[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
-