    [Senate Hearing 110-383]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 110-383

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                               H.R. 2643/S. 1696

       AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
    ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER
                        30, 2008, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                          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

    33-923 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2008

    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
    DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                    ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
    DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii             THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            TED STEVENS, Alaska
    TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
    BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
    HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
    PATTY MURRAY, Washington             MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
    MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
    BEN NELSON, Nebraska                 LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
                        Charles Kieffer, Staff Director
                      Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

     Subcommittee on Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
                                    Agenics

                     DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California, Chairman
    ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            TED STEVENS, Alaska
    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
    HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
    BEN NELSON, Nebraska                 LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
                               Professional Staff

                                Peter Kiefhaber
                                  Ginny James
                                 Rachel Taylor
                                 Scott Dalzell
                                 Chris Watkins
                           Leif Fonnesbeck (Minority)
                            Rebecca Benn (Minority)
                             Calli Daly (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                             Katie Batte (Minority)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Tuesday, March 13, 2007

                                                                       Page

    Environmental Protection Agency..................................     1

                            Tuesday, March 20, 2007

    Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary..............    35

                             Tuesday, May 22, 2007

    Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................    81
    Nondepartmental witnesses........................................   131

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2007

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Feinstein, Dorgan, Reed, Nelson, Allard,
    Craig, Domenici, and Alexander.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            MARCUS PEACOCK, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
            BILL WEHRUM, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR AND
                RADIATION

                 opening statement of senator dianne feinstein

        Senator Feinstein. Let me begin by welcoming everyone here
    this morning, and thank you for attending this hearing on the
    Environmental Protection Agency's fiscal year 2008 budget
    request.
        We have Steve Johnson, the EPA Administrator, as our
    principal witness. So, we look forward to the testimony.
        I'd also like to thank Senator Craig, our ranking member,
    and other members who, hopefully, will join us this morning.
        I think all of us should be extremely concerned about the
    cuts in EPA's budget for fiscal year 2008. The administration's
    request provides $7.2 billion for the EPA. That's $508 million
    less than 2007. That's a 6.6 percent cut. So, this, then, is
    the smallest EPA budget in more than a decade, and more than
    $1.1 billion less than the agency's budget in 2004.
        Now, we all know we have to make tough fiscal choices,
    but--and we need to reduce the deficit, but I don't believe
    that cutting funding for clean water or clean air is the
    answer. In particular, I can't begin to understand why the
    administration would cut $400 million out of the Clean Water
    State Revolving Fund. That's a 37 percent cut. Congress funded
    this Fund at nearly $1.1 billion last year, because we know
    that our communities depend on this funding to meet their clean
    water needs. EPA's own GAP analysis tells us that our Nation
    needs hundreds of billions of dollars for clean water
    infrastructure just to keep pace with our aging water systems.
        I mean, I remember the day when no one used bottled water
    anywhere. We all drank water straight from the tap. That just
    simply is not true today. Water is not nearly as clean as it
    used to be.
        In my State, the San Joaquin Valley has some of the worst
    air quality in the Nation. Its geography serves as a bowl that
    collects air pollutants from cars, trucks, and farm equipment,
    and it makes the challenges of meeting the Federal air-quality
    deadlines for ozone and particulate matter virtually
    impossible. As a matter of fact, it's one of the two
    nonattainment areas in the State.
        The South Coast air district is also fighting severe
    pollution from ozone and particulate matter. To meet air-
    quality standards, they'll have to address pollution from a
    whole host of sources, including heavy trucks, oceangoing
    ships, and locomotives that move goods to the port. Yet, the
    air management district tells me that the EPA's recent
    locomotive and maritime diesel rule is insufficient to allow
    Southern California to meet its clean air deadlines. These
    districts need more Federal assistance to clean up their air,
    not less. In particular, they need the Federal Government to be
    a better partner on clean diesel programs.
        While EPA is moving forward with regulations to reduce
    further diesel emissions, we have to deal with the 11 million
    diesel engines that are polluting our air today. So, this is a
    challenge that could cost billions of dollars.
        Now, I'm very pleased that the administration's budget does
    contain $35 million to fund clean diesel grants. But, Mr.
    Administrator, we both know that $35 million is just not enough
    to get the job done. It's far less than the $200 million that
    Congress authorized for these cleanups, and it's even less than
    the President proposed last year. My own State is already
    spending $100 million each year for diesel emission reduction
    grants. It's not fair for the States to have to pick up the tab
    on this, so I hope the Federal Government can step up to the
    plate and provide more funding.
        So, Mr. Johnson, bottom line, I hope you will commit to
    working with us to make that happen, and I look forward to your
    testimony.
        I'll now call on the ranking member, distinguished Senator,
    Senator Craig.

