developed in the next three decades,
    threatening critical water and other ecological resources. In fiscal
    year 2007, 43 states submitted 91 projects totaling $204 million in
    need from Forest Legacy. Fourteen states that submitted projects were
    excluded completely from the President's budget. Funding to the Forest
    Legacy program must rise to respond to these increasing development
    pressures and better meet demand from participating states.

                ADDITIONAL AGENCY APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

        Fish and Wildlife Service.--The National Wildlife Refuge System is
    suffering under a $2.5 billion backlog in operations and maintenance.
    Consequently, we strongly recommend that funding to the Refuge System
    be increased over the fiscal year 2006 levels, in an effort to begin to
    counteract the massive backlogs. We urge the subcommittee to
    appropriate $800 million for the Operations and Maintenance Program to
    carry out necessary repairs, fund staff positions, and support
    development of Comprehensive Conservation Plans.
        Forest Service: Wildfire Management.--Recognizing that borrowing
    funds for wildfire suppression caused disruptions in management,
    Congress established a suppression account in 2004. We support
    maintaining this account and recommend it remain intact, even during
    funding emergencies, so critical programs are not compromised by
    borrowing. We also urge the Committee to replace any funds used. Up to
    85 percent of the land around communities at highest risk for wildfires
    is state or private. State and Local Assistance programs aid these
    states and localities, including State Fire Assistance and the Economic
    Action Program (EAP). We recommend that no less than 20 percent of the
    five-year average National Fire Plan (NFP) appropriations, $570
    million, be allocated to State and Local Assistance Programs, with 50
    percent of those funds, $285 million, targeted specifically to State
    Fire Assistance. We suggest $39.5 million for EAP in fiscal year 2007.
    We recommend that, in fiscal year 2007 and until an alternative program
    is developed, base EAP receive at least the program's five-year
    average, $27 million. We also recommend that the NFP sub-program be
    restored to $12.5 million and that NFP funding be retained in any
    alternative program.
        BLM's Oil and Gas Program.--We urge you to reduce the Bureau of
    Land Management's (BLM) proposed budget of $115 million for its oil and
    gas program by $20 million. Though the BLM has requested an
    unprecedented $26 million increase in appropriations for its oil and
    gas program for fiscal year 2007, the subcommittee should be aware that
    the BLM is receiving an additional $20 million ``off budget'' from
    lease rentals to fund seven ``pilot permitting programs'' established
    by the Energy Policy. In effect, the BLM is asking for a $46 million
    increase in funding for its oil and gas program, while the BLM's
    request neglects other high priority programs, such as: the National
    Landscape Conservation System; Wildlife and Fisheries; Soil, Water, and
    Air; Riparian Management; and Recreation.
        We recommend that the subcommittee take the following actions with
    respect to the BLM's oil and gas program request:
        (1) Limit the increase in appropriation for the BLM's oil and gas
    program to $6 million, given the fact that the BLM is receiving an
    additional $20 million ``off budget'' for its seven ``pilot programs.''
    Also, of the $6 million increase, $2.9 million should be allocated for
    Inspection and Enforcement activities, with report language directing
    that such funds and personnel may not be diverted for other oil and gas
    program responsibilities;
        (2) Adopt the Administration's proposal to amend Sec. 365 of the
    Energy Policy Act by striking Sec. 365(i) which prohibits the BLM from
    requiring fees from permit applicants to cover the administrative costs
    of APD processing;
        (3) Direct the BLM to stop diverting BLM appropriations from other
    programs to the oil and gas program; and
        (4) Prohibit the BLM from initiating a commercial oil shale leasing
    program until the subcommittee has received and reviewed a report after
    the completion of the existing oil shale research and development
    leasing program.
        We recommend that the $20 million in savings be used to rebalance
    funding for other BLM programs, with increases in funding for the
    National Landscape Conservation System; Wildlife and Fisheries; Soil,
    Water, and Air; Riparian Management; Wilderness and Recreation
    Resources Management; and a sufficient allocation to the National
    Academy of Sciences to complete the coalbed methane study authorized in
    Sec. 1811 of the Energy Policy Act.
        National Landscape Conservation System.--We urge the committee to
    increase the Administration's fiscal year 2007 budget for the BLM's
    National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) by $11.3 million, for
    operations and maintenance, to provide a total of $46 million to
    conserve the unique National Monuments, Conservation Areas, Trails,
    Rivers, and Wilderness, and Wilderness Study Areas that comprise the 26
    million acre System. This would restore funding levels to those
    proposed by the President in fiscal year 2006. Priority unmet needs
    include law enforcement, resource monitoring, and cultural resource
    protection. We also ask the committee to support any member requests
    for additional funding for NLCS units in their districts. These
    requested increases could be funded in part with some of the $20
    million in savings from the oil and gas program that we propose. To
    promote greater management transparency and accountability for the
    NLCS, we urge the committee to request expenditure and accomplishment
    reports for each of the System's Monuments and Conservation Areas for
    fiscal year 2006, and a projected cross cut budget for 2007 that
    includes expenditures by area and subactivity.
        Land Sales.--We urge the subcommittee to exclude from its bill and
    report any language that would amend existing law to provide for such
    asset sales.
        Artic North Slope Oil and Gas.--The budget should not assume that
    in 2006 Congress will pass legislation to authorize energy development
    in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. To date, all attempts to
    authorize leasing have failed. If any reference to a leasing program in
    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge remains, adopt report language
    prohibiting BLM from conducting the baseline studies and environmental
    impacts analysis that the National Wildlife Refuge System
    Administration Act mandates the Fish and Wildlife Service has the
    authority to complete.

      TABLE A: RECOMMENDED FEDERAL LWCF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007--TWS
                       LWCF PRIORITY LIST FISCAL YEAR 2007
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State                        Project                       Request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              AL Alabama National Forests                       $1,500,000
              AZ Coconino NF (Packard Ranch)                     5,500,000
              CA Big Sur Ecosystem (Rancho Calera Phase I)       2,000,000
              CA Carrizo Plain National Monument                   500,000
              CO McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area      1,100,000
              CO Arapaho NWR (Burr Ranch Phase I)                3,200,000
              CO Uncompahgre NF (Ophir Valley Phase I)           2,500,000
              CO Canyons of the Ancients National Monument       1,100,000
              CT Stewart McKinney NWR (Menunketsuc Saltmarsh     1,000,000
                  Meadow)
              FL St. Marks NWR                                   1,700,000
              FL Suwannee Wildlife Corridor/Pinhook Swamp        2,000,000
              FL Florida National Scenic Trail                   2,000,000
              GA Georgia Mountains                               2,700,000
              KY Daniel Boone NF                                 4,615,000
              KY Cumberland Gap NHP (Fern Lake Watershed         2,500,000
                  Phase II)
              LA Tensas River NWR (Chicago Mill Phase IV)        1,750,000
              MA Cape Cod NS (North of Highland Campground)      6,100,000
              ME Rachel Carson NWR                                 650,000
              MN Superior NF (Long Island)                       2,000,000
              MS Lower Yazoo Basin, Delta NF                     2,500,000
              NC Croatan NF (Onslow Bight)                       5,000,000
              NC Uwharrie National Recreational Trail            1,600,000
              NH Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge           1,000,000
     NH/VT/MA/CT Silvio O. Conte NFWR                            4,000,000
              OR Pacific Crest Trail, Sky King Cole Ranch        1,500,000
              OR Pacific Crest Trail, Cascade-Siskiyou           1,500,000
                  National Monument, Oregon
              SC Francis Marion Sumter NF                        4,685,000
              TN Tenessee Mountains                              3,000,000
              UT Colorado River SRMA (Westwater Ranch Phase      1,300,000
                  II)
              UT Bear River Migratroy Bird Refuge (Rolfe           726,000
                  Phase II, Christensen)
              UT Bonneville Shoreline Trail (Draper Phase II,    3,000,000
                  North Ogden)
              VA Jefferson NF (Black Lick Char-Lo Timberlands    2,850,000
                  & Appalachian Trail)
              VT Green Mountain NF (Broad Brook Watershed        1,100,000
                  Phase II)
              WA Cascade Checkerboard (Stampede Pass, Dandy      1,700,000
                  Pass)
              WI Chequamegon-Nicolet NF-Wisconsin Wild           2,500,000
                  Waterways (Venison Creek and Indian Farms)
              AL Cumberland Mountains Preserve                   1,185,000
              AL Mobile Delta                                    1,000,000
              AZ Cedar Springs                                   2,200,000
              ME Grafton Notch                                   2,000,000
              ME Lower Penobscot Forest                          5,500,000
              MN Sugar Hills                                       750,000
              NC Whitehurst State Forest                         4,500,000
              NC Clarendon Plantation                            2,500,000
              NH Willard Pond/Robb Reservoir                     3,000,000
              NH Phillips Brook                                  3,500,000
              NJ Sparta Mountain South, phase II                 2,100,000
              NY Tahawus                                         5,000,000
              PA Birdsboro Waters                                  300,000
              SC Pee Dee River                                   2,500,000
              SC Savannah River                                  2,500,000
              VT Orange County Headwaters                        1,542,000
              VT Adams Pond                                      1,167,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the The Wilderness Society

                                  INTRODUCTION

        The Wilderness Society (TWS) appreciates this opportunity to
    provide recommendations and comments on fiscal year 2007 budget
    appropriations for wildfire management in the Department of the
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. There are three
    areas in which we would like to provide recommendations or convey
    concerns: (1) maintaining wildfire suppression funding, (2)
    insufficient funding for State and Local Assistance programs,
    particularly State Fire Assistance, and (3) the elimination the Forest
    Service's Economic Action Program (EAP).

                          WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION FUNDING

        Over the last five years over $14.24 billion has been appropriated
    to the National Fire Plan,\1\ in categories including preparedness,
    suppression, hazardous fuels reduction, and state and local assistance.
    Suppression funds are used to suppress wildland fires that occur or
    threaten public lands administered by the Department of the Interior
    and Forest Service or other lands covered by federal fire protection
    agreements. The cost of suppression has grown significantly in recent
    years because of prolonged drought, the build-up of hazardous fuels,
    and expansion of communities into wildlands. Suppression funds
    generally account for about 40 percent of the National Fire Plan budget
    request each year and are usually based on the average costs for the
    previous 10 years, adjusted for inflation. However, in the past
    appropriated dollars for suppression have fallen far short, and even
    with emergency appropriations, have failed on many occasions to meet
    the need. As a result, the agencies have had to borrow money from other
    programs to fund their suppression activities. Recognizing that past
    borrowing of funds from other agency programs for wildland fire
    suppression caused project cancellations, strained relationships with
    partners, and disruptions in management, Congress provided emergency
    funding intended to preclude this practice in August 2004 through a
    supplemental appropriation of $500 million ($100 million to the
    Department of the Interior and $400 million to the Forest Service).
    Congress also included a $500 million supplemental to provide
    additional wildland fire suppression funds in its fiscal year 2005
    appropriations for the Forest Service and the Department of the
    Interior.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Data source: National Fire Plan website www.fireplan.gov
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The 2005 fire season was relatively less active than normal and, as
    a result, funds remained in this supplemental suppression account at
    the beginning of fiscal year 2006. It was during this time that the
    Administration proposed to rescind a portion of this account, $500
    million, to help make up for the cost of Hurricane Katrina.
    Firefighters, members of Congress, and environmental groups, including
    TWS, criticized this proposal. This rescission was not included in the
    final legislation passed to help off-set the costs of Hurricane
    Katrina.
        The Wilderness Society supports the maintenance of this
    supplemental suppression account and recommends that it remain intact,
    even when the nation is faced with future emergency funding needs. If
    funds from this supplemental suppression account are obligated
    elsewhere the agencies are forced to borrow funds from other programs,
    often those very programs--hazardous fuels reduction and community
    assistance--that represent the best hope of decreasing the damage and
    bringing down the costs associated with wildland fire. These potential
    benefits are lost when the funding these programs require is traded off
    for suppression efforts. In addition, this supplemental suppression
    account will aid the agencies in planning for more long-term needs,
    like restoration, because they will no longer face the annual cycle of
    program disruptions and emergency funding requirements precipitated by
    suppression underfunding. Severe drought conditions in many parts of
    the West, the expansion of the wildland urban interface, and build ups
    of hazardous fuels are likely to make for a severe wildfire season this
    year. If the agencies are forced to use these funds from this
    supplemental suppression account because costs exceed their original
    suppression appropriations, we encourage Congress to provide additional
    funding to make up for any funds used so the agencies are not forced to
    again borrow from other programs to fund future suppression needs.
        While this supplemental suppression account will help to reduce the
    negative impacts associated with transferring funds from other
    accounts, it is a short-term solution. Longer-term solutions for
    containing suppression costs are also needed. Congress recognized this
    when it required the Department of Agriculture to establish a cost-
    control review panel to examine and report on fire suppression costs
    for wildfires that exceed $10,000,000 and required that the Departments
    of Interior and Agriculture submit a joint report on cost-containment
    measures. The Wilderness Society supports these efforts to examine
    wildfire suppression costs and further recommends that other cost-
    containment measures be considered, including changing incentive
    structures to encourage Wildland Fire Use, when appropriate.

               STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE--STATE FIRE ASSISTANCE

        Comprehensive fire management inherently transcends land ownership
    boundaries. In 2001, federal planners identified 11,376 ``communities
    at risk'' (66 FR 751-777) as an indication of the extent of the land
    ownership problem facing fire managers. TWS research has shown that up
    to 85 percent of the land around communities that is at the highest
    risk for wildfires is state or private. These private lands must be
    integrated into landscape-scale problem definition and fire management
    planning. As such, State and Local Assistance programs have been
    designed to help states and localities promote fire-adapted communities
    in fire-resilient landscapes, one of the most important of which is
    State Fire Assistance because it provides the most crucial benefit in
    balancing risk reduction efforts between federal and non-federal lands.
    The State Fire Assistance Program provides technical and financial
    assistance to states for grants and agreements with communities to
    implement fire risk reduction activities, including the removal of
    hazardous fuels, fire prevention campaigns, personnel training,
    equipment availability, Community Wildfire Protection Planning, and
    FIREWISE--a public education program to assist communities located near
    fire-prone lands.
        Unfortunately, the President's Budget for fiscal year 2007 plans to
    reduce the State Fire Assistance program, sending the message that the
    goal of safer communities is not a top priority. Already woefully
    underfunded, State Fire Assistance is proposed for a 30 percent cut in
    the fiscal year 2007 budget, from $78.7 million to $56.1 million. Of
    the $14.24 billion appropriated to the National Fire Plan in the last
    five years, less than 11 percent, or approximately $1.56 billion, has
    been directed to fire management activities by non-federal partners.\2\
    To improve the effectiveness and efficiency of national fire
    management, better parity simply must exist between appropriations
    allocated to federal and non-federal land and fire managers.
    Accordingly, The Wilderness Society recommends that no less than 20
    percent of the five-year average National Fire Plan appropriations be
    allocated to the State and Local Assistance Program generally, and that
    50 percent of those additional resources be targeted specifically to
    the State Fire Assistance line-item. Total federal appropriations to
    the National Fire Plan over the last five years equal approximately
    $14.24 billion, and $2.85 billion represents an approximate yearly
    average expenditure in those five years. As such, no less than $570
    million, or 20 percent of that averaged total, should target State and
    Local Assistance programs. Because of the importance of State Fire
    Assistance, no less than 50 percent of additional resources afforded
    State and Local Assistance, or approximately $285 million, should
    target specifically the State Fire Assistance program. $285 million
    amounts to only 10 percent of the average total NFP appropriations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Specifically those line items under The National Fire Plan
    associated with state and local assistance budget heading, including
    Forest Health Management (Coop Lands), State Fire Assistance and
    Volunteer Fire Assistance under Wildland Fire Management and Forest
    Health Management (Coop Lands), State Fire Assistance, Volunteer Fire
    Assistance, Forests Stewardship, Forest Legacy Program, Urban &
    Community Forestry, Economic Action Program, and Forest Research &
    Information Analysis under State and Private Forestry Appropriations.
    Data source: USFA Budget Justifications 2004, 2005, 2006.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To reach this goal, The Wilderness Society recommends a steady
    increase over three years (see Figure 1). The first year, should
    reflect a 75 percent increase of the $82 million historical average for
    State Fire Assistance, resulting in a $144 million appropriation. In
    the second year, a 50 percent increase to $216 million. In the last
    year, an approximately 30 percent increase would realize the $285
    million target appropriation.

              STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE--ECONOMIC ACTION PROGRAM

        The Forest Service's Economic Action Program (EAP) was designed
    with the intent to strengthen and diversify the economic health of
    communities that are dependent on natural resources over the long-term.
    While we realize that this program is in transition and its structure
    is likely to change, one of the key functions of EAP is to provide one
    of, if not the only, source of funding that communities can use to add
    wildfire risk assessments and defensible space planning to their
    community action plans. Since 2002, EAP has experienced consistent
    funding reductions, from almost $50 million to approximately $10
    million and is proposed for elimination in the fiscal year 2007 budget.
    In order for the Forest Service to achieve the goals they have set for
    the Economic Action Program, more funding is required. We suggest a
    total of $39.5 million for EAP in fiscal year 2007. We recommend that,
    in fiscal year 2007 and until such time as an alternative program that
    retains EAP's critical elements is developed, the base EAP program
    receive at least the average funding level for the program over the
    past 5 years, $27 million. We also recommend that the National Fire
    Plan sub-program of EAP, which provided dedicated funding for
    communities to add wildfire risk assessments and defensible space
    planning to their action plans until 2003, be restored at a level of
    $12.5 million and that this dedicated funding for community fire
    planning be retained in any alternative program developed.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of The Wilderness Society

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate
    the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $2 million
    appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the
    critical land protection in the Superior National Forest in Minnesota.
        The Wilderness Society seeks to deliver to future generations an
    unspoiled legacy of wilderness and all the precious values it holds. I
    write with the support of our membership of 250,000 voices for the
    critical land protection of Long Island, on Burntside Lake, near Ely,
    Minnesota and within the Superior National Forest.
        I grew up in Ely, where my parents owned and operated the area's
    largest canoe trip outfitting business. My parents have owned property
    on Burntside Lake since 1943 and I personally have owned property on
    Burntside Lake since 1969. I am familiar with the immense development
    pressure on this marvelous lake. Long Island is the largest undeveloped
    island in Burntside Lake and is an ecological and recreational asset to
    the area. At over 10,000 acres in size, Burntside Lake is an important
    recreational area with two entry points into the Boundary Waters Canoe
    Area Wilderness ``BWCAW'', five campsites and six public canoe
    launching points. It is also one of the few lakes in Minnesota that
    support a natural cold water fishery and is renowned for its big lake
    trout and walleye while supporting one of the largest populations of
    loons in the state.
        I have worked to protect the BWCAW and the Superior National Forest
    my entire life. I believe that Long Island would be an outstanding
    addition to the Superior National Forest for its ecological and
    recreational qualities and its significant historical and cultural
    value. Long Island is the stunning view shed of writer and
    conservationist Sigurd Olson's legendary Listening Point. Listening
    Point was a place of inspiration for Olson where he wrote his books and
    crafted aspects of the 1964 Wilderness Act. I have spent time at
    Listening Point with Sigurd and Elizabeth Olson and know first-hand
    that it is a special place.
        While Listening Point is protected today, the view across the lake
    featuring Long Island is not. It is a place where many people go to
    appreciate Sigurd Olson and the land for which he so eloquently
    advocated in his writing. If offers the opportunity to look at and
    enjoy undisturbed landscapes that are a healthy remnant of the great
    forests that once covered Minnesota. Over 200,000 people visit the
    BWCAW annually, which is a testament to the appeal of this beautiful
    wilderness landscape and the need to continue to preserve this area.
    Generations of canoeists from YMCA Camp Widjiwagan and YMCA Family Camp
    DuNord, both located on Burntside Lake, have paddled by and continue to
    travel the waterways of the north country that Olson described.
        Public acquisition of the Long Island property will ensure that the
    attributes of the northwoods region so treasured by its many visitors
    will be protected in perpetuity. The Land and Water Conservation Fund
    has in recent years been underfunded for the protection of these
    special, undisturbed places, and an appropriation of $2 million for
    Minnesota's forests would be a step in the right direction towards
    fulfilling the intent of this fund.
        An appropriation of $2 million from the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund in fiscal year 2007 for the Superior National Forest will secure
    the acquisition of Long Island, protect its critical natural resources
    for the public, and maintain the integrity of the great northwoods.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Society

        The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to provide
    comments on the proposed fiscal year 2007 budget for the Department of
    Interior and Related Agencies. The Wildlife Society is the association
    of over 8,000 professional wildlife biologists and managers dedicated
    to excellence in wildlife stewardship through science and education.
    The Society supports all aspects of federal programs that benefit
    wildlife and wildlife habitat.

                         U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

        Funding assistance for state wildlife agencies is one of the
    highest priority needs for wildlife at this time, providing essential
    resources to conserve wildlife, fish, and habitat, and to prevent
    further declines in at-risk wildlife populations in every state. We
    appreciate the Administration's recognition of the importance of the
    State Wildlife Grants Program through the $74 million request, but we
    strongly encourage even greater funding to achieve species
    conservation. We recommend that $85 million be appropriated for State
    Wildlife Grants in fiscal year 2007. States have recently completed
    their comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies (Wildlife Action
    Plans) as mandated by Congress. These Wildlife Action Plans detail each
    state's species of greatest concern, their related habitats,
    limitations, and related needed conservation actions. With the
    completion of all 56 state and territorial Wildlife Action Plans, it is
    critical this program receive increased funding to assist states with
    the actual implementation of on-the-ground actions associated with the
    wildlife action plans.
        The North American Wetlands Conservation Act is a cooperative, non-
    regulatory, incentive based program that has shown unprecedented
    success in restoring wetlands, waterfowl, and other migratory bird
    populations. We are pleased by the Administration's support of this
    program through its $42 million request, but ask you to recognize that
    the authorized funding level for this program in fiscal year 2007 is
    $75 million. Therefore, we recommend that you appropriate the full $75
    million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund in fiscal
    year 2007.
        The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act provides a broad-
    spectrum approach to bird conservation. The Wildlife Society recommends
    that Congress fund the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act at
    its full authorization of $5 million in fiscal year 2007. The
    Administrations budget would include the Neotropical Migratory Bird
    Conservation Act funding in the Multinational Species Fund. A total of
    $8.217 million was requested for the Multinational Species Conservation
    Fund, with only $3.96 million for Neotropical Migratory Bird
    Conservation. Again, we urge full funding of $5 million in fiscal year
    2007 for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.
        The Multinational Species Conservation Fund supports six often
    neglected species groups important to international wildlife
    conservation: African and Asian Elephants, Great Apes, Marine Turtles,
    Rhinoceroses, and Tigers. All of the fund species are threatened by
    loss of habitat, exploitation, poaching, or disease. Funds for these
    critical programs have been slashed by $2.1 million in the President's
    proposed budget. We are concerned that the President's proposal fails
    to adequately fund the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, and
    recommend that $2.0 million be added to the Multinational Species
    Conservation Fund to be evenly applied across program elements. This
    will restore programs to the fiscal year 2006 level and add additional
    funds for pressing challenges such as increasing Hawksbill turtle
    programs in the Caribbean and dealing with serious disease challenges
    in the Great Ape Colonies of Africa. In the future, we recommend that
    Congress move toward appropriating $2 million for each species group
    (elephants, tigers, apes, rhinos, and marine turtles) each year.
        We are pleased by the $27.39 million request for Migratory Bird
    Management (Conservation and Monitoring) in fiscal year 2007,
    especially since public interest in migratory birds and the need for
    migratory bird management are increasing. However, we strongly
    recommend an additional $1 million for Migratory Bird Management to
    meet program objectives for migratory bird conservation in the future.
        The Wildlife Society is concerned by the proposed decrease in the
    Operations and Maintenance budget of the National Wildlife Refuge
    System. We do, however, support the increased funding requested for the
    Wildlife and Habitat Management and Refuge Operations. There is a
    tremendous backlog of funding needs that must be addressed in the
    future to successfully meet the Refuge System's mission of conserving
    fish and wildlife. Several years ago, The Wildlife Society, along with
    16 other organizations, created the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
    Enhancement (CARE) specifically to address this growing backlog. The
    Wildlife Society continues to support the CARE recommendations to
    eliminate the backlog of Refuge operations and maintenance and also
    strongly urges these recommendations be used to guide future budget
    requests.
        The Wildlife Society supports maintaining the funding levels for
    all subactivities within the Endangered Species Program, and is
    especially concerned with the proposed reduction of $7.7 million for
    the Recovery Program. Endangered species recovery efforts can
    ultimately lead to delisting actions that result in significant
    benefits to species through State management efforts. This proposed
    decrease in funding would negatively impact the ability to form
    important partnerships with State fish and wildlife agencies. We
    recommend that Congress restore the $7.7 million to the Endangered
    Species Program's base budget for use in recovery efforts.

                           BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

        The Administration's fiscal year 2007 budget for BLM's Wildlife
    Management program is $28.387 million, a $221,000 increase over the
    fiscal year 2006 enacted level. This increase will allow the Bureau to
    address, with its Partners, the loss of sagebrush habitat and
    associated impacts to sage grouse and other sagebrush dependent
    wildlife. The Wildlife Society supports this effort provided it is
    carried out in a manner consistent with, and complimentary to, ongoing
    state sage grouse management efforts. The Wildlife Society strongly
    urges Congress to increase BLM's fiscal year 2007 Wildlife Management
    budget by an additional $3 million to meet ongoing wildlife issues.
        The President has requested an $181,000 increase in BLM's
    Threatened and Endangered Species Management Program for fiscal year
    2007. However, this request ignores the agency's March 2001 Report to
    Congress which called for a doubling of the current Threatened and
    Endangered Species budget to $48 million and an additional 70 staff
    positions over 5 years. The fiscal year 2007 request is woefully
    inadequate to meet identified needs or allow the BLM to carry out its
    responsibilities under the ESA. In view of this gross inequity between
    resource needs versus funding levels, The Wildlife Society strongly
    encourages Congress to add an additional $5 million to the Threatened
    and Endangered Species fiscal year 2007 budget.
        BLM manages over 23 million acres of riparian or wetland areas,
    supporting some of the most ecologically diverse plant and animal
    communities on public lands. The Wildlife Society supports BLM efforts
    in riparian areas, but remains concerned that the requested $21.598
    million for this program, which is a $526,000 decrease, is insufficient
    to meet all of the identified needs. We request that Congress add $1.5
    million to this program, and urge BLM to continue its coordination with
    State fish and wildlife agencies in order to achieve optimal program
    results.

              U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DIVISION

        As a member of the USGS Coalition, The Wildlife Society supports
    $1.2 billion for USGS in fiscal year 2007. This level of funding would
    enable the USGS to meet new challenges while continuing to provide data
    for land-use management, sustainable natural resource development,
    economic growth, and enhanced security from natural and manmade
    hazards. More investment is needed to strengthen USGS partnerships,
    improve monitoring networks, produce high-quality digital geospatial
    data and deliver the best possible science to address societally
    important problems.
        We are discouraged to see that uncontrollables for the Biological
    Resources Division (BRD) are not fully funded in the budget request. We
    strongly recommend that the fiscal year 2007 BRD budget be increased by
    $1.07 million to fully fund uncontrollables.
        Fiscal year 2001 was the last time Congress fully funded the
    Cooperative Research Units, thereby allowing unit productivity to rise
    to record levels. Since that was achieved--at a level of $14 million--
    there has been an erosion of available fiscal resources, resulting in a
    current staffing vacancy of 19 positions and a decrease in
    productivity, in order to make up for the budget shortfall. In
    addition, the expansion of the new unit at the University of Nebraska
    has been hindered by the inability to fully staff this new effort in
    spite of significant contributions by the cooperating partners. Applied
    research efforts and dissemination of research information to states
    and other cooperators has suffered due to the lack of funding for
    publication of results. In many states, the Cooperative Research Units
    are the research arm of the state fish and wildlife agency, and, as a
    result, excellent cooperative relationships have been established. The
    Wildlife Society strongly recommends Congress increase the fiscal year
    2007 budget for the Cooperative Research Units by $2.562 million to
    achieve full funding and full function.
        In 2003, the BRD embarked on a very limited program to provide
    partial funding to state wildlife agencies for Chronic Wasting Disease
    (CWD) research. This funding is critical to permit the states to
    address this expanding disease. During the past year, three new states
    were CWD positive for the first time in wild deer populations (New
    York, West Virginia, and Kansas). Without research into the
    epidemiology and impacts of CWD on cervid populations, it will be
    difficult to develop adequate management methods to address the
    disease. The Wildlife Society recommends Congress increase the fiscal
    year 2007 budget by $5 million for additional chronic wasting disease
    research, with $3 million designated for cooperative grants to state
    wildlife agencies.
        The advent of highly pathogenic Asian strain H5N1 avian influenza
    (H5N1) in Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East has demonstrated
    the speed with which a zoonotic disease can spread, either
    intentionally or unintentionally. The need to ensure that the United
    States is able to detect this virus if it appears in North America is
    very important to the health of wildlife populations, humans, and the
    poultry industry. The Wildlife Society strongly recommends that funding
    in the fiscal year 2007 budget for USGS-BRD for avian influenza
    research and monitoring be increased by $0.4 million to enable
    operation and supplies for new equipment, $0.7 million for surveillance
    of migratory bird populations on their wintering grounds, and $0.130
    million for development of a wildlife health monitoring network.

                              U.S. FOREST SERVICE

        We support the Administration's request of $267 million for Forest
    and Rangelands Research. This support is conditioned on maintaining
    current activities in the Wildlife, Fish, Water, and Air Program. This
    line item continues important research initiatives such as invasive
    species and Sudden Oak Death disease.
        The Wildlife Society is deeply concerned that the President's
    budget for this program proposes another 7 percent reduction from the
    2006 enacted budget for the Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management
    Program. We urge Congress to restore $11.452 million, for a total of
    $135 million. The Wildlife Society requests that the USFS closely
    coordinate use of these funds with state fish and wildlife agencies to
    recognize and fully utilize the state's authorities for fish and
    wildlife management. To maximize benefits from these funds, however,
    the USFS needs to facilitate cooperative design and conduct of programs
    and activities to reduce duplication with state programs and to
    increase acceptability of programs in achieving land and resource
    objectives.
        Thank you for considering the comments of wildlife professionals.
    We are available to work with you and your staff throughout the
    appropriations process.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Utah Guides and Outfitters Association

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: Utah Guides
    and Outfitters Association (UGO) strongly supports a $1.3 million
    appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for continuing
    BLM's program to protect important private lands along their Colorado
    River Special Recreation Management Area designation.
        UGO represents more than 40 major river- and land-based recreation
    companies in the state, many of them in Southeast Utah. Members
    specialize in offering guided tours on public lands and waterways.
        Southeastern Utah is particularly blessed with natural history and
    recreational opportunities that make rafting, mountain biking and
    backpacking trips very popular with clients of our member companies,
    which translates into very significant tourism dollars and economic
    benefits for Moab, Grand County and other communities throughout this
    part of the state.
        One very important natural resource that strongly deserves
    permanent protection is the Westwater Canyon stretch of the Colorado
    River, which offers an easily accessible day trip for white water
    rafters to enjoy both Class IV rapids and the inspiring canyons and
    scenery of the Colorado Plateau. A very important part of the Westwater
    Canyon rafting experience occurs at the starting point, BLM Weswater
    Ranger Station, which is the put--in point for the expedition. Through
    the Ranger Station, BLM offers camping and boating facilities, and is
    in need of additional area for expansion due to its high usage and
    popularity among tourists and residents of southeastern Utah and
    western Colorado. Immediately downstream of the Ranger Station--and
    before entering Westwater Canyon itself--rafters float by the
    privately-owned Westwater Ranch which contains three miles of frontage
    along the Colorado River and contains extensive riparian vegetation,
    including very large Cottonwoods, and excellent wildlife habitat.
        Westwater Ranch was acquired in late 2005 by a group of investors
    who plan to make significant investments to return it to a fully
    functional ranch, including removal of invasive species and enhancement
    of wildlife habitat along the river. We understand that this new
    ownership group is very supportive of selling development rights
    associated with the ranch to BLM, thereby offering permanent protection
    to this very important part of the Colorado River landscape near
    Westwater Canyon They are also interested in selling to BLM a small
    area that adjacent to the Westwater Ranger Station for expansion of
    BLM's recreational facilities for the public.
        In fiscal year 2006, Land and Water Conservation Funds were secured
    to protect a first phase of the Westwater Ranch, and we understand that
    BLM and project partners are making good progress towards completing
    that work. Additional funds are requested in fiscal year 2007 federal
    budget to continue the program and complete the protection of the
    ranch.
        Given the importance of both Westwater Ranch and the Ranger Station
    to the recreational opportunities on the Colorado River, UGO strongly
    supports BLM's program at the Colorado River Special Recreation
    Management Area. I espectfully request that you include an LWCF
    appropriation of $1.3 million in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and
    Related Agencies Appropriations bill to complete the acquisition of the
    remaining acreage of Westwater Ranch and other lands along the Colorado
    River SRMA.
        Thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association

        The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
    organization created in 1981 by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa,
    Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum for coordinating
    the five states' river-related programs and policies and for
    collaborating with federal agencies on regional water resource issues.
    As such, the UMRBA has an interest in the budget for the water programs
    of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and is particularly
    disappointed that the water programs are slated for a disproportionate
    cut. In particular, funding for programs within EPA's ``Clean and Safe
    Water'' goal is proposed to be cut almost 13 percent, from $3.1 billion
    to $2.7 billion. The percent decline for this budget area is much
    greater than that for the agency overall (a 4 percent reduction) and
    reflects a failure to adequately invest in the nation's water quality.

               STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL GRANTS (SECTION 106)

        The Administration has proposed a $5.5 million (2.5 percent)
    increase in funding for Section 106 State Water Pollution Control
    Grants for fiscal year 2007. This increase in Section 106 funds is
    intended to help states implement high priority Concentrated Animal
    Feeding Operations (CAFO) permitting and storm water permitting
    activities.
        While the UMRBA supports the President's proposed increase in
    Section 106 funding, the UMRBA states remain concerned with the
    adequacy of funding in the baseline Section 106 program, which has
    remained largely static in recent years. Under Section 106, states
    combine their matching dollars with federal funds to support the core
    state water quality programs under the Clean Water Act, including water
    quality assessment and monitoring, water quality planning and standard
    setting, total maximum daily load (TMDL) development, point source
    permitting, training, and public information. Adequate funds are
    particularly critical to supporting the states' development and
    implementation of TMDLs, which have the potential to overwhelm state
    agency resources that are already strained.
        In general, UMRBA states have experienced a small, but consistent,
    decline in Section 106 funding in recent years. In fiscal year 2006,
    when Section 106 funding was approximately $216.2 million nationally,
    the five states in the Upper Mississippi River Basin were allocated a
    total of $21.1 million, a slight decrease from their fiscal year 2004
    and fiscal year 2005 allocations. Even this amount of funding may not
    be fully realized in fiscal year 2006, because up to 10 percent of the
    allocated funds are potentially subject to recision. UMRBA states are
    concerned that the modest overall increase proposed by the
    Administration in fiscal year 2007 for Section 106 funding will not be
    sufficient to effectively maintain core Clean Water Act programs and
    will not reverse the erosion of resources being provided to the Upper
    Mississippi River states.

        WATER QUALITY COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS/GRANTS (SECTION 104(B)(3))

        Given the essentially static level of baseline funding under
    Section 106, the President's failure to request fiscal year 2007
    funding for Section 104(b)(3) water quality grants is particularly
    disappointing. These grants are competitively awarded, with recipients
    including state environmental agencies, municipalities, Indian tribes,
    and nonprofits. Many of the innovations achieved through Section 104
    have helped improve the states' core water quality programs under
    Section 106.
        Historically, the Section 104 grants have enabled EPA to support
    innovative demonstration and special projects on topics ranging from
    institutional coordination to NPDES permits to monitoring and
    assessment. Special projects and studies undertaken with Section 104
    funds are often critical to the states' ability to develop required
    TMDLs for impaired waters. Additionally, these funds have recently
    helped UMRBA states to address emerging management challenges on the
    Upper Mississippi River such as creation of more uniform approaches to
    fish consumption advisories and development of sediment-related water
    quality criteria.
        Nationally, Section 104 funding fell from $14.0 million in fiscal
    year 2004 to $11.4 million in fiscal year 2005 and no funding was
    provided in fiscal year 2006. Over the same period, Section 104 funding
    for EPA Regions 5 and 7 combined fell from $3.3 million to $2.7 million
    to zero. While it is too early to assess the full impact of the loss of
    Section 104 funding in fiscal year 2006, the continued failure to fund
    will stifle innovation and significantly limit the already overburdened
    state water quality programs' ability to meet new challenges. The UMRBA
    urges Congress to restore funding for Section 104(b)(3) grants at a
    recommended minimum level of $11.4 million in fiscal year 2007.

                       CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUNDS

        The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program is widely
    acknowledged as having been pivotal in improving the nation's water
    quality by addressing wastewater infrastructure needs. However, the
    President's fiscal year 2007 budget includes a 22 percent reduction in
    funding for this critical program. The UMRBA is deeply concerned with
    the Administration's continued lack of support for the CWSRF.
        In fiscal year 2006, CWSRF funding continued a downward trend,
    falling to $887 million, down from $1.09 billion in fiscal year 2005.
    Overall, CWSAF funding has declined more than 33 percent from its
    historical level of $1.34 billion in fiscal year 2004. The five UMRBA
    states have experienced a commensurate reduction in CWSRF funding,
    receiving a total of $79.7 million in fiscal year 2006, down from
    $176.6 million in fiscal year 2004 and $143.2 million in fiscal year
    2005. The Administration's budget again proposes to cut the CWSRF, this
    time to $688 million for fiscal year 2007, resulting in a nearly 50
    percent reduction from pre-fiscal year 2005 levels.
        EPA's own estimates show multi-billion dollar annual funding gaps
    for clean water and drinking water infrastructure over the next 20
    years. The UMRBA states acknowledge that federal financial assistance
    is not the sole solution to this problem, but the appropriate response
    to this daunting challenge is most certainly not to further reduce
    federal support for this program. In order to best address the
    identified and continuing needs for clean water infrastructure
    improvements, the UMRBA recommends that Congress increase annual
    federal CWSRF appropriations to a level of $3 billion.

                   STATE NONPOINT SOURCE GRANTS (SECTION 319)

        Nonpoint sources are one of the major causes of water pollution in
    the Upper Mississippi River Basin, which drains the nation's
    agricultural heartland. The Administration has requested $194 million
    for the Section 319 state nonpoint source grant program, a 5 percent
    decrease from the fiscal year 2006 appropriation of $204 million, and
    an 18 percent overall decrease since fiscal year 2004.
        The prospect of a continued decline in Section 319 funding is
    particularly troubling to the UMRBA. For each year from fiscal year
    2001 to 2004, the five states in the Upper Mississippi River Basin were
    allocated a total of $34.0 million in nonpoint source grants. In fiscal
    year 2006, this allocation stood at $29.9 million, with this amount
    being subject to an up to 10 percent recision.
        Increased resources for the USDA's agricultural conservation
    programs have been cited as justification for this decrease in Section
    319 funding. However, the USDA programs do not have water quality
    improvement as their primary purpose and do not include a monitoring
    component to measure efficacy. Thus, while the UMRBA welcomes and
    supports the expansion of USDA conservation programs, it continues to
    be essential to fund the Section 319 program as well. Without adequate
    funding, Section 319-supported programs cannot work in tandem with the
    USDA's conservation programs, as originally envisioned, and certainly
    cannot address other pressing nonpoint source needs unrelated to
    agriculture, such as urban runoff and degraded urban streams and lakes.
        At a minimum, UMRBA urges Congress to restore funding for state
    nonpoint source grants to the fiscal year 2004 level of $237.1 million,
    recognizing that continued progress in addressing nonpoint pollution
    will require significantly increased resources.

                              HYPOXIA ACTION PLAN

        The UMRBA is disappointed that the Administration's fiscal year
    2007 budget proposal does not include the resources needed to address
    the recommendations in the Hypoxia Action Plan, submitted by the
    Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force in
    January 2001. The states in the Upper Mississippi River Basin have
    consistently said that reductions in nutrient inputs to the Gulf of
    Mexico and monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of these efforts
    will only be possible if the federal government provides significant
    new budgetary resources.
        While the states continue to support the goals and strategies set
    forth in the Action Plan, little progress will be made to reduce the
    Gulf hypoxic zone and improve water quality conditions throughout the
    basin without a major federal financial commitment. The President's
    fiscal year 2007 budget proposal does include funding to support the
    Gulf Program Office (a total of $4.3 million), but even this amount has
    decreased from previous funding and it does not supply the major
    resources needed for Upper Mississippi River efforts. Additionally,
    Targeted Watershed Grants, which in past years have supported some
    hypoxia-related efforts, are subject to a proposed cut of 58 percent
    (from $16.6 million to $6.9 million). The states of the Midwest
    heartland are being left to work largely through their existing
    programs, with limited resources, to reduce nutrient loading to the
    Gulf of Mexico. This approach is simply not adequate to make progress
    on a problem with the complexity and spatial scope of Gulf hypoxia.

             ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (EMAP)

        Within EPA's Human Health and Ecosystems Research program, the
    President has proposed a $5 million cut to the Environmental Monitoring
    and Assessment Program (EMAP) in fiscal year 2007. Part of EMAP is
    devoted to ``the Great Rivers of the Central Basin'' (EMAP-GRE),
    including the Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio Rivers. EMAP-GRE is
    working to develop improved science and practical tools that states can
    use to assess the ecological conditions of these Great River
    ecosystems. In addition to doing some baseline sampling in the
    Mississippi River, EMAP-GRE is conducting research on reference
    conditions and developing a ``report card'' on water quality, plants,
    sediments, insects, fish, and other aquatic life. A valid report card
    requires consistent, uniform grading standards such as those provided
    by EMAP-GRE. Additionally, EMAP-GRE is developing biological criteria
    universally applicable to these great rivers and is working to
    standardize the numerous assessment protocols used by states to allow
    for reliable comparison and interpretation of data across state lines.
    This is the type of scientific work that no one state would be able to
    undertake alone, yet is fundamentally important to the states' ability
    to manage and protect the river. Thus, UMRBA urges Congress to reject
    the proposed cut to EMAP's budget and, at a minimum, fund EMAP at its
    fiscal year 2006 level.

            WATER SECURITY MONITORING PILOT PROGRAM (WATERSENTINEL)

        EPA's proposed budget includes a $30.5 million increase in funding
    of the ``WaterSentinel'' program. This increase will support additional
    pilot systems for water quality surveillance and emergency response.
    The UMRBA supports the Administration's commitment to this program and
    its proposed allocation of additional funds. The Upper Mississippi
    River states and utilities using the Mississippi River have been
    working together to initiate the establishment of an early warning
    monitoring network on the river and welcome any efforts by EPA to
    further progress in this area.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association

        The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
    organization created in 1981 by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa,
    Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum for coordinating
    the five states' river-related programs and policies and for
    collaborating with federal agencies on regional water resource issues.
    As such, the UMRBA has an interest in the budget for both the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey.

                         U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has important responsibilities
    in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, including management of federal
    refuge lands and coordination with other federal, state, and local
    agencies on river-related ecological issues. The UMRBA strongly
    supports funding necessary to enable the Fish and Wildlife Service to
    fulfill its responsibilities in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
        National Wildlife Refuge System.--The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service administers over 284,000 acres of land and water scattered
    along the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers from the most northerly unit
    near Wabasha, Minnesota to the most southerly unit near Gape Girardeau,
    Missouri. This includes the Upper Mississippi River, Mark Twain, and
    Illinois River Complexes. The existence of this extensive national
    refuge system is, in part, the reason that, in 1986, Congress
    designated the Upper Mississippi River System as a ``nationally
    significant ecosystem and a nationally significant commercial
    navigation system.''
        The UMRBA strongly supports increased funding for the National
    Wildlife Refuge System. With the essentially level funding proposed by
    the Administration for fiscal year 2007, inflation will increasingly
    erode the Service's capacity to manage the refuge system. As an
    example, in fiscal year 2006, spending for the refuges along the Upper
    Mississippi and Illinois Rivers will likely total $6.8 million.
    Considering the land base managed by the Service on the Upper
    Mississippi River, this equates to a very modest $24 per acre, and does
    not represent an increase from fiscal year 2005. As a result, there
    continues to be a backlog in routine maintenance and a need for
    additional personnel to address law enforcement, biological needs,
    floodplain forest management, technical assistance to private
    landowners, environmental education, and other refuge management needs.
    In particular, the refuges along the Upper Mississippi River System
    have responsibility for the operation and maintenance (O&M) of projects
    that the Corps of Engineers constructs on those refuges, under the
    authority of the Environmental Management Program (EMP), one of six
    national priority construction programs in the President's Corps of
    Engineers budget. Currently, the Service's annual O&M costs for EMP
    projects are running between $300,000 and $500,000, and its O&M
    liability for these national priority projects will only increase in
    the future. Fully funding the O&M of EMP projects is vital to ensuring
    that these habitat restoration and enhancement projects are fully
    operational and provide lasting environmental and public use benefits.
    A $1.0 million appropriation to the Upper Mississippi River Refuge
    Complex in the Service's construction budget is needed for EMP project
    management.
        Land Acquisition.--The President's fiscal year 2007 budget includes
    just $27.1 million for land acquisition, a 3 percent decrease from
    fiscal year 2006 and almost 27 percent below the fiscal year 2005
    level. The three Upper Mississippi River System refuge complexes alone
    have acquisition opportunities from willing sellers totaling $4 million
    annually. These are priority acquisitions within the authorized refuge
    boundaries that would address significant ecological needs on the
    refuges and, in many instances, also reduce potential flood-related
    economic losses. But, with $4 million representing 15 percent of the
    President's annual request for the entire country, it will be difficult
    to make progress on these UMRS acquisition opportunities, many of which
    could be lost if delays force landowners to make other decisions
    regarding their property. The UMRBA encourages Congress to fund land
    acquisition at a level that permits the Service to address such
    acquisition priorities.
        Ecological Services.--Funding from the Ecological Services account
    supports field offices in Rock Island (IL), the Twin Cities (MN), and
    Marion (IL), which provide most of the ecological services work on the
    Upper Mississippi River and its tributaries. This includes work on
    threatened and endangered species, environmental contaminants, habitat
    conservation, and Partners for Fish and Wildlife. In fiscal year 2006,
    work being done by these Ecological Services field offices related to
    the Upper Mississippi River is estimated to be $375,000. The UMRBA is
    concerned that the Administration is proposing an 8 percent decrease
    for the Ecological Services Habitat Conservation account in fiscal year
    2007. The ability of the Ecological Services offices to fully
    participate in a wide variety of interagency restoration programs on
    the Upper Mississippi is critical to balanced management of this
    nationally significant river system and must be supported from within
    the Service's own budgetary resources. Thus, the UMRBA asks that, at
    minimum, funding for Habitat Conservation be maintained at fiscal year
    2006 levels.
        Fisheries.--Most of the Service's fish management on the Upper
    Mississippi River is conducted out of the La Crosse (WI), Columbia
    (MO), and Carterville (IL) Fisheries Resource Offices (FROs). These
    offices assess interjurisdictional fish and threatened and endangered
    species (paddlefish, pallid and shovelnose sturgeon, and freshwater
    mussels), help combat aquatic nuisance species (e.g., Asian carp), and
    restore fish habitat. The UMRBA supports this important work and is
    thus concerned about the 7.4 percent cut proposed for Fish and Wildlife
    Management Assistance in the fiscal year 2007 Fisheries account. (This
    reduction figure excludes $1.4 million that the Administration is
    proposing to transfer to the hatchery operations account.) Portions of
    the $4.4 million cut will affect general program activities (-$1.2
    million) and efforts related to aquatic nuisance species control
    (-$75,000). These reductions could delay the Upper Mississippi FROs'
    work on a controversial and technically demanding Asian carp control
    plan. At a minimum, funding for these activities should be maintained
    at fiscal year 2006 levels.
        The UMRBA is particularly pleased that the President's fiscal year
    2007 budget proposes an increase of $2.5 million for Hatchery
    Operations and Maintenance funding. (This increase excludes $1.4
    million that the Administration is proposing to transfer from Fish and
    Wildlife Management Assistance.) This account supports the work of the
    Genoa (WI) National Fish Hatchery and the La Crosse (WI) Fish Health
    Center. The Genoa Hatchery, established in 1932 on the banks of the
    Mississippi River, has become a center of excellence in the recovery of
    endangered mussels. It cultures endangered Higgins eye pearly mussels
    and rears 20 species of fish, including lake sturgeon, that are stocked
    into the Mississippi River near Missouri. The Genoa facility has teamed
    with state partners on mussel restoration work that has helped avert
    significant controversies on the Upper Mississippi. The La Crosse Fish
    Health Center provides critical diagnostics for diseases such as
    largemouth bass virus and spring viremia of carp. The Health Center's
    invaluable expertise is unique within the country.