                        statement of senator larry craig

        Senator Craig. Well, Madam Chairman, thank you very much.
        I must say, at the beginning of my comments, they're going
    to sound a great deal like the chairman's, Steve. But, welcome
    before the committee. Marcus, it's great to have you back
    before the committee to look at your 2008 budget.
        EPA has one of the most important and difficult missions of
    all of our Federal agencies. The agency's jurisdiction ranges
    from responsibility to cleanup--in the cleanup of Superfund
    sites such as the Coeur d'Alene site in my home State of Idaho,
    to funding clean water and drinking water infrastructure
    programs. If you come to my State, I think bottled water is a
    fad, Madam Chairman, not a necessity.
        In Idaho?
        Senator Feinstein. It's not a necessity?
        Senator Craig. It's a fad.
        It's not a necessity.
        But certainly there is infrastructure problem of severity
    and enforcement of the long list of environmental laws that are
    out there, is a phenomenal obligation to some of our
    jurisdictions.
        The administration has requested $7.2 billion in the total
    budget authority for 2008. This is $500 million below the
    enacted level. While I am a supporter of the agency and the
    administration's efforts to curb spending, I think my
    priorities are not unlike the Senator from California's
    priorities, and the chairman of this committee. A reduction in
    EPA's budget is in the form of $396 million cut to Clean Water
    State Revolving Funds, at a time when they are desperately
    needed because of the new requirements in drinking-water
    standards, is tremendously important and enormously impossible,
    I guess is a great way to say it, in some of these small
    communities where the technology is simply not allowing them to
    comply because of the costs involved for the number of patrons
    that are recipients of the water delivered. So, that's a
    tremendously important issue. The State revolving funds work,
    they work very well. They are the kind of assistance we need.
        Now, on a positive note, I am pleased that both the Asian-
    Pacific Partnership, $5 million, and Methane to Markets, $4.4
    million, received funding in the budget request. Let me look at
    my home State a little bit. Coeur d'Alene is a beautiful city
    in the north end of my home State, adjacent to a Superfund
    site. I'm way too familiar with the difficulties surrounding
    cleanup processes with Superfund sites. They still are more
    valuable to litigate, it seems, than to partnership on the
    cleanups that are necessary. I appreciate the challenges the
    agency's facing with cleaning up 1,245 active Superfund sites
    on the national priority list. However, I am most concerned
    that EPA is pushing the Superfund program to not only complete
    construction on sites in a timely manner, but also to turn
    these areas into healthy and safe conditions.
        As we emerge out of our difficulties in north Idaho, it is
    amazing the economic renaissance that can occur. But we spent
    20 years fighting and spending lots of money to get there, and
    that does not seem like a very productive way to handle
    resources.
        I would like to look past some of the science of drinking
    water to the realities of our rural communities in Idaho, as I
    mentioned, suffered from arsenic relations that are simply too
    big to deal with. Senator Domenici has just arrived. He and I
    have partnershiped on this issue, because we have communities
    that are in unique geologic regions of the country, where the
    reality of arsenic, with the standards currently set, are
    simply unattainable in a cost-effective way, compared with
    large municipalities.
        So, those are some of our struggles, Administrator Johnson.
    I think you understand them well. We've had not only productive
    dialogue, but cooperation, as we've worked on these issues in
    the past. We'll continue to do so. But to start with a budget
    that is below last year is, in itself, a phenomenal challenge.
        I would hope this isn't just the gamesmanship that
    oftentimes goes on when the administrations, Democrat or
    Republican, know that there are certain congressional
    priorities that they don't necessarily hold. So, if you get
    your funding, and your budget looks good, then Congress will
    come along and stick some of the money in it that they want,
    and, in the end, maybe both win, but the budget loses. That's a
    reality that we all struggle with.
        Madam Chairman, thank you very much.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator Craig.
        Does any other member have a statement they might like to
    make?
        Senator, do you?
        Senator Dorgan. Madam Chairman, just 1 minute, if I might,
    and----
        Senator Feinstein. Please.
        Senator Dorgan [continuing]. No more than 1 minute.

                      statement of senator byron l. dorgan

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Johnson, thank you very much.
        My colleague from Idaho talked about spending less money
    than the previous year. That's been the case repeatedly in
    recent years on this subcommittee, despite the fact there are
    substantial needs. But, Administrator Johnson, I talked to you
    about the Center for Air Toxic Metals, which is a 12-year
    cornerstone program on this issue of research on technologies
    to deal with the air toxic metal issue. I talked to you about
    the fact that Congress has earmarked that for all of these
    years, because it's never put in the budget, I guess because
    you expect us to put it in. But I want to continue to work with
    you to make sure that, in that critical area dealing with the
    environment, that we don't have, in the intervening period,
    before Congress once again indicates its importance to that
    issue, that there not be layoffs and so on in that program
    before October 1st, when Congress almost certainly will fund it
    again.
        So, I'm going to provide you some information again today
    relevant to our phone call, but thank you for your leadership.
    I look forward to working with you.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Going--I beg your pardon. I said I was going to use the
    early-bird rule, and I didn't. I think you were in next, Mr.--
    Senator Allard. If you----
        Senator Allard. Madam Chairman, it's not a problem. Thank
    you.

                       statement of senator wayne allard

        Senator Allard. I want to congratulate you for holding the
    hearing. I have a full statement I'd like to make a part of the
    record.
        But I would just, first of all, like to congratulate the
    Environmental Protection Agency for their new building in
    Denver, which I understand is an energy-efficient building
    and----
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. Likely to get what they call
    the Silver LEEDs rating, which is very good. I want to
    congratulate you on that. I want to thank you for many of the
    cleanup areas that we've moved forward on in Colorado. This
    hasn't been just in the past year, but it's been over a period
    of time--Rocky Flats, Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Shattuck Cleanup
    Site--and we're working on some other sites, too. I appreciate
    your cooperation in that regard.
        A concern that I raise in my comments is that we have to be
    very sensitive to what is happening in small communities. Many
    times when we're passing rules and regulations and doing
    enforcement in small communities, they simply can't afford to
    do whatever is required. I think we need to be sensitive, in
    some way. We just can't shut down the small community.
        Mr. Johnson. Right.
        Senator Allard. So, somehow or other, we need to figure out
    ways and, I think, maybe take more of a supportive role. Many
    of the fines and everything that get applied are very
    appropriate to a large community. But in a small community it's
    just--becomes unreasonable. I think that, somehow or the
    other--I don't know whether you have that flexibility because
    of current law; sometimes you don't--but in other--in some
    cases, where law permits--and I think we need to be somewhat
    flexible--there are some challenges on some clean-water issues
    for small communities and whatnot, and some environmental
    issues.

                               prepared statement

        I've been contacted by a number of them. I'm sure that
    there's a number of Senators up here from smaller States that
    have had some of the same conversations with their smaller
    communities. So, I'd just bring that to your attention, and
    I'll have my full statement put in the record.
        Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Senator Wayne Allard
        Madam Chairwoman, thank you for holding this hearing today. While
    the EPA oversees the many important environmental regulations and
    requirements, some of these regulations may have a disproportionate
    effect on small communities. I think that this fact makes it very
    important for Congress to exercise close oversight of the Agency and
    its funding.
        I would like to begin by congratulating you, Administrator Johnson,
    on EPA's new home in Denver. I understand that the recently completed
    building is likely to receive a silver LEEDs rating. As a founding
    member of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus I am very
    pleased to hear that the federal government is leading by example in
    this area.
        I would also like to thank you for the leadership role EPA has
    played at the clean-up of the Rocky Flats site, the Rocky Mountain
    Arsenal and the Shattuck site in Denver. Those areas are of great
    importance to the people of Colorado and to me.
        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--such a cost-benefit analysis should
    take into account the size of the systems and income level of the users
    who will bear the cost. Even with such considerations, some communities
    simply cannot afford to implement the types of upgrades that are
    required to meet ever evolving federal requirements. I believe that the
    federal government should step up and help these communities instead of
    pushing down yet another unfunded mandate on them.
        Finally, I have mentioned in previous years that I have had
    concerns with a climate within EPA that seems to lean heavily toward
    enforcement. From communications I have had with constituents, it has
    seemed that EPA was no longer interested in assisting communities in
    complying with regulations set by EPA. Instead reports of heavy-handed
    enforcement were the norm. Although enforcement is certainly a
    responsibility that has been delegated--and sometimes mandated--to EPA
    from Congress, small communities often do not have the expertise to
    meet new regulations on their own. The EPA should be willing to help
    communities who operate in good-faith efforts to meet federal
    requirements, rather than simply wait until they are able to take
    enforcement action.
        I am pleased to report this year that the news I have been hearing
    recently is more encouraging. Several of our small communities are
    reporting that EPA seems to have acquired new flexibility and is more
    willing to work with them. While things are not yet perfect, I am happy
    to hear of this progress. However I noted with some disappointment that
    EPA is requesting a substantial increase in their enforcement budget.
    When small communities are subjected to fines there is less funding for
    correcting the problems that triggered the fines in the first place. I
    think that we can all agree that upgrading water infrastructure, for
    example, is a far better use for a community's funds than is paying a
    fine. I hope this requested increase in funding does not mean that the
    agency is stuck in the mindset that enforcement of regulations is more
    important that helping communities meet those regulations.
        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 I look forward to working with the committee to ensure
    that activities at the Environmental Protection Agency are funded in a
    manner that is responsible and sufficient.

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Domenici.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

        Senator Domenici. Madam Chairperson, I will just make a
    very brief statement, knowing that it'll--eventually, I'll have
    a chance, during questions, to bring up the issue.
        We have a terrible problem of arsenic in the small
    communities. So do you. We just can't meet the standard that
    they've set. Some of our small communities are now under the
    gun for real. We've been kind of putting it off, putting it
    off, begging, begging. But I think you've gotten to the point
    where you're going to have to do something, but I don't know
    what it will be. I don't think we're going to close a bunch of
    small communities' systems down. They're doing the very, very
    best they can. I'll ask some questions, just to see if there's
    any more chances that we have, and any opportunities, that our
    small communities have to get out again from under this yoke
    that's strangling them.
        I thank you for your cooperation, and your office. You have
    been out there to see how bad it is, and you know the arsenic
    standards for the small communities are, for all intents and
    purposes, not achievable.
        With that I'll hold until my questions. Thank you for your
    time.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
        Mr. Johnson, we'll turn it over to you now. I think you've
    heard the concerns of individual committee members. I know
    they'd appreciate it, to the extent you can address them in
    your opening remarks.