                             U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

        The President's fiscal year 2007 budget for the U.S. Geological
    Survey reflects an overall decrease of $20.5 million, with a $7.7
    million decrease in water resources and a $5.9 million decrease for
    biological research. Funding levels for most of USGS's Water Resources
    and Biological Research programs have declined or remained static in
    recent years. The states of the Upper Mississippi River Basin are
    concerned that the USGS's ability to provide timely and unbiased
    scientific information about complex natural systems not be
    compromised. There are several specific research and monitoring
    programs in the Water Resources and Biological Research accounts that
    are of particular interest to the UMRBA.
        Water Resources Investigations.--The UMRBA strongly supports the
    President's proposed 20 percent increase in fiscal year 2007 for the
    National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP). The streamgaging
    network is essential to protecting public health and safety by
    forecasting floods and droughts, managing the nation's navigation
    system, and monitoring water quality. In 1998, Congressional concern
    about streamgaging led the USGS to create NSIP. Unlike the Cooperative
    Water Program (which is funded in large part by non-federal
    Cooperators), Congress determined that NSIP should be funded entirely
    with federal appropriations. In November 2004, the National Research
    Council's Committee on Water Resources Research completed its
    assessment of the USGS plans for NSIP: ``Overall, the Committee
    concludes that the National Streamflow Information Program is a sound,
    well-conceived program that meets the nation's needs for streamflow
    measurement, interpretation, and information delivery.''
        Of the 4,424 gages proposed for inclusion in NSIP nationwide, 524
    are in the five UMRBA states. However, only about 69 percent of the
    NSIP gages in the UMRBA states are currently in operation, most funded
    through the Cooperative Water Program rather than NSIP. Furthermore, of
    the 333 active NSIP gages operated by USGS, 30 are on the USGS's list
    of ``threatened streamgages,'' which may be discontinued in 2006 unless
    new funding sources can be identified. Another 80 NSIP gages are
    already inactive, due to past funding shortfalls. This erosion in
    funding support has led to the elimination, disrepair, or obsolescence
    of many long term gages, reducing our forecasting and emergency warning
    capabilities. To reverse this trend and enhance the long term stability
    and security of the nation's streamgaging network, UMRBA urges Congress
    to provide, at a minimum, the President's request of $16.764 million
    for NSIP in fiscal year 2007.
        The UMRBA also strongly supports increased funding for the
    Cooperative Water Program (CWP). CWP is an essential tool in meeting
    state and local water science needs, including both interpretive
    studies and streamgaging. For most of its 110 years, the CWP was a
    50:50 cost-shared program between USGS and non-federal cooperators.
    More recently, increased requests by cooperators for USGS services,
    coupled with stagnant federal funding, have altered that proportion.
    USGS now pays only 33 percent of the program costs. USGS funding for
    the CWP would need to almost double in order for USGS to match current
    cooperator funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. In 2004, there were
    1,386 cooperators nationwide, of which 163 were in the five UMR basin
    states. The President's fiscal year 2007 request for the CWP ($62.17
    million) represents a cut of $2 million and would exacerbate the
    continuing decline in CWP capability. Thus, UMRBA joins with water
    resource managers across the nation in asking that Congress provide $74
    million for the CWP in order to restore real program purchasing power
    to its fiscal year 2003 level.
        The President's fiscal year 2007 budget proposes $13.2 million for
    the Toxic Substances Hydrology program, a decrease of 8 percent. The
    Toxics Program, which conducts research on the behavior of toxic
    substances in the nation's hydrologic environments, is particularly
    important to the states of the Upper Midwest. Under this program, USGS
    provides a range of scientific information to support management
    decisions related to excess nutrients in the Mississippi River Basin
    and hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. In particular, USGS assesses the
    sources and transport of nitrogen, models nutrient flux, and conducts
    research on nutrient transport in both the Mississippi River and
    smaller streams in the basin. Given the important work underway in the
    USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, UMRBA urges Congress to
    provide $14.5 million, at a minimum, commensurate with the fiscal year
    2005 level of funding.
        The UMRBA continues to support funding for the National Water
    Quality Assessment (NAWQA), which is slated for $62.6 million under the
    President's fiscal year 2007 budget. NAWQA is designed to answer basic
    questions about the status and trends in the quality of our nation's
    ground and surface waters, assessing 50 major river basins and aquifers
    across the nation on a rotating basis. The Upper Mississippi River
    Basin includes four NAWQA study units (Upper Mississippi, Eastern Iowa,
    Lower Illinois, and Upper Illinois). The first three of these are in
    the assessment cycle that began in fiscal year 2004. The Upper Illinois
    assessment cycle is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2007.
        Biological Research.--The President's budget request for USGS
    Biological Research is $172.6 million, $5.9 million below the fiscal
    year 2006 enacted level and less than $900,000 above fiscal year 2005.
    In inflation-adjusted dollars, the overall Biological Research budget
    has been declining in recent years, impairing the USGS's ability to
    meet critical science and information needs, both within the Interior
    Department and more broadly. Indeed, USGS's Biological Research
    supports critical national needs, including maintenance of a vital data
    infrastructure, as well as several specific research efforts of great
    regional importance. For example, through its Upper Midwest
    Environmental Sciences Center, USGS is studying bird migration, native
    mussels, amphibian decline, invasive species, and vegetation response
    to water level management on the Upper Mississippi River. All of these
    research questions have direct relevance to the real world challenges
    associated with managing the river for both navigation and ecosystem
    health. Of particular concern to the UMRBA states is the
    Administration's proposal again this year to cut funding for pallid
    sturgeon research. Understanding the movements and habitat needs of
    this ancient, but endangered, species is critical to its recovery on
    the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. State and federal resource
    managers need answers to these questions. Unfortunately, USGS's
    capacity to contribute sound science to river management is
    increasingly constrained by its fiscal limitations. Given these needs,
    the UMRBA recommends that, at a minimum, Biological Research be funded
    at the fiscal year 2006 level of $178.5 million.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of the USGS Coalition

                                    SUMMARY

        The USGS Coalition urges Congress to increase the budget of the
    U.S. Geological Survey to $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2007.
        The USGS plays a crucial role in protecting the public from natural
    hazards such as floods and earthquakes, assessing water quality,
    providing emergency responders with geospatial data to improve homeland
    security, analyzing the strategic and economic implications of mineral
    supply and demand, and providing the science needed to manage our
    natural resources and combat invasive species that can threaten
    agriculture and public health. The USGS is working in every state and
    has nearly 400 offices across the country. To aid in its
    interdisciplinary investigations, the USGS works with over 2,000
    federal, state, local, tribal and private organizations.
        The USGS Coalition is an alliance of nearly 70 organizations united
    by a commitment to the continued vitality of the unique combination of
    biological, geographical, geological, and hydrological programs of the
    United States Geological Survey. The USGS Coalition supports increased
    federal investment in USGS programs that underpin responsible natural
    resource stewardship, improve resilience to natural and human-induced
    hazards, and contribute to the long-term health, security and
    prosperity of the nation.

                               FUNDING SHORTFALL

        From 1996 to 2006, total federal spending for research and
    development has risen by 55 percent from $87 billion to $134 billion in
    constant dollars. By contrast, real funding for the USGS has been
    nearly flat, as shown in the accompanying chart (Figure 1). Even this
    flat funding for the USGS reflects congressional restoration of
    proposed budget cuts.

        The need for USGS science in support of decisionmaking has never
    been greater. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the USGS was praised
    for quickly arriving on the scene and providing specialized geospatial
    maps to locate victims trapped in flooded neighborhoods and support
    rescue efforts. The USGS provided water level and flow measurements
    from stream gages for the dewatering of New Orleans and performed
    health-based water quality and sediment analyses throughout the Gulf
    Coast.
        The USGS plays a lead role in reducing the impacts of natural
    hazards. It operates seismic networks and conducts seismic hazard
    analyses that are used to formulate earthquake probabilities and to
    establish building codes across the nation. The USGS monitors volcanoes
    and provides warnings about impending eruptions. It operates a stream
    gage system that enables the National Weather Service to issue flood
    warnings. Research on ecosystem structure and function assists forest
    and rangeland managers with forecasting fire risk and managing natural
    systems following fires.
        After a series of devastating natural disasters during the past two
    years, people around the globe have a greater appreciation of the need
    to improve environmental monitoring, forecasting, and warning systems
    that can prevent natural hazards from becoming natural disasters.
        Equally as important as natural hazards, natural resources--from
    energy to freshwater supplies--captured the public's attention in 2005.
    The USGS conducts essential assessments of water levels, flow rates and
    quality, and of mineral, coal, oil and natural gas resources. USGS
    biologists assess wildlife populations, such as through the bird-
    banding program, that provide land managers with data needed to
    effectively manage fishing and hunting, as well as public lands for
    healthy wildlife populations. These comprehensive assessments are among
    the most reliable source of data for natural resource management at a
    national level.
        The potential for an avian flu pandemic remains a global concern.
    The USGS is conducting targeted surveillance of aquatic birds for avian
    flu in North America. Other biological programs assess the health,
    distribution, and diversity of wildlife and provide information
    necessary to track and respond to infectious diseases that can be
    transmitted from wildlife to people. Still other programs help sustain
    land and water resources and monitor the spread of invasive species
    that can pose significant economic threats.
        Greater investment in the USGS is required to meet the tremendous
    needs of the future. That investment should be used to strengthen USGS
    partnerships, improve monitoring networks, produce high-quality digital
    geospatial data and deliver the best possible science to address
    societal problems and inform decisionmakers.
        The USGS Coalition is grateful to Congress for its leadership in
    restoring past budget cuts and strengthening the U.S. Geological
    Survey. The House Appropriations Committee has expressed the importance
    of funding USGS science programs in the base budget. Likewise, the
    Senate Appropriations Committee said: ``The strength of the Survey's
    existing efforts in many program areas is deserving of additional
    support. The Committee urges that future budget requests place a
    stronger emphasis on the Survey's core programs, which have proven
    value and strong public support'' (S. Rpt. 108-341).

                              USGS BUDGET REQUEST

        The USGS Coalition urges Congress to increase the budget of the
    U.S. Geological Survey to $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2007, which is
    necessary for the agency to continue providing critical information to
    the public and to decisionmakers at all levels of government. The
    recommended budget increase would enable the USGS to restore the
    science cuts proposed in the budget request, accelerate the timetable
    for deployment of critical projects (such as the National Streamflow
    Information Program), and launch new science initiatives that would
    begin to reverse the cumulative effects of the long-term funding short
    fall discussed above (Figure 1).
        The President's fiscal year 2007 budget request would cut funding
    for the USGS by $20.6 million or 2.1 percent to $944.8 million. The
    budget request would add $40.1 million in new programs and fixed costs,
    which would be offset by redirecting $50.7 million from lower priority
    activities and eliminating $10.0 million in earmarked funds, according
    to USGS budget documents.
        The USGS budget request would provide funding for several
    initiatives, including a multi-hazards pilot initiative, development of
    Landsat 8, increased energy research, and testing for avian influenza
    in wild birds as part of an expanding detection effort. These
    initiatives deserve the support of Congress.
        The USGS budget request would cut $22.0 million from the Mineral
    Resources program, a 41.7 percent decrease in funding that would
    decimate the program. The budget request would also eliminate the
    entire $6.4 million budget for the Water Resources Research Institutes,
    which are located in all 50 states. These and other proposed budget
    cuts would adversely affect the ability of the USGS to achieve its
    mission. We encourage Congress to restore the cuts, but this funding
    should not come at the expense of other high priority programs
    elsewhere in the USGS budget.
        The USGS Mineral Resources program is an essential source of
    unbiased research on our mineral resources. This guidance is important
    to reduce the environmental impacts of mining and to maintain the
    growing value of processed materials from mineral resources that
    accounted for $478 billion in the U.S. economy in 2005, an increase of
    8 percent over the previous year. The proposed cuts would terminate
    multidisciplinary research that has important implications for public
    health (such as studies on mercury, arsenic and other inorganic
    toxins), environmental protection, infrastructure, economic
    development, and national security.
        The Water Resources Research Institutes have been highly successful
    in developing cooperative programs that leverage federal investments
    with funds from other sources. The proposal to eliminate all funding
    for this partnership is inconsistent with guidance from the House
    Appropriations Committee: ``The Administration has placed a high
    priority on cooperative programs that leverage funds from State and
    local governments as well as private entities. The Committee believes
    that Bureaus that are successful in implementing these policies should
    be rewarded and not penalized'' (H.Rpt. 108-542).
        The USGS budget request includes an increase of $20.7 million for
    non-discretionary ``fixed cost'' increases (such as salaries and rent),
    of which $15.2 million are budgeted and $5.5 million are ``absorbed.''
    The cumulative effect of absorbing fixed cost increases over many years
    has had a disproportionate impact on core USGS programs in biology,
    geology, hydrology, and mapping, which cannot absorb cuts without
    affecting scientific research and monitoring activities. Without full
    funding of fixed cost increases, the USGS may be forced to curtail
    ongoing activities, hindering or preventing the delivery of data needed
    by natural resource managers and emergency planners. This could
    increase our vulnerability to natural disasters and increase the costs
    of recovery.
        In addition to restoring proposed program cuts, we encourage
    Congress to consider additional increases that would enable the USGS to
    meet the tremendous need for science in support of public policy
    decisionmaking. More investment is needed to strengthen USGS
    partnerships, improve monitoring networks, implement important
    bioinformatics programs, produce high-quality digital geospatial data
    and deliver the best possible science to address societally important
    problems. The USGS has a national mission that encompasses the homes of
    all citizens through natural hazards monitoring, drinking water
    studies, biological and geological resource assessments, and other
    activities.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our request. If you
    require additional information or to learn more about the USGS
    Coalition, please contact co-chairs Robert Gropp of the American
    Institute of Biological Sciences (rgropp@aibs.org) or Craig Schiffries
    of the National Council for Science and the Environment
    (schiffries@NCSEonline.org).
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Archery Trade Association, Boone and Crockett
       Club, Bowhunting Preservation Alliance, Campfire Club of America,
    Conservation Force, Dallas Safari Club, Ducks Unlimited, Foundation for
       North American Wild Sheep, International Association of Fish and
     Wildlife Agencies, Izaak Walton League of America, National Trappers
      Association, North American Bear Foundation, North American Grouse
     Partnership, Quality Deer Management Association, Rocky Mountain Elk
      Foundation, Ruffed Grouse Society, Safari Club International, Texas
    Wildlife Association, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, The
     Wildlife Society, Whitetails Unlimited, Inc., and Wildlife Management
                                   Institute

        We write to ask for your support in providing $17.5 million in
    fiscal year 2007 to fill the many vacant scientist positions in the
    Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Program of the U.S.
    Geological Survey (USGS). We greatly appreciate your past efforts in
    behalf of the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units, especially
    given difficult budgetary constraints.
        As you know, the 40 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units
    across the country provide very important and cost-effective products
    and services to state and federal agencies, universities and private
    landowners in the form of management-oriented research, graduate level
    education, and technical assistance.
        Full funding and scientist staffing for the Cooperative Fish and
    Wildlife Research Units, which was achieved through your support in
    fiscal year 2001, resulted in unparalleled cooperation, productivity,
    and service in the management of our natural resources. Unfortunately,
    The $14.938 million requested by the Administration for fiscal year
    2007 is $2.6 million less than the amount needed to fill the vacant
    Unit scientist positions and meet congressionally mandated increases in
    federal salaries and benefits, and is only $861,000 more than the
    amount appropriated 6 years earlier. During that same time the
    Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units will have been required to
    absorb $3.0 million in uncontrollable salary and benefit costs, while
    being directed to establish and staff a new Unit. The result is that a
    record number of Unit scientist positions (22) will need to be vacant
    by the end of fiscal year 2007 in order to meet the funding level in
    the current budget request. Lack of funding to fill these vacancies has
    caused the number of Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
    scientists to be reduced by 25 percent to 67 percent within a given
    state.
        The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units have been a
    remarkably successful investment. Unit scientists leverage the USGS
    base funding provided by Congress more than 3:1 with funds from other
    sources. Unit scientists also play a vital role in practical, real-
    world training of the next generation of natural resource managers, who
    will be needed soon to replace a significant professional workforce
    component that is nearing retirement. Scientist vacancies hamper the
    ability of the program to leverage funding from state, federal, and
    private sources for addressing key natural resource problems and
    training tomorrow's managers.
        We urge you, therefore, to support providing $17.5 million for the
    Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Program in fiscal year
    2007. This action will fill vacant scientist positions at the Units and
    ensure that the Units can continue to support the needs of state,
    university, and private cooperators in your states and elsewhere across
    the country.
        We thank you for consideration of our request.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
                                Chippewa Indians

        As President of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
    Indians, located in Wisconsin, I am pleased to submit this testimony,
    which reflects the needs, concerns and issues of the tribal membership
    arising from the President's fiscal year 2007 Budget.