                    SUMMARY STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. JOHNSON

        Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Thank you
    and members of the committee.
        I am pleased to be here to discuss the President's fiscal
    year 2008 budget request for the Environmental Protection
    Agency. The President's $7.2 billion request builds upon EPA's
    record of accomplishments and funds its role as our Nation
    enters the next phase of environmental progress.
        Over our 36 years, EPA has laid a strong foundation to
    shift America to a green culture. Our citizens are embracing
    the fact that environmental responsibility is everyone's
    responsibility. So, instead of having only 17,000 EPA employees
    working to protect the environment, we now have 300 million
    Americans as environmental partners.
        These are exciting times. Our air, water, and land are
    cleaner today than a generation ago. With this budget, our
    progress will continue.
        The evolution of environmental progress has come in--about,
    in part, because we have proven that a healthy environment and
    a healthy economy can, in fact, go hand-in-hand. As the economy
    continues to grow, so do our energy needs. In order to help
    meet the President's ambitious clean energy and air goals,
    EPA's budget requests over $82 million to support our Energy
    Policy Act responsibilities. This includes $8.4 million to
    implement the Renewable Fuel Standards, and $35 million for
    grants to cut diesel emissions from trucks and school buses.
        EPA also plays a vital role in advancing the
    administration's aggressive, yet practical, strategy for
    reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The President has requested
    $117.9 million for EPA's climate change programs, including $44
    million for the successful Energy Star program, $5 million for
    the Asia-Pacific Partnership initiative, and $4.4 million for
    the Methane to Markets program.
        The evolution of environmental progress requires EPA to
    work effectively with our State and local partners. The
    President's budget builds upon this cooperation by providing
    $2.7 billion to help our partners improve their water quality.
    We are also promoting the use of innovative, tax-exempt,
    private activity bonds for capital investments in drinking
    water and wastewater projects.
        Additionally, collaboration is the key to protecting
    America's great water bodies. In order to strengthen the
    efforts of EPA and our partners, the President is requesting
    $28.8 million for the Chesapeake Bay, $56.8 million for the
    Great Lakes, $4.5 million for the Gulf of Mexico, and $1
    million for the Puget Sound.
        At EPA, we're working productively with our partners to
    deliver a healthier and more prosperous future. The President's
    budget provides $1.2 billion for the Superfund program to
    continue transforming hazardous waste sites back into community
    assets.
        After highlighting some of these cooperative initiatives,
    we also must recognize the necessity of vigorously enforcing
    our Nation's environmental laws. The proposed fiscal year 2008
    enforcement budget, $549.5 million, is the highest enforcement
    budget ever.
        As EPA helps shape America's green culture, we understand
    the need to advance environmental science. The President's
    commitment to sound science is reflected in his $134 million
    request, an increase of $9.4 million, to fund human health
    risk, clean air, and nanotechnology research.
        Finally, I must mention EPA's evolving role from being
    guardians of the environment to, also, guardians of our
    homeland. The President has requested $152 million for our
    homeland security responsibilities in water security and
    decontamination efforts.
        While the Nation's environment progress continues to
    evolve, so does EPA's role. This budget will fulfill EPA's
    responsibilities of being good stewards of the environment and
    good stewards of our Nation's tax dollars.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        By making smart use of our resources, we're not only
    building on our Nation's environmental accomplishments, we're
    creating a lasting legacy for future generations of Americans.
        Thank you, and I look forward to addressing your questions.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Stephen L. Johnson
        Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to be
    here today to discuss the fiscal year 2008 budget request for the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The President has requested $7.2
    billion to support the work of EPA and our partners nationwide. This
    funding illustrates the administration's unwavering commitment to
    setting high environmental protection standards, while focusing on
    results and performance, and achieving the goals outlined in the
    President's Management Agenda.
        The President's request builds on EPA's long record of
    accomplishments and funds its role as America enters into the next
    phase of environmental progress. These are exciting times for our
    Nation's environment. Since its founding, EPA has laid a strong
    foundation of environmental progress. Our air, water and land are
    cleaner today than they were just a generation ago, and with this
    year's budget, this progress will continue.
        While our Nation's environmental results are significant, it is
    important to understand how they're being achieved. Over our 36 years,
    EPA has laid a strong foundation to shift America into a ``green''
    culture. Today, instead of having just 17,000 EPA employees working to
    protect the environment, we now have over 300 million Americans as
    environmental partners. Americans from all sectors of society--
    businesses, communities and individuals--have begun to embrace the fact
    that the environment is everyone's responsibility, not just the
    responsibility of EPA.
        Madam Chairman, the fiscal year 2008 budget will fund our new role
    in this next exciting phase of environmental progress.
        Our Nation is committed to balancing the budget, and EPA is a proud
    partner in this effort. EPA is not only a good steward of our
    environment, but it is a good steward of our Nation's tax dollars. We
    are accountable for spending the taxpayer's money efficiently and
    effectively, while focusing on wisely investing in environmental
    results.
                      clean air and global climate change
        The fiscal year 2008 President's Budget requests $912 million for
    the Clean Air and Global Climate Change goal at EPA. EPA implements
    this goal through its national and regional programs that 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.
        The Clean Air Rules are a major component of EPA work under Goal 1
    and include a suite of actions that will dramatically improve America's
    air quality. Three of the rules specifically address the transport of
    pollution across state borders (the Clean Air Interstate Rule, the
    Clean Air Mercury Rule, and the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule). These
    rules provide national tools to achieve significant improvement in air
    quality and the associated benefits of improved health, longevity and
    quality of life for all Americans. In fiscal year 2008, EPA will be
    working with the states and industry to implement these rules.
        In order to address the Nation's growing energy challenges, EPA's
    request supports activities associated with the Energy Policy Act of
    2005. These activities include the implementation of the Renewable Fuel
    Standards that will promote the use of renewable fuels, diversify our
    energy sources, and reduce our reliance on oil. EPA's request provides
    $35 million to support the new Diesel Emission Reduction Grants program
    that is designed to reduce diesel emissions in trucks and school buses
    through retrofitting and replacing existing engines. This program will
    target projects in areas that don't meet air quality standards to help
    ensure improvements occur in areas of the country where the benefits
    are needed most.
        In fiscal year 2008, EPA's climate protection programs will
    continue its government and industry partnerships to achieve reductions
    in greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to the President's goal of
    reducing greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent in 2012. The
    President's request for EPA's voluntary partnership climate change
    programs and research on technology and science in fiscal year 2008 is
    $118 million. The request includes $4 million for the Methane to
    Markets Partnership which promotes methane recovery and use in
    landfills, coal mines and natural gas facilities. In addition, EPA's
    request provides $5 million to support the Asia Pacific Partnership--
    this partnership supports international efforts to reduce greenhouse
    gas emissions by creating new investment opportunities, building local
    capacity, and removing barriers to the introduction of more efficient
    technologies. EPA's climate partnership and technology research efforts
    are components of the administration's Climate Change Technology
    Program. In addition, EPA's Global Change research program coordinates
    its efforts and actively contributes to the administration's Climate
    Change Science Program.
                              clean and safe water
        The fiscal year 2008 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.
        The President's request continues the administration's commitments
    to the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. The
    President funds the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) at $688
    million, supporting the cumulative capitalization commitment of $6.8
    billion for 2004-2011 and enabling the CWSRF to eventually revolve at
    an annual level of $3.4 billion. The budget proposes $842 million for
    the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), essentially the same
    as the 2007 level. This request keeps the administration's commitment
    of achieving a long-term $1.2 billion revolving level.
        EPA has worked with Treasury and other parts of the administration
    to propose expanded use of tax-exempt Private Activity Bonds for
    capital investments in drinking water and wastewater projects. The
    President's Budget proposes to exempt PABs from the private activity
    bond unified state volume cap. PABs are tax-exempt bonds issued by a
    state or local government, the proceeds of which are used by another
    entity for a public purpose or by the government entity itself for
    certain public-private partnerships. By removing drinking water and
    wastewater bonds from the volume cap, this proposal will provide states
    and communities greater access to PABs to help finance their water
    infrastructure needs and increase capital investment in the Nation's
    water infrastructure.
        This Water Enterprise Bond proposal would provide an exception to
    the unified annual State volume cap on tax-exempt qualified private
    activity bonds for exempt facilities for the ``furnishing of water'' or
    ``sewage facilities.'' To ensure the long-term financial health and
    solvency of these drinking water and wastewater systems, communities
    using these bonds must have demonstrated a process that will move
    towards full-cost pricing for services within 5 years of issuing the
    Private Activity Bonds. This will help water systems become self-
    financing and minimize the need for future subsidies.
                       land preservation and restoration
        The Agency's fiscal year 2008 budget request to Congress implements
    the Land Preservation and Restoration goal through EPA's land program
    activities that promote the following themes: Revitalization,
    Recycling, Waste Minimization, and Energy Recovery; Emergency
    Preparedness and Response; and Homeland Security.
        The President's budget provides $1.2 billion for the Superfund
    program to continue progress cleaning up the Nation's most contaminated
    hazardous waste sites. As of the end of fiscal year 2006, cleanup
    construction has been completed at 1,006 National Priorities List (NPL)
    sites. The Superfund program often completes short-term removal actions
    to mitigate immediate health threats at sites prior to completion of
    investigations and the start of long-term cleanup construction.
        EPA has continued its efforts to efficiently utilize every dollar
    and resource available to clean up contaminated sites and to protect
    human health. In fiscal year 2006, EPA obligated $390 million of
    appropriated, state cost-share, and responsible party funding to
    conduct ongoing cleanup construction and post-construction work at
    Superfund sites that includes nearly $45 million to begin construction
    at 18 new Superfund projects. Based upon the construction schedules,
    EPA expects to complete construction of all remedies at 24 sites in
    fiscal year 2007 and 30 sites in fiscal year 2008. EPA expects to
    complete construction at 165 sites during the fiscal year 2007 to
    fiscal year 2011 time period, the goal established in the Agency's
    fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2011 Strategic Plan.
        In fiscal year 2008, the Agency is requesting $34 million for the
    Underground Storage Tank Program to provide assistance to states to
    help them meet their new responsibilities, that include: (1) mandatory
    inspections every 3 years for all underground storage tanks; (2)
    operator training; (3) prohibition of delivery to non-complying
    facilities; (4) secondary containment of financial responsibility for
    tank manufacturers and installers; (5) various compliance reports; and
    (6) grant guidelines. The Agency is also submitting new legislative
    language to allow states to use alternative mechanisms, such as the
    Environment Results Program, to meet the mandatory 3-year inspection
    requirement. This proposal provides states with a less costly
    alternative to meet the objectives of the Energy Policy Act.
                       healthy communities and ecosystems
        In fiscal year 2008, 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.
        In fiscal year 2008, $162.2 million was requested for the
    Brownfields program to support research efforts with additional
    assessments, revolving loan fund, cleanup grants and workforce
    development programs. When leveraged with state and local resources,
    this Brownfield funding will help assess more than 1,000 properties,
    clean up more than 60 sites, and address petroleum contamination in
    more than 40 communities.
        EPA focuses on collaborative place-based programs to protect the
    great waterbodies--the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, the Gulf of
    Mexico and the Puget Sound.
        The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States and
    a water resource of tremendous ecological and economic importance. The
    greatest success in the last 5 years has been the water quality
    initiative that has resulted in new water quality standards for the
    Bay, the adoption of nutrient and sediment allocations for all parts of
    the watershed that meet new standards, and tributary-specific pollution
    reduction and habitat restoration plans. To continue to carry out these
    functions, the fiscal year 2008 President's Budget requests $29 million
    in fiscal year 2008, an increase of over $2 million from the previous
    President's Budget request. Within the request is $8 million for
    competitive grants for innovative, cost-effective non-point source
    watershed projects, which reduce nutrient and/or sediment discharges to
    the Bay.
        The Great Lakes are the largest system of surface freshwater on
    earth, containing 20 percent of the world's surface freshwater and
    accounting for 84 percent of the surface freshwater in the United
    States. The goal of the Agency's Great Lakes Program is to restore and
    maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great
    Lakes Basin Ecosystem. The President's fiscal year 2008 budget commits
    $57 million towards continuing efforts by EPA's Great Lakes program,
    working with state, local, and tribal partners and using the Great
    Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy as a guide to protect and restore
    the Great Lakes. The Agency will focus on working with partners to
    clean up and de-list eight Areas of Concern (AOCs) by 2010, emphasizing
    clean up of contaminated sediments under the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
    EPA will continue to work towards reducing PCB concentrations in lake
    trout and walleye and keeping Great Lakes beaches open and safe for
    swimming during the beach season.
        The fiscal year 2008 President's Budget Request provides $4.5
    million for the Gulf of Mexico program to support Gulf States and
    stakeholders in developing a regional, ecosystem-based framework for
    restoring and protecting the Gulf of Mexico.
        EPA efforts in the Puget Sound are focused on the Basin's highest
    priority environmental challenges: air and water quality. The fiscal
    year 2008 Budget provides $1 million for restoration activities to
    improve water quality and minimize the adverse impacts of rapid
    development.
        Another major focus of the Healthy Communities and Ecosystems goal
    is identifying, assessing, and reducing the risks from pesticides. In
    fiscal year 2008, EPA will continue identifying and assessing potential
    risks from pesticides. In addition, EPA will set priorities for
    addressing pesticide risks and promoting innovative and alternative
    measures of pest control. EPA will continue to meet its pesticide-
    related homeland security responsibilities by identifying and reviewing
    proposed pesticides for use against pathogens of greatest concern for
    crops, animals, and humans. EPA will continue to work closely with