                                INDIAN EDUCATION

        Johnson O'Malley.--We urge the Subcommittee to restore $16.8
    million to the Johnson O'Malley (JOM) program. The Administration
    proposes substantial cuts to education funding, and Indian education
    has been especially hit hard. Of particular significance to the Band is
    the proposed elimination of JOM funding. The JOM program provides
    funding for supplemental education programs for Indian students
    attending public schools. Because the Band's member children attend
    public schools, this funding forms the core of the Band's education
    program. We urge the Subcommittee to restore full funding to this
    program.

                         NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

        Circle of Flight.--We strongly urge the Subcommittee to restore
    $600,000 for the Tribal Wetland and Waterfowl Enhancement Initiative
    (Circle of Flight), which the Administration proposes to eliminate
    entirely. Congress has restored this funding when it was targeted in
    past years, and the Band would like to thank the Subcommittee for
    understanding how important this program is in restoring and preserving
    our Nation's wetlands and waterfowl populations. The preservation and
    restoration of wetlands is vital to the culture and economy of the
    Great Lakes region. Moreover, in addition to waterfowl habitat and
    gathering areas, wetlands are important in providing flood control,
    clean water and recreation, benefiting residents up and down the
    Mississippi Flyway. Your strong support of this program is required
    again.
        Wildlife and Parks.--We urge this Subcommittee to restore full
    funding to the Wildlife and Parks budget, including the proposed $4.2
    million cut to tribal management and development programs. Tribes are
    leaders in natural resource protection and this funding is essential to
    maintain these programs. The Band has a comprehensive Natural Resource
    Department and dedicated staff with considerable expertise in natural
    resource and land management. Our activities include raising fish for
    stocking, conservation law enforcement, data collection on water and
    air quality, developing well head protection plans, conducting wildlife
    surveys and administering timber stand improvement projects on the
    86,000-acre reservation.
        The Band also requests funding for the Lac du Flambeau Tribal
    Management and Development Program to be restored to the fiscal year
    2005 level, which was $178,500.
        Tribal Historic Preservation Officers.--The Band requests that
    $10.4 million be allocated within the Historic Preservation Fund for
    Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs).
        In 1995, Congress began encouraging tribes to assume historic
    preservation responsibilities as part of self-determination. There are
    currently 54 tribes in the United States--six in Wisconsin--approved by
    the Secretary to administer historic preservation programs. These
    programs conserve fragile places, objects and traditions crucial to
    tribal culture, history and sovereignty.
        As was envisioned by Congress, more tribes qualify for funding
    every year. In fiscal year 2001, there were 27 THPOs with an average
    award of $154,000; in fiscal year 2005, there were 54 THPOs, and the
    Band received only $48,000. Paradoxically, the more successful the
    program becomes overall, the less each tribe receives to maintain
    professional services, ultimately crippling the programs. The requested
    appropriation would provide a modest base funding amount of $180,000
    per THPO program.
        Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission.--The Band also
    supports funding for the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
    Commission (GLIFWC) in the amount of $4,174,000 to meet the needs
    outlined in the Commission's testimony submitted to this Subcommittee.
    The Band is a member of the Commission, which assists the Band in
    protecting and implementing its treaty-guaranteed hunting, fishing and
    gathering rights.

             PAY COST SHORTAGES FOR BIA PUBLIC LAW 93-638 EMPLOYEES

        We urge the Subcommittee to restore full Public Law 93-638 pay cost
    funding for tribes in fiscal year 2007 and to restore pay cost funding
    not received in fiscal year 2002-2005 through a special appropriation.
    Under the Indian Self-Determination Act, many tribes have assumed
    responsibility for providing core services to their members. If these
    services were provided by the federal government, employees would
    receive pay cost increases mandated by federal law. While tribal
    governments have assumed this responsibility, Congress and Interior
    have failed to fulfill their obligation to ensure that tribes have the
    same resources to carry out these functions. Tribes received only 75
    percent of the pay cost adjustment in fiscal year 2002, 15 percent in
    fiscal year 2003 and approximately 30 percent in fiscal year 2004. This
    inequity threatens to undermine tribal self-determination.
        The Band also requests an appropriation of $59,600 to provide a 5
    percent cost of living increase for its employees. Funding for the
    Band's most critical core services, including law enforcement, courts,
    education, natural resource management and social services, has eroded
    significantly in recent years because of the lack of appropriate pay
    cost increases. The requested appropriation would cover a 5 percent
    cost of living adjustment for the Band's program employees within TPA,
    Management and Development and Fish Hatchery Operations.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        Indian General Assistance Program.--The Band requests that the
    Subcommittee increase funding for the Indian General Assistance Program
    (GAP) by $11.4 million. GAP funding is the primary federal mechanism
    available for tribes to protect our lands. These funds, which provide
    support for many of our programs, enable tribes to assume environmental
    responsibilities delegated by EPA. We ask the Committee to increase GAP
    funding to at least $68.3 million to enable tribes to continue
    developing environmental management infrastructure. We also ask you to
    clarify that GAP funding can be used for development, implementation
    and continued support of tribal environmental programs, not merely
    ``capacity building.''
        Clean Water Program.--We request restoration of full funding to the
    Clean Water Program, including restoration of $171,000 from this fund
    for the Band's Water Resources Program. The Clean Water Program
    provides grants to tribes under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act to
    protect water quality and aquatic ecosystems. We received $171,000 in
    fiscal year 2005, the minimum required to support the Band's program.
    In fiscal year 2007, the Administration reduced this to $150,000.
    Continued operation of the program requires restoration of this $21,000
    cut.

                                 INDIAN HEALTH

        We urge the Subcommittee to significantly increase funding for
    Contract Health Care (CHC).--Federal funding for health services has
    fallen dramatically behind the rising cost of health care over the past
    five years. In fiscal year 2000, The Band's shortfall for health care
    was $1.2 million. We anticipate the fiscal year 2007 shortfall to be in
    excess of $2.9 million. This deficit has increased 136 percent or an
    average annual increase of 27 percent. Despite rising costs, the
    Administration proposes an increase of only $27 million for CHC. A
    substantial funding increase is needed to address the need across
    Indian county.
        The Band also requests an appropriation of $8 million for
    construction of a new clinic facility.--The inadequate design of the
    present facility, which was not intended for use as a clinic, restricts
    access to patient care and limits the quality of service we are capable
    of providing to community. A new facility would improve patient access
    to providers, enable the Band to provide wellness education and health
    screenings for cancer and diabetes, and reduce payments to outside
    vendors because more high cost services could be provided on-site. In
    light of this significant need for construction dollars at the Lac du
    Flambeau, we are disappointed in the President's proposed IHS
    Construction budget, which proposes significant cuts in this program.
        If we can provide any additional information, please do not
    hesitate to contact our counsel, Mary J. Pavel or Addie C. Rolnick at
    Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP, 1425 K Street NW,
    Ste. 600, Washington D.C. 20005; 202-682-0240 (tel); 202-682-0249
    (fax); mpavel@sonosky.com; arolnick@sonosky.com.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Village of Wellington, Florida

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
    Village of Wellington, I am pleased to submit this statement for the
    record in support of our request for funding in the amount of $2.7
    million in the fiscal year 2007 Appropriation Bill for Interior &
    Related Agencies to support the Village's efforts to comply with the
    mandates of the Everglades Forever Program.

                           PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

        The 1994 Everglades Forever Act (EFA) established water quality
    goals for the restoration and preservation of the Everglades Protection
    Area. It also identified Basin B within the Village of Wellington as an
    area that will need to meet the new phosphorus standard by December 31,
    2006 for its stormwater discharges into the Arthur Marshall Loxahatchee
    National Wildlife Refuge (conservation Area No. 1). To meet these
    mandates, the Village created the Village of Wellington Water Clean Up/
    Phosphorus Removal Project.
        The Acme Basin B drainage has been one of the biggest issues and
    challenges the Village has faced. Wellington has spent the last several
    years working toward compliance with the EFA. In March 2005, the
    Village of Wellington began constructing its improvement per the
    approved Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the South Florida Water
    Management District (SFWMD) to redirect Basin B waters to the C-51
    canal and then to STA 1-E.

                              PROJECT DESCRIPTION

        The Acme Basin B Discharge project is one of 55 projects that
    comprise the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). The
    Basin B drainage area is part of the Acme Improvement District, which
    was created by the state of Florida in 1953 to provide drainage for
    agricultural land in central Palm Beach County. During the 50 years
    since its inception, land uses within the improvement district have
    changed dramatically. The Acme Improvement District now serves the
    Village of Wellington with over 55,000 residents, and impacts the West
    Palm Beach metropolitan area with a population of approximately 1.3
    million. Basin B consists of 8,680 acres of low-density development
    located in the southern half of the Improvement District. The western
    boundary of Basin B abuts the Loxahatchee Refuge.
        The benefits created by the CERP Acme Basin B Discharge project are
    largely related to restoration of the natural environment. The health
    of the Loxahatchee Refuge and Everglades National Park will be enhanced
    with improved quality and quantity of water generated from within the
    basin. Specifically, the project will provide the equivalent of 28.5
    million gallons of water per day to the Everglades, which, without the
    project, would be needlessly sent to the ocean via the Lake Worth
    Lagoon.
        Wellington was the first Everglades community to develop and
    implement a comprehensive Everglades strategy with the South Florida
    Water Management District, which included:
      --Removing phosphorus at the source to reduce the need for costly
            infrastructure; Best Management Practices have lowered the
            phosphorus levels and helped reduce clean up costs;
      --Use of partnership opportunities to make environmental water
            cleaner and available when and where the Everglades need it;
      --Wise use of resources to ensure the most cost effective solution,
            taking the least land out of productive use and giving the most
            up front clean-up;
      --Complete redesign of the Wellington drainage system to divert
            unclean water from direct discharge to Loxahatchee Wildlife
            Preserve;
      --This non-traditional, Best Management Practices focus will allow
            the Basin B Project to use a large portion of a section of land
            for recreation and environmental education in addition to flood
            attenuation rather than building another clean-up marsh.
        As part of its Basin B Water Clean Up Initiative, the Village of
    Wellington assembled a ``Surface Water Action Team'' (SWAT) comprised
    of key personnel and expert consultants. This Initiative is presently
    working on a Phase II BMP Ordinance, along with an updated Cooperative
    Agreement with SFWMD.
        The ongoing water quality monitoring program has indicated a fairly
    significant decrease in average phosphorus concentrations since 1999.
    In 1999, the average Basin B phosphorus concentration discharged to the
    Loxahatchee Refuge was 189 parts per billion (ppb). In 2004, the
    average concentration had dropped to 67 ppb, which is a large decrease
    in phosphorus levels. Although inconclusive, it is likely that the
    implementation of the BMP Ordinance played a part in this decrease in
    phosphorus concentrations.
        In March 2005, the Village of Wellington began constructing its
    improvement per the approved Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
    SFWMD to redirect Basin B Waters to the C-51 Canal and then to STA 1-E.
    The Village projects all its improvements to be completed well ahead of
    schedule.
        One of the final components to this project is the successful
    implementation of Section 24 Recreational Wetland Acquisition, Planning
    and Development Study. This project was established to examine land
    that is presently owned by the South Florida Water Management District
    for potential development by the Village as a wetlands park for the
    purpose of preserving the wetlands and for potential environmental and/
    or recreational uses. The main use of the property is flood
    attenuation. Other potential uses include recreational use, consisting
    of elevated nature boardwalks, trails, horse trails, storm water
    retention and a recharge area. The Village is seeking assistance with
    this project through matching grant opportunities as part of the Basin
    B solution.
        Wellington is currently refining its agreements with the South
    Florida Water Management District to ensure that structured parts of
    the project are built on time and within budget, and that the unique
    recreational aspects fit into the Wellington Community and enhance
    citizen opportunities to understand the Everglades. To do this,
    Wellington and the SFWMD continue to work together to complete the
    project and review operational progress to determine the optimal and
    practical operations of the redesigned system.
        Carol Wehle, Executive Director of South Florida Water Management
    District has stated the cooperative mission very well: ``Restoring the
    Everglades is one of the most significant restoration efforts world-
    wide not only because of the significance of its natural communities,
    but also because of the urban communities that live within its
    watershed. Science and engineering can only go so far. Residents and
    communities also have a critical role, and we are especially proud of
    the working relationship we have developed with Wellington. The
    commitments from communities like Wellington are proving that it is
    possible to work cooperatively toward solutions that create benefits
    for everyone involved, including the environment.''

                                 FUNDING NEEDS

        Since 1999, the Village has invested over $5 million (not including
    $5.4 million for Pump Station renovations currently scheduled in
    conjunction with this project) of its own funds toward the preservation
    and, in some cases, restoration of environmentally sensitive land. We
    are committed to continuing our investment and our progress, and we
    anticipate additional costs to the Village of $3.25 million. The
    project under the recently approved Basin B agreement has a total
    estimated cost of approximately $22 million (which will be shared with
    South Florida Water Management District and the Federal Government).
        For fiscal year 2007, the Village of Wellington is seeking $2.7
    from the Environmental Protection Agency through your Appropriations
    Subcommittee.
        Thank you for your consideration of our request.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Ventana Wildlife Society

        The Ventana Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to present
    this testimony in support of a $2 million appropriation from the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund for the first phase of the Rancho Calera
    conservation project in the Los Padres National Forest as part of the
    Big Sur Ecosystem program.
        My organization is the only non-profit group to release condors in
    California and have done so since 1997. We have the most robust
    database of condor locations anywhere in the state. The Rancho Calera
    property is strategically located for many species of wildlife,
    including California Condors. Condors are fairly commonly found at this
    property as it is an important flyway and is in close proximity to
    naturally occurring food supplies along the Big Sur Coastline.
        This year, the 800-acre Rancho Calera property is available for
    protection. This critical property is adjacent to Forest Service and
    local park lands and would link upland forests to the rugged Pacific
    coastline via trails and habitat corridors. The property contains over
    200 acres of redwoods, some of which have been used by condors for
    overnight roosting. The recent sighting of a condor nest in a hollow
    redwood tree in Big Sur, for the first time in 100 years, as reported
    March 29, 2006 in the Monterey Herald, makes clear the importance of
    protecting Rancho Calera and its redwood forests as condors are re-
    introduced into the wild.
        Big Sur is one of the most stunning landscapes in California.
    Protection of this property would secure an important connection
    between existing public lands, so that visitors may enjoy its grandeur
    for generations to come. An appropriation of $2 million from the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2007 is needed to start this
    property's acquisition and to ensure that acres of prime wildlife
    habitat and recreation lands within the Big Sur Ecosystem are forever
    preserved.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of an appropriation from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund for the Rancho Calera project in California.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Whirling Disease Foundation