    other federal agencies and industry to implement its Registration
    Review program that will review existing pesticide registrations on a
    15-year cycle to ensure that registered pesticides in the marketplace
    continue to be safe for use in accordance with the latest scientific
    information.
                    compliance and environmental stewardship
        The EPA's fiscal year 2008 Budget request of $743.8 million for the
    Compliance and Environmental Stewardship goal provides funding for
    programs that monitor and promote enforcement and compliance with
    environmental laws and policies. The Agency will also support
    stewardship through direct programs, collaboration and grants for
    pollution prevention, pesticide and toxic substance enforcement,
    environmental information, and continuing an environmental presence in
    Indian Country.
        In fiscal year 2008, the budget for this goal also provides $56.9
    million for GAP grants, which will build tribal environmental capacity
    to assess environmental conditions, utilize available federal
    information, and build an environmental program tailored to tribes'
    needs. The grants will develop environmental education and outreach
    programs, develop and implement integrated solid waste management
    plans, and alert EPA to serious conditions that pose immediate public
    health and ecological threats. Through GAP program guidance, EPA
    emphasizes outcome-based results.
                                  enforcement
        In fiscal year 2008, the proposed total of $549.5 million
    represents the highest requested enforcement budget. This request for
    an increase of $9.1 million reflects the administration's strong
    commitment to the vigorous enforcement of our Nation's environmental
    laws and ensures that we will have the resources necessary to maintain
    a robust and effective enforcement program.
        EPA's enforcement program continues to achieve outstanding
    enforcement results with settlements over the past 3 years resulting in
    commitments of nearly $20 billion in future pollution controls. As an
    outcome of EPA's Superfund enforcement actions in fiscal year 2006,
    parties held responsible for pollution will invest $391 million to
    clean up 15 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and approximately
    1.3 billion cubic yards of contaminated groundwater at waste sites.
    These results show a strong and vigorous enforcement program that will
    be attainable under the fiscal year 2008 Request.
                                    research
        EPA conducts research that provides a scientific foundation for the
    Agency's actions to protect the air that all Americans breathe. In
    fiscal year 2008, EPA's air research program will support
    implementation of the Clean Air Act, especially the National Ambient
    Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS programs will focus on
    tropospheric ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur
    dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and lead. EPA also conducts research to
    improve understanding of the risks from other hazardous air pollutants,
    known as air toxics. EPA is also one of many federal agencies that
    actively contribute to the administration's Climate Change Science
    Program.
        Other important areas of research in fiscal year 2008 will include:
    (1) development of molecular microarrays for detection of bacterial
    pathogens and non-pathogenic microbes in drinking water source waters;
    (2) epidemiological studies on the illness rates resulting from
    untreated groundwater and distribution systems; (3) studies on the
    practices, such as blending, for handling significant wet weather
    events to identify ``best practices'' for preventing peak wet weather
    flows from overwhelming wastewater treatment facilities while
    protecting water quality; and (4) providing more efficient monitoring
    and diagnostic tools through continued research to develop methods of
    using landscape assessments for monitoring and assessing watershed
    conditions. These programs will help assess risks and priorities for
    ensuring clean water.
        EPA is requesting $10.2 million in fiscal year 2008 for
    nanotechnology research, which will focus primarily on the potential
    implications of manufactured nanomaterials on human health and the
    environment. The Agency's efforts are coordinated with other federal
    agencies through the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which
    the administration has identified as a fiscal year 2008 research and
    development budget priority. In fiscal year 2008, EPA's Science to
    Achieve Results (STAR) program will continue to fund exploratory grants
    on the potential implications of manufactured nanomaterials on the
    environment and human health, in collaboration with other federal
    agencies.
        The Agency also will continue in-house nanotechnology research
    initiated in fiscal year 2007. The integrated programs will focus on:
    (1) assessing the potential ecological and human health exposures and
    effects from nanomaterials likely to be released into the environment;
    (2) studying the lifecycles of nanomaterials to better understand how
    environmental releases may occur; (3) developing methods to detect
    releases of nanomaterials; and (4) using nanotechnology to detect,
    control, and remediate traditional pollutants.
        Recognizing that environmental policy and regulatory decisions will
    only be as good as the science upon which they are based, EPA makes
    every effort to ensure that its science is of the highest quality and
    relevance, thereby providing the basis for sound environmental
    decisions and results. EPA uses the federal Research and Development
    (R&D) Investment Criteria of quality, relevance, and performance in its
    decision-making processes through: (1) the use of research strategies
    and plans; (2) program review and evaluation by the Board of Scientific
    Counselors (BOSC) and the Science Advisory Board (SAB); and (3)
    independent peer review.
                               homeland security
        Following the cleanup and decontamination efforts after the
    terrorist incidents in 2001, the Agency has focused on ensuring we have
    the tools and protocols needed to detect and recover quickly from
    deliberate incidents. The emphasis for fiscal year 2008 is on several
    areas including decontaminating threat agents, protecting our water and
    food supplies, and ensuring that trained personnel and key lab
    capacities are in place to be drawn upon in the event of an emergency.
    Part of these fiscal year 2008 efforts will continue to include
    activities to implement a common identification standard for EPA
    employees and contractors such as the Smartcard initiative.
        EPA has a major role in supporting the protection of the Nation's
    critical water infrastructure from terrorist threats. In fiscal year
    2008, EPA will continue to support the Water Security Initiative
    (formerly known as Water Sentinel) pilot program and water sector-
    specific agency responsibilities, including the Water Alliance for
    Threat Reduction (WATR), to protect the Nation's critical water
    infrastructure. The fiscal year 2008 budget provides $22 million for
    the Water Security Initiative to continue operation at the existing
    pilot systems and to begin deployment of the last pilot systems.
    Ultimately, an expansion of the number of utilities will serve to
    promote the adoption of Water Security within the water sector.
    Functioning warning systems, among several utilities of potentially
    divergent configurations, will afford a more compelling outcome than
    just one utility. After start-up of the remaining pilot systems in
    2008, the program will ramp down as EPA shifts its focus to evaluation
    of the pilots. EPA will continue support of each pilot for 3 years,
    after which the host cities will assume maintenance of these systems
    and over time bring them to full-scale operation. By the end of fiscal
    year 2007, EPA will issue interim guidance on design and consequence
    management that will enable water utilities to deploy and test
    contamination warning systems in their own communities.
        In fiscal year 2008, the Agency, in collaboration with our water
    sector security stakeholders, will continue our efforts to develop,
    implement and initiate tracking of national measures related to
    homeland security critical infrastructure protection activities.
        In summary, this budget will enable us to carry out the goals and
    objectives as set forth in our Strategic Plan, meet challenges through
    innovative and collaborative efforts with our state, tribal, and
    private entity partners, and focus on accountability and results in
    order to maximize environmental benefits. The requested resources will
    help us better understand and solve environmental challenges 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.

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very, very much. Appreciate
    it.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you.

                               SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY

        Senator Feinstein. If I may, let me raise an issue of
    concern to me, which is the San Joaquin Valley. As you know, it
    is a nonattainment area. It faces very serious strictures,
    which could shut down the economy if they can't meet their
    attainment standards. There is virtually no way, presently,
    that they know how to meet those attainment standards. The
    valley's geography traps pollution; and so, there are too many
    different sources coming into the valley, many of which are of
    no fault to the valley. Additionally, it's a big area;
    consequently, the diesels play a role.
        Mobile sources are the biggest polluters, but there's no
    way it can meet its Federal ozone standard by 2013, even if it
    were to ban all cars and all trucks from the San Joaquin
    Valley.
        What are you doing to help them comply? What could the EPA
    do, if Congress provided additional resources?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, Madam Chairman, we, too, share your
    concern about the San Joaquin Valley, and, in fact, are
    committed, and have been working through our Region 9 office to
    help businesses and the local air-management districts there.
    As you point out, they are going to require additional time for
    attainment. Their final draft of their ozone plan, which was
    issued in January, moves the attainment time to 2023. This will
    provide some additional time to help, but also will entail
    additional requirements to add local measures to try to help
    achieve.
        Senator Feinstein. Do you----
        Mr. Johnson. So, we're----
        Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Support that--moving the
    attainment time? Can it be done, legally?
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, it can be done, legally. We're very
    supportive of working with the Valley and the businesses to
    help in every way we can. Of course, the steps that we've taken
    for diesel, both on-road and off-road, as well as the recent
    proposal for locomotives and marines, again, all help. You have
    my commitment that we're going to continue to work to help the
    Valley achieve their attainment status as quickly as possible.

                               CLEAN DIESEL GRANT

        Senator Feinstein. Well, as you know, you have to convert
    11 million diesels. As you also know, the Clean Diesel Grant is
    authorized at $200 million. You only ask for $35 million in
    your budget this year. Why is that?
        Mr. Johnson. We believe that we are committed to make the
    diesel puff of smoke something you only read about in history
    books, and, through our regulations, as well as through the
    President's request of $35 million, we believe we continue to
    make progress in doing that. The good news is, we're going to
    continue to deliver results while meeting a balanced budget.
    The $35 million requested as part of the President's budget,
    will be leveraged through the grant mechanism into $72 million.
    Putting it in terms of health benefits, that will derive $1.4
    billion in health benefits. So, while there is much to be done,
    this continues to deliver results, and we're committed to make
    that happen.