        Whirling disease is a parasitic infection of trout and salmon that
    is present in 23 states and has caused trout population declines in
    many of the West's finest trout streams. The discovery of rainbow trout
    strains with resistance to Myxobolous cerebralis infection (whirling
    disease) has provided a unique and potentially powerful approach to
    control whirling disease in selected wild trout populations. The Hofer
    rainbow trout strain was the first among several recently discovered
    ``resistant'' trout strains, and therefore research on this strain is
    the most advanced. Considerable data has now been obtained on the
    response of both pure strain and crosses between the Hofer strain and
    natural rainbow trout to infections with the parasite. Evaluation of
    other potentially naturally resistant strains of rainbow trout from
    areas endemic for whirling disease in North America is ongoing, and at
    least two additional strains have been identified as having some degree
    of resistance to the parasite. Research on these ``resistant'' rainbow
    trout strains is considered a very important part of the fisheries
    management programs to control whirling disease. Research is currently
    in progress in Colorado, Montana, Utah, California, and Idaho.
        The research on resistant strains has proceeded using a strategic
    plan developed by the Whirling Disease Foundation and funded with
    private and federal funds (FWS), with each phase addressing particular
    concerns that might arise:
        Phase I provided confirmation of resistance of the fish.
        Phase II provided assurance that the strain identified poses no
    pathogenic threat to existing native fishes. For the Hofer trout, this
    has meant extensive testing for presence of exotic pathogens, repeated
    health examinations for any pathogens, and testing for susceptibility
    to common pathogens they might encounter in the wild. Results of these
    tests showed this strain was not a carrier of any exotic pathogens and
    their susceptibility to other pathogens was similar to other rainbow
    trout. In other words, it had neither gained nor lost resistance to
    other pathogens as a result of selection for resistance to whirling
    disease.
        Phase III, currently in progress, provides information necessary
    for resource managers to decide if resistant rainbow trout strains have
    a role in their program. This has involved extensive testing of crosses
    between resistant and other rainbow trout strains (for example,
    Colorado River and Harrison Lake strains) for resistance to whirling
    disease, growth characteristics, survival in river and reservoir
    habitats and behavioral characteristics (such as vulnerability to
    angling). The studies are most advanced with the Hofer strain but work
    on both the Harrison Lake and Madison River strains is underway. In
    coordination with more applied studies on resistant trout the WDF also
    sponsors basic research that explores the cellular and molecular
    mechanisms that are providing the resistance observed in these
    resistant trout strains. This combination of applied and basic research
    is viewed as a balanced approach to understanding disease resistance in
    both general and more specific terms but also to provide potential
    applications that solve current problems created by whirling disease in
    wild trout populations.
        As the research on these resistant trout progresses the potential
    application of selectively bred rainbow trout for fisheries management
    will increase. Decisions on just how resistant trout will be utilized
    to control whirling disease will be dependent on the approval by
    agencies responsible for the aquatic resources. One potential
    application of selectively bred rainbow trout in the intermountain west
    where they are not native will be the restoration of prized fisheries
    decimated by whirling disease. However, this application must be tied
    closely to the protection of native fish including other salmonid
    species, which is the responsibility of resource managers. The WDF's
    contribution to such decisions will not be in making or supporting
    policy but in sponsoring research that will assist resource managers in
    making informed decisions when they are making policies. The WDF does
    this by funding a variety of research projects on whirling disease and
    by organizing venues for the exchange of information among scientists,
    resource managers, and other constituents (12th annual Whirling Disease
    Symposium, Denver, February, 2006).
        Lastly, the WDF believes and state fisheries managers acknowledge
    that resistant trout will be one of the most important solutions to
    reduce the effects of whirling disease in states where its effects have
    devastated trout populations but other important considerations and
    other approaches are warranted. These include:
        1. Naturally reproducing wild rainbow and cutthroat trout in their
    native range must be protected from genetic or biological intrusions of
    hatchery rainbow trout of any strain. And that dollars spent to benefit
    these populations are best spent for habitat restoration that is the
    long-term key to their success.
        2. In areas where rainbow trout fisheries outside of their native
    range have been established and then have declined or face elimination
    due to WD, introduction of WD resistant rainbow trout may serve a
    useful role in restoration. However, programs to rebuild or restore
    these nonnative fisheries should not occur at the expense of re-
    establishing native fish assemblages, particularly those fish species
    that might hybridize with rainbow trout (e.g. cutthroat trout).
        3. The most cautious approaches to re-introducing/re-establishing
    rainbow trout populations outside of their native ranges is done by
    using progeny from crosses between WD resistant rainbow trout and
    naturalized rainbow trout.
        Presently, resistant strains of rainbow trout are being used in a
    research program in Colorado, where Hofer trout and progeny between
    Hofer and other strains are being evaluated for some of the
    applications above. Progeny of these crosses have also been shared with
    the states of Utah and California, where they are being reared in state
    hatcheries and private aquaculture for the purpose of evaluating their
    performance under different culture conditions, and in Idaho, the Hofer
    rainbow will be utilized in an attempt to re-establish an important
    recreational rainbow fishery in the Big Lost River. Another resistant
    trout strain discovered in Montana is being reared and evaluated in
    cooperation with a federal research facility. The progress in research
    and the expansion of the WD resistant trout research program indicate
    that $400,000 in federal support would required in fiscal year 2007.
                                     ______

                      Prepared Statement of Weber Pathways

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of
    Weber Pathways, I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony
    in support of a $3 million appropriation from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund for critical land protection efforts along the
    Bonneville Shoreline Trail in Utah.
        Weber Pathways in a non-profit organization that is particularly
    committed to creating a network of trails in Weber County. We are
    committed to the idea that non-motorized network of public pathways
    significantly contribute to our community's economic vitality and
    quality of life.
        Weber Pathways believes that the proven benefits of trails include:
      --Encouraging outdoor recreation, fitness and good health;
      --Enabling residents, especially children, to travel safely to their
            destinations on foot, bicycle, horseback, skis or even
            wheelchair;
      --Fostering sustainable economic activity by providing amenities that
            attract business development and tourism;
      --Protecting access to trailheads, mountains, rivers, open spaces,
            and public lands;
      --Revitalizing people as they engage with their landscape, and
      --Creating community pride as neighbors interact and come to
            appreciate their environment.
        Weber Pathways, with the strong support of counties and cities in
    the area, envisions a comprehensive network of greenways joining urban
    and rural pathways that respect private landowners while linking
    communities throughout Weber County.
        In 2005, Weber Pathways successfully negotiated a trail easement
    over a five-mile stretch of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail along the
    northeastern side of North Ogden City in Weber County. The easement is
    along a utility corridor that is owned by the utility company
    Pacificorp. This stretch of the trail offers spectacular views in
    several directions; south overlooking the Salt Lake Valley and north
    towards existing National Forest and Ben Lomond Peak, an iconic natural
    feature of Weber County. We anticipate that the trail will be completed
    and opened for public use by the fall of 2006.
        North Ogden is a rapidly growing city, with housing development
    growing towards the northeastern foothills of the Wasatch Mountains
    towards the National Forest and the newly acquired stretch of the
    Bonneville Shoreline Trail. The Forest Service and project partners
    have proposed a program whereby private lands between the existing
    National Forest and the Bonneville Shoreline Trail could be acquired to
    protect the views and protect this vital public recreation trail, and
    further to facilitate spur trails off BST that would enable hikers,
    bikers and horse-riders to access canyons within the Forest. The
    Bonneville Shoreline Trail is also intended to serve as a firebreak
    between the National Forest and urban areas and as a physical
    demarcation of the boundary of Forest Service property. Both of these
    functions are dependent on the acquisition of the private lands in
    question. I understand that the program area is already within the
    authorized boundaries of the Wasatch Cache National Forest.
        In fiscal year 2007, a total of $3 million is needed to acquire BST
    properties, and which would provide funding for the Forest Service for
    a land protection program along this new section of the Bonneville
    Shoreline Trail in Weber County.
        I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $3
    million for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail in the fiscal year 2007
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
        Thank you for your attention to this request.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Western Coalition of Arid States

        The Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) is submitting this
    testimony regarding the Presidents fiscal year 2007 budget request for
    the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
        WESTCAS is a coalition of approximately 125 water and wastewater
    districts, cities and towns and professional organizations focused on
    water quality and water quantity issues in the States of Arizona,
    California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Texas. Our
    mission is to work with Federal, State and Regional water quality and
    quantity agencies to promote scientifically-sound law, regulations,
    appropriations and policies that protect public health in the
    environment of the arid West.
        WESTCAS supports the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mission of
    working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife,
    plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
    people. The budget of the FWS is designed to support this mission.
    WESTCAS welcomes opportunities to partner with FWS in the promotion of
    this mission and in that we support several programs outlined within
    the fiscal year 2007 budget.
        Protecting the environment requires the development of best
    management practices and policies that can be implemented, validated
    and measured. In administering the Endangered Species Act the FWS is
    developing partnerships with agencies and scientific standards for its
    implementation. WESTCAS supports the fiscal year 2007 budget for this
    critical program and requests an evaluation of additional funding
    opportunities for the Endangered Species. Specifically WESTCAS would
    like to ensure the Colorado River Flow study is fully funded. This
    Colorado river and its basin is the major water source for millions of
    people in Colorado, Nevada, California and Arizona.
        Thank you for considering our request.
        State and tribal wildlife grants provide funding to ensure research
    and development continues within the FWS program. The FWS program has
    changed dramatically over time, many changes due to research performed.
    Therefore, it is critical to continue to evaluate the environment and
    the effects of discharges and encroachment on wildlife. This evaluation
    provides the foundation for future research into minimizing those
    effects and the development of practices, regulations and standards
    that allow for the continuing benefit of the American people.
        The Private Stewardship program has enhanced the management of non-
    native species, restoration of habitat and assisted in reforming
    habitats which support imperiled species. WESTCAS supports these
    programs and the appropriation for the continuation of the Private
    Stewardship program.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Western Coalition of Arid States

        The Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) is submitting this
    testimony regarding the Presidents fiscal year 2007 budget request for
    the United States Geological Survey.
        WESTCAS is a coalition of Western towns and municipalities, water
    and wastewater agencies, irrigation districts, Native American nations,
    companies with water and wastewater concerns and professionals in the
    fields of engineering, the environmental sciences, and natural
    resources law and policy. WESTCAS was formed in 1992 by Western water
    and wastewater agencies concerned with the quality and management of
    water resources in the Arid West. A grass roots organization, WESTCAS
    is dedicated to encouraging the development of water programs and
    regulations which assure adequate supplies of high quality water for
    those living in the arid regions while protecting the environment.

                              MISSION AND SERVICES

        The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is the nations primary
    provider of earth and biological information related to natural
    hazards; certain aspects of the environment; and mineral, energy,
    water, and biological resources. It is the Federal Government's
    principal civilian mapping agency and primary source of data on the
    quantity and quality of the nation's water resources by maintaining a
    network water measuring stations. The USGS is the sole science agency
    for the Department of the Interior and provides impartial science
    information that is used by many other Federal, State and local
    agencies. Its motto of ``science for a changing world'' says it all. A
    major value of the USGS to the Nation is its ability to carry on
    studies on a national and regional scale and to sustain long-term
    monitoring and assessment of natural resources.
        The scientific focus of the USGS and its non-regulatory role,
    enable the USGS to provide information and interpretation that are
    policy relevant and policy neutral. The agency also forms collaborative
    partnerships with State and local governments, which is used to
    leverage matching funds for topographic and water resources
    investigations, and directly contracts for reimbursable work.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET ANALYSIS

        The following is a comparison of the President's proposed budget
    (in millions of dollars) to the 2005 and 2006 budgets in the major
    categories:

                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      2005        12006         2007
                               Program                               actual      enacted      request       Change
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    National Mapping Program....................................      118,751      129,273       76,614      -52,659
    Geologic Haz, Res, & Proc...................................      237,346      235,286      217,418      -17,868
    Water Resources Invest......................................      211,200      211,764      204,047       -7,717
    Biological Research.........................................      171,699      178,544      172,597       -5,947
    Enterprise Information......................................       44,373       46,394      111,230      +64,838
    Science Support.............................................       65,584       69,302       67,382       -1,920
    Facilities..................................................       94,611       94,782       95,472         +690
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Total.................................................      943,564      965,345      944,760      -20,585
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        WESTCAS INTEREST IN USGS BUDGET

        As the premier, grassroots organization dedicated to scientifically
    proven methods for environmentally sound long-term water supply
    planning in the arid West, WESTCAS member agencies rely on USGS water
    resources and biological data in assessing programs and regulations.
    Federal and State regulators rely on USGS data for the same purpose.
        1. The overall reduction in the total USGS budget by 2 percent is
    of great concern to WESTCAS in light of major changes in the ecosystems
    of the Arid West due to global warming, and a variety of natural
    disasters, which to evaluate comprehensively, requires significantly
    more scientific data and analyses, not less.
        2. WESTCAS initiatives are most affected by the USGC budgets for
    Water Resources Investigations. These include the Ground-water
    Resources Program, the National Water-Quality Assessment, the Toxic
    Substances Hydrology, Hydrologic Research & Development, National
    Streamflow Information Program, the Hydrologic Networks and Analysis,
    the Cooperative Water Program, and the Water Resources Research Act
    Programs. Except for the National Streamflow Information Program and a
    small increase in the National Water-Quality Assessment, all other 2007
    budgets are proposed to be reduced with funding for the Water Resources
    Research Institutes eliminated. We are concerned that some of the Water
    Resources Research Institutes will not be able to support themselves
    and be forced to close. The overall decrease of 3.6 percent in Water
    Resource Investigations is significant, when more funding in all areas
    is required to the reasons mentioned in item 1.
        3. It is noted that the funding to the National Streamflow
    Information Program (NSIP) is proposed to be increased by $2.3 million
    for streamgaging activities. This will allow 30 additional streamgages
    and continued operations at high priority sites. This is good start in
    reversing the trend and bring back some of the 1,790 streamgages that
    were lost due to lack of funding from 1980 to 2000. However, WESTCAS
    supports additional funding for several years for the NSIP to further
    stabilize, modernize, and expand the streamgage program to meet the
    USGS goal of 4,700 backbone streamgages from the current 3,100
    currently active. We support the sharing of these additional costs with
    funding partners.
        4. WESTCAS is concerned about the decrease in the Biological
    Research funding by 3.5 percent, because of the increased need for this
    data in establishing regulations based on good science. Most of our
    arid western water projects impact and are impacted by issues with
    flora and fauna. WESTCAS supports the Arid West Project, which is
    providing biological data and analyses of arid west ecosystems, so that
    better decision making can occur.
        5. The USGS should be complimented on its publication of their
    Scientific Investigations Report--Water Availability for the Western
    United States--Key Scientific Challenges. WESTCAS agrees with its
    analysis of the complex issues and scientific challenges associated
    with sustainability of water supplies in the arid west. Funding should
    be provided to implement additional research in areas identified by the
    Report.
        Thank you for considering our request.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Western Coalition of Arid States

        The Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) is submitting this
    testimony regarding the Presidents fiscal year 2007 budget request for
    the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
        WESTCAS is a coalition of approximately 125 water and wastewater
    districts, cities and towns and professional organizations focused on
    water quality and water quantity issues in the States of Arizona,
    California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Texas. Our
    mission is to work with Federal, State and Regional water quality and
    quantity agencies to promote scientifically-sound law, regulations,
    appropriations and policies that protect public health in the
    environment of the arid West.
        Most citizens of the United States consider the public safety
    departments to be police and fire. Yet when these people come into
    their lives it is usually do to a personal catastrophe or problem. Yet
    water service providers are their every day. It is a service that is
    taken for granted until it is not available. People providing water
    services truly are a part of public safety and the Environmental
    Protection Agency provides the rules, regulations, tools and often
    funding to ensure that this public safety item is one which the
    residents of the United States can trust.
        Providing clean, safe water services to citizens is not just a
    function of the members of WESTCAS it is the mission of each and
    passion of each of its members. The proposed decrease of greater than
    twenty percent in Water Protection funding could greatly impair the
    ability of State, Local and Regional representatives to support EPA's
    goal of increasing drinking water standards to 89-95 percent of the
    population and increasing shellfish growing areas from 77 to 91
    percent.
        EPA's decision to move forward on the Total Coliform Rule,
    developing ways of comprehensive contamination warning systems, and
    requiring the reduction of vessel discharges and invasive species will
    assist organizations in providing services to residents. WESTCAS
    supports these budget initiatives. Databases provide critical
    information to all users. The Safe Drinking Water Information System
    (SIDWIS) is used by Federal, State, Local agencies and public interest
    groups. Ensuring this data is accurate is crucial. As this database is
    expanded to allow the regulated community to directly input and update
    their information the EPA will have data with fewer inconsistencies.
        State Revolving Funding programs provide low cost loans and grants
    to ensure drinking water and wastewater regulations are met. The needs
    surveys indicate that funding needs are increasing not decreasing. The
    proposed reductions to the State Revolving Fund program will cause a
    dramatic reduction in infrastructure programs. The current Clean Water
    Needs Survey provided to Congress identifies billions in need that
    directly affect water safety. WESTCAS supports increasing the SRF
    program funding to its original level.
        Ensuring the aquifer is protected provides security to all
    residents. Leaking underground storage facilities, illegal dumping and
    mismanagement of land application products can lead to contamination of
    this vial resource. WESTCAS therefore supports EPA's superfund program
    and the pursuance of cost recoveries.
        The border of Mexico is great interest to WESTCAS as many of its
    members are a border state. EPA's ``build a partnership work group for
    Mexico'' is an area that WESTCAS would like to offer as a partnership
    opportunity. WESTCAS members are familiar with the terrain,
    complications in sighting wells, and wastewater challenges. At this
    time WESTCAS supports this initiative and welcomes the opportunity to
    assist in this process and would appreciate consideration to be part of
    the work group.
        EPA has recognized the need to cultivate its own employees.
    American Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation have
    identified the need for additional utility workers in the future.
    Operators are retiring at an alarming rate and due to the need to be
    competitive, training opportunities for grade 1 and 2 operators are
    limited. This is causing a regional and national decrease in available
    workers with the required skill sets to run water and wastewater
    facilities. EPA's decision to eliminate funding for operator training
    will increase this problem. Therefore, WESTCAS is requesting that EPA
    evaluate this decision and its long term effects on future operations
    of facilities.
        Budget development and allotment of funding is a challenge and one
    which requires a great deal of introspection within the organization.
    WESTCAS appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony on this
    complex task.
        Thank you for considering our request.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

                    WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION

        The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (Commission or WSSC),
    established in 1918, is a public, bi-county agency providing water and
    wastewater services to Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in the
    Washington Capital region. WSSC is governed by six Commissioners with
    equal representation from each county and has developed its systems to
    the point where it is a national leader in the water and sewerage
    industry. The Commission is the among the ten largest water and
    wastewater utilities in the country, serving approximately 1.6 million
    people in a 1,000 square mile service area. In addition, the Commission
    provides services to 26 key federal installations and facilities in the
    Washington area, including such important military facilities as
    Andrews Air Force Base; the National Imagery and Mapping Agency; the
    National Naval Medical Center; the Naval Surface Warfare Center; the
    U.S. Army Research Center. Numerous other state and local security-
    related installations and offices also receive service from the
    Commission.
        Water treatment and distribution facilities operated by the
    Commission include three water supply reservoirs; two water filtration
    plants; fourteen water pumping stations; 5,100 miles of water mains;
    and 54 treated-water storage facilities. Water production at Commission
    facilities is 166 million gallons per day. In terms of wastewater
    facilities, the Commission operates six wastewater treatment plants; 41
    wastewater pumping stations; and approximately 4,900 miles of sewer
    mains.
      wastewater infrastructure upgrades and improvements, anacostia river
        Under the EPA's State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) program,
    WSSC seeks $1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure upgrades and
    improvements along the Anacostia River.
        In order to address sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) issues for
    wastewater pipes along the Anacostia River, capital funding is needed
    to allow for the necessary inspections and monitoring to identify
    critical areas and then repair and upgrade pipes as needed. This work
    is expected to be consistent with requirements that are being
    negotiated as part of the current consent decree between EPA and WSSC.
        Upgrading key pipes along the Anacostia River will provide many
    environmental benefits to this critical ecosystem and riparian habitat.
    Furthermore, by helping to clean the Anacostia River, the water quality
    of the Potomac River--a key source of drinking water for the WSSC
    service area--will also be improved, as the Anacostia flows into the
    Potomac.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Wilkeson Town Council, Wilkeson, Washington

        On behalf of the Town of Wilkeson I appreciate the opportunity to
    present this testimony regarding the appropriation of $5 million from
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund to acquire 800 acres at Mount
    Rainier National Park in Washington.
        The Town of Wilkeson is a gateway community to Mount Rainier
    National Park on its northwestern side. For 80 years, entry to the Town
    has been highlighted by a prominent sign stating ``Wilkeson, Gateway to
    the Carbon Glacier''. Following a road up the Carbon River Valley from
    Wilkeson, visitors are able to access the Park including Ipsut
    Campground and picnic area and numerous trails. The northwestern
    entrance to the national park through Wilkeson is the closest by
    distance to the nearby metropolitan areas of Seattle and Tacoma.
        Mount Rainier is one of the oldest National Parks in the country
    and is certainly considered a treasure not only by the people of the
    Pacific Northwest but by people from around the world. The Park
    receives nearly 2 million visitors a year many of whom pass through
    Wilkeson on their way to the ``Mountain'' .
        Ensuring access for the Park's many visitors has been a particular
    concern at the northwest entrance. The Carbon River road within the
    Park has occasionally washed out, preventing visitors from reaching the
    Ipsut Creek campground and picnic area, as well as day-use parking for
    access to the Carbon Glacier and other area trails. In 2004 Congress
    passed and President Bush signed legislation adding land along three
    miles of the Carbon River to the Park.
        In part the stated intent of the boundary expansion is to improve
    access to the Park with new roads, campgrounds, trails and other
    facilities. However, I understand through information from the ``Trust
    for Public Lands'' that the existing Carbon River Road from the Park
    entrance to Ipsut Campground and the Carbon Glacier trail is to be
    converted to a hiking and biking trail. Also the National Park has no
    plan to replace the existing Carbon River road. The loss of this road
    to vehicle or general public access will significantly, negatively
    impact the use of this very popular destination.
        The Carbon Glacier trail is a very popular and relatively easy 3.5
    mile hike that many people use throughout the year. The closure of the
    Carbon River road will mean the hike will become an 8.5 mile trip, one
    way. The hike is currently very popular with families, school classes
    in the spring and people of all ages.
        As a gateway community the Town of Wilkeson supports this critical
    appropriation only if it will truly improve the present degree of
    public access to the Park by maintaining existing roads, campgrounds
    and picnic areas and not closing or restricting their use. Continuing
    the current level of access is critical to the people and businesses of
    Wilkeson and surrounding communities.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman for your consideration of the request and
    for this opportunity to present testimony regarding the appropriation
    of $5 million for the acquisition of 800 acres of land for Mount
    Rainier National Park.
                                     ______

                   Letter From the Wyoming Water Association
                                     Wyoming Water Association,
                                           Cheyenne, WY, March 6, 2006.
    Hon. Conrad Burns, Chairman,
    Hon. Byron Dorgan, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on the Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on
            Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Chairman Burns and Ranking Member Dorgan: On behalf of the
    members of the Wyoming Water Association, this letter is sent to
    request your support and assistance in insuring continued funding for
    the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San
    Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program.
        Founded in 1933, the Wyoming Water Association (WWA) is a Wyoming
    non-profit corporation and voluntary organization of private citizens,
    elected officials, and representatives of business, government
    agencies, industry and water user groups and districts. The
    Association's objective is to promote the development, conservation,
    and utilization of the water resources of Wyoming for the benefit of
    Wyoming people. The WWA provides the only statewide uniform voice
    representing all types of water users within the State of Wyoming and
    encourages citizen participation in decisions relating to multi-purpose
    water development, management and use.
        The Wyoming Water Association is a participant in the Upper
    Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. That program, and its
    sister program within the San Juan River Basin, are ongoing
    partnerships among the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and
    Wyoming, Indian tribes, federal agencies and water, power and
    environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
    endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
    compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Consistent with the
    requests made by our other Upper Colorado and San Juan Recovery
    Programs' partners, the WWA respectfully requests support and action by
    the Subcommittee that will provide the following:
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Ecological
    Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element;
    $697,000 within the $5,631,000 item entitled ``General Program
    Activities'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for fiscal
    year 2007 to allow FWS to continue its necessary participation in the
    Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the same
    level of funding appropriated to the FWS in fiscal years 2004, 2005 and
    2006.
        2. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
    Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
    support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
    in Utah during fiscal year 2007.
        3. Allocation of $211,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year
    2007 to meet FWS's Region 2 expenses managing and implementing the San
    Juan Program's diverse recovery actions.
        These recovery programs have become national models for
    collaboratively working to recover endangered species while addressing
    water needs to support growing western communities in the Upper
    Colorado River Basin region of the Intermountain West. Since 1988,
    these programs have facilitated ESA Section 7 consultation (without
    litigation) for over 1,000 federal, tribal, state and privately managed
    water projects depleting approximately 2.9 million acre-feet of water
    per year. The requested federal appropriations are critically important
    to these efforts moving forward.
        The past support and assistance of your Subcommittee has greatly
    facilitated the success of these multi-state, multi-agency programs. On
    behalf of the members of the Wyoming Water Association, I thank you for
    that support and request the Subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year
    2007 funding to ensure the Fish and Wildlife Service's continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                    Sincerely yours,
                                               John W. Shields,
                                                   Executive Secretary.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Air Pollution Control District, prepared statement...............   231
    Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc., prepared statement..   231
    Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator from Colorado:
        Prepared statements.....................................24, 59, 187
        Questions submitted by......................................44, 161
        Statement of.................................................    58
    Alliance to Save Energy, prepared statement......................   243
    American:
        Bird Conservancy, prepared statement.........................   211
        Canoe Association, prepared statement........................   255
        Fisheries Society, prepared statement........................   214
        Geological Institute, prepared statement.....................   218
        Hiking Society, prepared statements...................221, 223, 412
        Indian Higher Education Consortium, prepared statement.......   227
        Institute of:
            Biological Sciences, prepared statements...............226, 224
            Hydrology, prepared statements.........................225, 255
        Public Power Association, prepared statement.................   233
        Rivers, prepared statements......................225, 255, 412, 448
        Society:
            For Microbiology, prepared statement.....................   246
            Of:
                Agronomy, prepared statement.........................   225
                Civil Engineers, prepared statements...............238, 255
        Symphony Orchestra League, prepared statement................   248
        Water Works Association, prepared statement..................   225
        Whitewater, prepared statement...............................   255
    Americans for:
        Responsible Recreational Access, prepared statement..........   237
        The Arts, prepared statement.................................   209
    Appalachian Trail Conservancy, prepared statement................   251
    Archery Trade Association, prepared statement....................   508
    Arizona Wilderness Coalition, prepared statements..............255, 412
    Arkansas:
        Basin Development Association, prepared statement............   212
        Game & Fish Commission, prepared statement...................   217
        River Basin Interstate Committee, prepared statements.235, 432, 456
    Association of:
        American State Geologists, prepared statements.............225, 255
        Fish and Wildlife Agencies, prepared statements............216, 211
        Local Air Pollution Control Officials, prepared statement....   478
        Metropolitan Water Agencies, prepared statement..............   225
        Research Libraries, prepared statement.......................   236
        State and Interstate Water, prepared statement...............   225
        State:
            And Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
              (ASTSWMO), prepared statement..........................   250
            Dam Safety Officials, prepared statement.................   255
            Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), prepared statement   240
            Flood Plain Managers, prepared statement.................   255
    Association to Preserve Cape Cod, prepared statement.............   231
    Audubon:
        Connecticut, prepared statements...........................253, 254
        Prepared statement...........................................   211
        Society of Greater Denver, prepared statement................   412
        Society, prepared statement..................................   403
    Awwa Research Foundation (AwwaRF), prepared statement............   257

    Bardin, David J., prepared statement.............................   298
    Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters, prepared statement............   412
    Bethel Area Chamber of Commerce, Bethel, Maine, prepared
      statement......................................................   258
    Biomass Energy Research Association, prepared statement..........   259
    Black Bear Conservation Committee, prepared statement............   258
    Bloom, David A., Director, Office of Budget, Environmental
      Protection Agency..............................................   177
    BlueRibbon Coalition, prepared statement.........................   262
    Board of Selectmen, Newry Owner, Sunday River Inn, Bethel, Maine,
      prepared statement.............................................   476
    Bodine, Susan, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and
      Emergency Response, Environmental Protection Agency............   177
    Bonneville Shoreline Trail Coalition, prepared statement.........   262
    Boone and Crockett Club, prepared statement......................   508
    Bosworth, Dale, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.     1
        Prepared Statement...........................................     6
        Summary statement............................................     4
    Bowhunting Preservation Alliance, prepared statement.............   508
    Burns, Senator Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
        Opening statements.......................................1, 55, 177
        Questions submitted by......................................36, 139

    California:
        Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study (CCOS)
          Coalition, prepared statement..............................   267
        State Coastal Conservancy, prepared statement................   287
    Campaign for Environmental Literacy, prepared statement..........   390
    Campfire Club of America, prepared statement.....................   508
    Center for Advanced Separation Technologies, prepared statement..   265
    Central Utah Water Conservancy District, prepared statement......   297
    Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC, prepared statement............   370
    Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, prepared statement...................   285
    Chugach Regional Resources Commission, prepared statement........   283
    City of:
        Draper, prepared statement...................................   275
        North Adams, Massachusetts, prepared statement...............   274
    Clean Water Action, prepared statement...........................   225
    Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi:
        Prepared statements....................................28, 139, 289
        Statement of.................................................    28
    Coconino County, Arizona, prepared statement.....................   289
    Colorado River:
        Basin Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement.............   278
        Board of California, prepared statement......................   276
        Commission of Nevada, prepared statement.....................   280
        Water Conservation District, prepared statement..............   287
    Colorado:
        Springs Utilities, prepared statement........................   292
        Water Congress, prepared statement...........................   298
    Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, prepared statement..   280
    Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation,
      prepared statement.............................................   290
    Confederated Tribes:
        And Bands of the Yakama Nation, prepared statement...........   293
        Of the Colville Reservation, prepared statement..............   296
    Conservation:
        Commission, Westbrook, CT, prepared statement................   268
        Force, prepared statement....................................   508
    Continental Divide Trail Alliance, prepared statements.........269, 412
    Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, prepared statement..   264
    Council on Library and Information Resources, prepared statement.   236
    County of:
        Riverside, prepared statement................................   276
        San Diego, prepared statement................................   289
        Ventura, prepared statement..................................   276
    Craig, Senator Larry, U.S. Senator from Idaho:
        Prepared statements.........................................33, 191
        Questions submitted by.......................................    44
    Crop Science Society of America, prepared statement..............   225
    Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT), prepared statement.....   272

    Dallas Safari Club, prepared statement...........................   508
    Defenders of Wildlife, prepared statement........................   300
    Denver Water, prepared statement.................................   303
    Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico,
      questions submitted by.........................................   162
    Dorgan, Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota:
        Opening statement............................................     3
        Questions submitted by......................................48, 162
    Duchesne County Water Conservancy District, prepared statement...   298
    Ducks Unlimited, prepared statements...........................211, 508

    Eastern Forest Partnership, prepared statement...................   304
    Environmental Defense, prepared statement........................   255

    Fabiani, Carl and Dinni, prepared statement......................   357
    Federation of Flyfishers, prepared statement.....................   255
    Florida:
        Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, prepared statement   312
        State University, prepared statement.........................   321
    Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, prepared statement...   310
    Fort River Partnership, prepared statement.......................   318
    Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, prepared statement.....   508
    Friends of:
        Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge, prepared
          statement..................................................   306
        Congaree Swamp, prepared statement...........................   309
        Indian Health, prepared statement............................   313
        Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement...   318
        Sloan Canyon, prepared statement.............................   412
        The:
            Agua Fria National Monument, prepared statement..........   412
            Boundary Waters Wilderness, prepared statement...........   307
            Columbia River Gorge, prepared statement.................   308
            Health Resources and Services Administration, prepared
              statement..............................................   334
            Missouri Breaks Monument, prepared statement.............   412
            Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge,
              prepared statement.....................................   319
        Westwater Canyon, prepared statement.........................   322

    Gallatin Valley Land Trust, prepared statement...................   328
    Garden Club of Litchfield, prepared statement....................   485
    Gathering Waterways Conservancy, prepared statement..............   330
    Glacier Park, Inc., prepared statement...........................   328
    Grand:
        Canyon:
            Trust, prepared statement................................   412
            Wildlands Council, prepared statement....................   412
        County, Utah, prepared statement.............................   323
        Valley Water Users' Association, prepared statement..........   329
    Gray, George, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and
      Development, Environmental Protection Agency...................   177
    Gray, Lyons, Chief Financial Officer, Environmental Protection
      Agency.........................................................   177
    Great Lakes:
        Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC), prepared
          statement..................................................   324
        Task Force, prepared statement...............................   327
    Grumbles, Benjamin, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water,
      Environmental Protection Agency................................   177

    Haze, Pam, Co-Director, Budget Office, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Interior.....................................    55
    Hazen, Susan, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
      Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Environmental
      Protection Agency..............................................   177
    Highlands Coalition, prepared statements.......................330, 485
    Hoosic River Watershed Association, prepared statement...........   338
    Hospital for Special Surgery, prepared statement.................   338
    Housatonic Valley Association, prepared statement................   343
    Hualapai Indian Tribe, prepared statement........................   332
    Humane Society of the United States, prepared statement..........   340

    Idaho:
        Conservation League, prepared statement......................   412
        Rivers United, prepared statement............................   412
    Independent Petroleum Association of America, prepared statement.   348
    Industrial Minerals Association--North America, prepared
      statement......................................................   345
    International:
        Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, prepared
          statements.................................................  255,
                                                              344, 465, 508
        City Managers Association, prepared statement................   370
        Council of Shopping Centers, prepared statement..............   370
    Interstate:
        Council on Water Policy, prepared statement..................   255
        Mining Compact Commission, prepared statement................   345
    InterTribal Bison Cooperative, prepared statement................   349
    Izaak Walton League of America, prepared statement...............   508

    Johnson, Hon. Stephen L., Administrator, Environmental Protection
      Agency:
        Prepared statement...........................................   181
        Statement of.................................................   177
        Summary statement............................................   179

    Kansas Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, prepared
      statement......................................................   355
    Kennebunkport Conservation Trust, prepared statement.............   356
    Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources, prepared
      statement......................................................   356
    Klee, Ann R., General Counsel, Office of General Counsel,
      Environmental Protection Agency................................   177
    Kohl, Senator Herb, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, questions
      submitted by...................................................    51

    Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, prepared
      statement......................................................   508
    Lago, Lenise, Acting Budget Director, Forest Service, Department
      of Agriculture.................................................     1
    Litchfield:
        County League of Women Voters, prepared statement............   485
        Hills Greenprint Program, prepared statement.................   358
    Local Initiatives Support Corporation, prepared statement........   370
    Luna, Luis, Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration and
      Resources Management, Environmental Protection Agency..........   177

    Mack Taylor, Geologist, prepared statement.......................   364
    Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, prepared
      statement......................................................   365
    Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center, prepared
      statement......................................................   424
    Mississippi Department of:
        Marine Resources, prepared statement.........................   359
        Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, prepared statement............   360
    Missoula County Commissioners, prepared statement................   359
    Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, prepared statement...............   362
    Mountain Group Sierra Club, prepared statement...................   363
    Mountaineers, prepared statement.................................   486
    Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, prepared statement............   364

    Nakayama, Granta, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement
      and Compliance Assurance, Environmental Protection Agency......   177
    National:
        Alternative Fuels Training Consortium, prepared statement....   367
        Association of:
            Abandoned Mine Land Programs, prepared statement.........   366
            Clean Water Agencies, prepared statement.................   225
            Convenience Stores (NAGS), prepared statement............   250
            Counties, prepared statement.............................   370
            Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, prepared
              statement..............................................   255
            Industrial & Office Properties, prepared statement.......   370
            Local Government Environmental Professionals, prepared
              state- ment............................................   370
            Service and Conservation Corps (NASCC), prepared
              statement..............................................   373
            State:
                Departments of Agriculture, prepared statement.......   464
                Energy Officials, prepared statement.................   375
                Foresters, prepared statement........................   378
                Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC),
                  prepared statement.................................   381
            Truck Stop Operators (NATSO), prepared statement.........   250
        Coast Trail Association, prepared statement..................   412
        Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, prepared
          statement..................................................   387
        Cooperators' Coalition, prepared statement...................   383
        Council for Science and the Environment, prepared statement..   385
        Environmental Services Center, prepared statement............   393
        Federation of Federal Employees Local 1957, prepared
          statement..................................................   399
        Fish and Wildlife Foundation, prepared statement.............   401
        Ground Water Association (NGWA), prepared statement..........   250
        Institutes for Water Resources, prepared statement...........   407
        Mining Association (NMA), prepared statement.................   415
        Parks Conservation Association, prepared statement...........   417
        Recreation and Park Association, prepared statement..........   420
        Trappers Association, prepared statement.....................   508
        Trust for Historic Preservation, prepared statement..........   412
        Water Resources Association, prepared statement..............   255
        Wildlife:
            Federation, prepared statements........................352, 412
            Refuge Association, prepared statement...................   427
    Natural:
        Lands Trust, Inc., prepared statement........................   415
        Resources Defense Council (NRDC), prepared statements.225, 250, 412
    New:
        Hampshire Audubon, prepared statement........................   406
        Jersey:
            Audubon Society, prepared statement......................   409
            Conservation Foundation, prepared statement..............   410
        Mexico:
            Interstate Stream Commission, prepared statement.........   316
            Wildlife Federation, prepared statement..................   412
        River Land Trust, prepared statement.........................   420
        York State Energy Research and Development Authority,
          prepared statement.........................................   375
    Nisqually Tribe of Indians, prepared statement...................   423
    North American:
        Bear Foundation, prepared statement..........................   508
        Grouse Partnership, prepared statement.......................   508
    North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, prepared statement.   392
    Northeast:
        Waste Management Officials' Association, prepared statement..   395
        Midwest Institute, prepared statement........................   370
    Northern:
        Colorado Water Conservancy District, prepared statement......   392
        Forest Alliance, prepared statement..........................   396
        Lights Nordic Ski Club, prepared statement...................   414

    Ohio Department of Natural Resources, prepared statement.........   430
    Oregon:
        Natural Desert Association, prepared statement...............   412
        Water Resources Congress, prepared statement.................   435
    Outdoor Industry Association, prepared statement.................   430

    Partnership for the National Trails System, prepared statement...   439
    Peacock, Marcus, Deputy Administrator, Environmental Protection
      Agency.........................................................   177
    Pechanga Indian Reservation, prepared statement..................   438
    Penobscot Nation of the State of Maine, prepared statement.......   482
    Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI), prepared statement..........   250
    Pollution Control Administrators, prepared statement.............   225
    Potapaug Audubon, prepared statement.............................   437
    Public Service Company of New Mexico, prepared statement.........   451
    Pueblo:
        Board of Water Works, prepared statement.....................   263
        Of:
            Laguna Department of Education, prepared statement.......   439
            Tesuque, prepared statement..............................   448
    Puyallup Tribe of Indians, prepared statement....................   451

    Quabbin to Cardigan Conservation Collaborative, prepared
      statement......................................................   454
    Quality Deer Management Association, prepared statement..........   508

    Ramah Navajo:
        Chapter, Ramah Band of Navajos, prepared statement...........   458
        School Board, Inc., prepared statements......................   460
    Real Estate Roundtable, prepared statement.......................   370
    Republicans for Environmental Protection, prepared statement.....   412
    Research Group, prepared statement...............................   412
    Rey, Hon. Mark E., Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
      Environment, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.........     1
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
        Summary statement............................................    12
    Richardson, Governor Bill, letter from...........................   473
    Rivers & Trails Coalition, prepared statement....................   463
    Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, prepared statements.............457, 508
    Roderick, Bill, Acting Inspector General, Office of Inspector
      General, Environmental Protection Agency.......................   177
    Ruffed Grouse Society, prepared statement........................   508
    Ryan, Michael W. S., Deputy Chief Financial Officer,
      Environmental Protection Agency................................   177

    Safari Club International, prepared statement....................   508
    Salt Lake City Corporation, prepared statement...................   472
    San:
        Diego County Water Authority, prepared statement.............   468
        Juan:
            Citizens Alliance, prepared statement....................   412
            Water Commission, prepared statement.....................   472
    Scarlett, Hon. Lynn, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Interior.....................................    55
        Prepared statement...........................................    62
        Summary statement............................................    59
    Shoshone-Paiute Tribes, prepared statement.......................   475
    Sierra Club, prepared statements..........................225, 250, 412
    Soil Science Society of America, prepared statement..............   225
    Skokomish Tribe, prepared statement..............................   480
    Sky Island Alliance, prepared statement..........................   412
    Skyline Sportsmen's Association, prepared statement..............   477
    Society of:
        American Foresters, prepared statements.....................33, 464
        Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA), prepared
          statement..................................................   250
    South Yuba River Citizens League, prepared statement.............   481
    Southwestern Water Conservation District, prepared statement.....   481
    State:
        And Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators,
          prepared statement.........................................   478
        Of:
            Colorado:
                Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, prepared statement   467
                Prepared statement...................................   473
            Utah:
                Office of the Governor, prepared statement...........   474
                Prepared statement...................................   474
            Wyoming, Office of the Governor, prepared statement......   475
    Sterling Forest Partnership, prepared statement..................   469
    Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, questions
      submitted by..................................................43, 173
    Stoddard Conservation Commission, prepared statement.............   466
    STRONGER, Inc., prepared statement...............................   470
    Swan Ecosystem Center, prepared statement........................   468

    Tamarisk Coalition, prepared statement...........................   412
    Texas Wildlife Association, prepared statement...................   508
    The:
        Groundwater Foundation, prepared statement...................   225
        H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economic and the
          Environment, prepared statement............................   225
        National Ground Water Association, prepared statement........   225
        Nature Conservancy, prepared statements....................464, 487
        Trust for Public Land, prepared statement....................   370
        Wilderness Society, prepared statements.....412, 490, 493, 496, 508
    Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, prepared statement..   508
    Town of Ophir, Colorado, prepared statement......................   489
    Travers, Linda, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
      Environmental Information, Environmental Protection Agency.....   177
    Tri-County Water Conservancy District, prepared statement........   484
    Trout Unlimited, prepared statement..............................   255

    U.S.:
        Conference of Mayors, prepared statement.....................   370
        Public Interest, prepared statement..........................   412
    Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statements.500, 502
    Utah Guides and Outfitters Association, prepared statement.......   499

    Ventana Wildlife Society, prepared statement.....................   512
    Village of Wellington, Florida, prepared statement...............   510

    Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, prepared statement......   518
    Water Environment Federation, prepared statements..............225, 255
    Weber Pathways, prepared statement...............................   514
    Wehrum, William, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air
      and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency.................   177
    Weimer, Thomas, Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and
      Budget, Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior....    55
    Western:
        Coalition of Arid States, prepared statements..............515, 517
        States Water Council, prepared statement.....................   255
    Whirling Disease Foundation, prepared statement..................   513
    Whitetails Unlimited, Inc., prepared statement...................   508
    Wilderness Watch, prepared statement.............................   412
    Wildlife:
        Management Institute, prepared statement.....................   508
        Society, prepared statement..................................   496
    Wilkeson Town Council, Wilkeson, Washington, prepared statement..   518
    Wyoming Water Association, letter from...........................   519

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                 Forest Service

                                                                       Page

    A Strategic Approach to Restoring Forest Health..................     7
    Additional Committee Questions...................................    35
    Bark Beetles.....................................................    25
        Damage in Montana............................................    31
    Budget:
        Increases....................................................     2
        Reductions...................................................     1
    Continuing Transitional Support to Rural Communities Through the
      Secure Rural Schools Act.......................................    15
    Cost of Travel Management Planning...............................    32
    Earth Island Institute Lawsuit...................................    30
    Family Forestland Management.....................................    34
    Fiscal:
        Policy.......................................................     3
        Year 2007 Priorities.........................................     5
    Forest:
        Health.......................................................    34
        Research and Inventory.......................................    33
        Service:
            Accomplishments..........................................     4
            Priorities for Fiscal Year 2007..........................     7
            Successes................................................     6
        Planning.....................................................    29
    Grazing:
        And Noxious Weeds............................................    22
        Permit Backlog...............................................    21
        Permits......................................................    23
    Hazardous Fuels..................................................    26
    Improving Organizational and Financial Management................    11
    Increase the Efficiency of Forest Service Programs...............     9
    Increased:
        Collaborative Efforts........................................     9
        Funding of the Northwest Forest Plan.........................    16
    National:
        Recreation Reservation System................................    20
        Wildland Fire Outlook, National Interagency Fire Center,
          Predictive Services Group, Issued: April 12, 2006..........    40
    New Grazing Proposal.............................................    17
    Northwest Forest Plan............................................    25
    Noxious Weeds....................................................    21
    Overview......................................................... 6, 15
    Reauthorization of Secure Rural Schools Act......................    12
    Recreation Funding...............................................    26
    Secure Rural Schools Act.........................................     2
    Secure Rural Schools Land Sales Proposal.........................    23
    Theodore Roosevelt/Ebert Ranch...................................    18
    Travel Management................................................29, 32
    Wildland Fire:
        Outlook--April Through August, 2006..........................    40
        Program......................................................    31

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Office of the Secretary

    Abandoned Mine Lands.............................................    82
        Fee Extension................................................   145
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   139
    Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.................................167, 78
    American White Pelicans..........................................   166
    Applications for Permits to Drill................................    80
    Approval of APDs.................................................   167
    Budget Overview..................................................    63
    Bureau of Indian Affairs:
        Johnson-O'Malley Education Grants............................   163
        Replacement School Construction..............................   162
        Tribal College & University Operating Grants.................   163
        United Tribes Technical College..............................   164
    Bureau of Land Management........................................   174
    Cooperative Conservation.........................................    60
    Cultural Resources...............................................    69
    Deferred Maintenance.............................................    75
    Delays in Tribal Recognition.....................................   145
    Easements........................................................   138
    Endangered Species: Wolves.......................................   156
    Energy...........................................................    60
        Development..................................................    64
        Production...................................................   142
    Federal Recognition..............................................    79
    Financial:
        And Business Management System...............................    72
        Systems--Cost Overruns.......................................   140
    Fish and Wildlife Service......................................146, 173
        Construction.................................................   158
        Land Acquisition: Rocky Mountain Front.......................   156
    Hazardous Fuels..................................................    82
    Hazards..........................................................    61
    Hurricanes Katrina and Rita......................................   168
    Indian:
        Education....................................................    73
        Health Service...............................................    78
        Land Consolidation...........................................   143
        Programs.....................................................    67
        Trust Management.............................................    61
    Johnson O'Malley.................................................    74
    Land and Water Conservation Fund.................................   170
    Landowner Incentive and Private Stewardship Grants...............   165
    Landsat 8........................................................    62
    Maintaining Core Programs........................................    63
    Management.......................................................    62
    Museum of the Plains Indian......................................    79
    National:
        Park Service...............................................153, 173
            Historic Preservation....................................   160
            Maintenance..............................................    83
                And Construction.....................................   159
        Streamflow Information Program...............................   162
        Wildlife Refuges: Hurricane Debris...........................   157
    Oil and Gas Exploration on Public Lands..........................   166
    Operations Funding for Federal Lands and Properties..............   164
    Partnerships in Conservation.....................................    66
    Payments in Lieu of Taxes........................................    72
        Reductions...................................................   139
    Plains Indian Museum.............................................   142
    Programmatic Highlights..........................................    64
    Request for $3 Million in Historic Preservation Fund Grants for
      Gulf Coast State Historic Preservation Officers................   138
    Resource Use.....................................................    70
    Road Rights-of-Way (R.S. 2477)...................................   140
    RS 2477..........................................................    82
    Rural Fire Assistance............................................   170
    Science Priorities...............................................    71
    Stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Grants.........   172
    2005 Hurricanes..................................................63, 83
    USGS North Dakota Energy Report..................................   171
    Wildland Fire....................................................    70
        Fuels Reduction..............................................   143
        Management...................................................   169

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Arsenic Standards.........................................192, 203, 205
    Bilateral Compliance Agreements..................................   193
    Budget Request...................................................   178
        Principles...................................................   180
    Center for Air Toxic Metals......................................   197
    Clean:
        Automotive Technology--Innovation That Works.................   201
        Water:
            Infrastructure Funding...................................   185
            State Revolving Fund...................................195, 199
    Colorado Commitments.............................................   188
    Combined Animal Feeding Operation................................   194
        Agreements...................................................   195
    Compliance and Environmental Stewardship.........................   184
    Diesel:
        Emissions Reduction Program..................................   200
        Hybrid Technology............................................   202
    EPA:
        And BorgWarner to Develop Fuel Efficient Technology..........   201
        Colorado Commitments.........................................   188
    Good Samaritan Project...........................................   189
    Healthy Communities and Ecosystems...............................   184
    Homeland Security..............................................182, 186
    Integrated Risk Information System...............................   205
    Land Preservation and Restoration................................   183
    Libby Site Record of Decision....................................   200
    Partnership Geared Toward New Technologies to Reduce Fuel
      Consumption....................................................   202
    Pesticide Harmonization........................................197, 198
    Red River........................................................   198
    Summitville Mine Site............................................   187
        Alternative Treatments.......................................   190
        Settlement Funds Status......................................   189
    Technology.......................................................   186
    Use of Turbochargers on Diesel Engines...........................   201

                                       -