                              NONATTAINMENT AREAS

        Senator Feinstein. Now, 30 percent of your request, about
    $10.5 million, will go to States to fund grants for
    nonattainment areas, but the remaining money, about $24.5
    million, is not targeted to any particular need or region. What
    is the plan for that $24.5 million?
        Mr. Johnson. Let me ask our Acting Assistant Administrator,
    Bill Wehrum, to come to the table, and he can describe the plan
    in greater detail.
        Bill?
        Mr. Wehrum. Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Bill
    Wehrum. I'm the Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
    Radiation.
        There are needs across the country with regard to funding
    diesel retrofit programs, so we tried to create a balance, in
    the budget that has been proposed: to target a significant
    amount of money in the areas that need it most, which are the
    nonattainment areas, but not to leave out many other areas of
    the country that have clean air, but also have dirty diesels.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, will this be done on a priority
    basis?
        Mr. Wehrum. We try very hard to prioritize, but also to
    provide adequate and substantial funding for the many needs
    across the country, Madam Chair.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, I mean, this is a problem for me.
    If you have an area that geographically can't meet its ozone
    requirements--and this area can't meet it, even as I say, if
    they prohibited every car and truck from entering the area,
    they still can't meet them. Therefore, the only thing they can
    do is make the changes in the diesel engines. It's a priority
    area, because it's a nonattainment area. I don't think any of
    these other areas, outside of Los Angeles, perhaps, in the
    United States, have the same problems as this area does. So,
    it's a pretty important priority, it seems to me. What you
    sounded like is, this is going to be another revenue-sharing
    program that's going to be spread, kind of, based on the
    politics of it. I hope that's not the case.
        Mr. Johnson.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, Madam Chairman, we are very interested
    in prioritizing these grants to those areas of nonattainment.
    As you aptly point out, the San Joaquin Valley and Cleveland,
    Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, are all areas that are in
    nonattainment that would greatly benefit by these kind of grant
    monies. Again, our first priority is to try to help in those
    nonattainment areas.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, I appreciate that, and I thank you
    for going on the record.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. The next question--and I'll--this is my
    last one--is, this is just 30 percent, about $10.5 million
    would go to States in nonattainment areas. I would ask you to
    work with me on that and re-look at it, based on these
    nonattainment areas around the United States, and what the
    strictures are on them, and what options they have, and then
    perhaps tailor this money to the most needy.
        Mr. Johnson. Look forward to working with you.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.
        Senator Craig.

                        CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND

        Senator Craig. Administrator Johnson, I spent a little time
    in the San Joaquin on agricultural issues and labor issues. In
    just conversation with the agricultural community alone, I'm
    always amazed at the amount of money they are now committing to
    retrofitting and changing and trying to come into compliance.
    It is literally hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Of
    course, the Senator from California and I work on agricultural
    issues. We know that sometimes their profitability margins are,
    at best, marginal, and their input costs are phenomenal. This
    is an input cost in that valley that is--if it were in Idaho,
    based on our cropping patterns, it would shut our agriculture
    down. It would really be quite that simple. They could not
    afford what California is attempting to afford, at this time.
        Let me talk about Clean Water State Revolving Fund. We've
    all expressed our concern about it. You've heard the Senator
    from New Mexico and I talk about uniqueness's that we have, but
    also a standard that--you know, I can question the science of
    it. It--that hardly makes a headline anymore. The reality is,
    here, the standards have been accepted, and now everybody
    rushes to comply, or attempt to comply.
        Can you tell me how EPA intends to help rural and poor
    communities maintain sewage plants and mitigate nonpointsource
    pollutions, and face the reality of what they need to get done,
    with that kind of a proposed cut?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, Senator, we are committed, as an agency,
    to help each of the States, whether they be small water systems
    or large water systems, to comply. The Clean Water State
    Revolving Loan Fund, that the President has requested in 2008,
    is at a level that supports his commitment. It's his commitment
    to extend the coverage from 2004 to 2011. This year's request
    is $687.6 million, revolving at $3.4 billion. That's the money
    side of it.
        This year, the President is proposing a very innovative
    solution, and that is the use of private activity bonds. Of
    course, that will require a change in the internal tax code,
    which we would urge Members of Congress to pass. We continue to
    support full-cost pricing and other programs, including
    research and development. In part of the President's budget for
    2008, there are monies to help in infrastructure research and
    development. So, we think these, coupled with improvements in
    efficiency, will help move us to a sustainable infrastructure.

                             PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS

        Senator Craig. Steve, you mentioned private activity bonds.
    I'm on the board of a think tank out West called the Center for
    the New West. We've held a series of meetings across the West
    and in California about the realities of all of these water
    issues--sewage, waste, water quality, urban water in--the whole
    combination of things--along with Bureau of Reclamation and
    their responsibility. There's a very obvious bottom line out
    there; and that is, nobody should expect the Federal Government
    to pay for all of it.
        Mr. Johnson. Right.
        Senator Craig. At the same time, this standard is a Federal
    mandate, ``You will comply,'' period. It's not a local mandate.
    It's not a State mandate. It is a Federal mandate.
        Having said that, though, the world in which we live in
    today out West is not the world of 70 years ago, when we were
    developing the West; it is a pretty developed, sophisticated,
    and very wealthy area today, in most respects. But when it
    takes on some of these water projects that are just
    phenomenally expensive, it needs flexibility in doing so--a
    little Federal help, local help.
        Talk to us more about this tax-exempt idea. I assembled a
    group of Wall Street investors in San Diego, Madam Chairman,
    about 3 months ago, to have this kind of conversation with
    urban and municipal water managers and developers. The Federal
    Government really does need to move in this area. We ought to
    be sensitive to the values of it, because it is a great new way
    of finding resources that we simply cannot budget up to, if you
    will, at the Federal level.
        Beyond just talking about it, what do you plan to do about
    it? Is it going to be advocated by the administration? Is it
    going to be part of their proposal? Are they going to go before
    the Senate Finance Committee, try to accomplish something like
    this?
        Mr. Johnson. It is part of the President's 2008 budget
    request. We are advocating that the tax code be changed to
    remove the cap that's currently in the tax law. That would
    allow private activity bonds so that additional investments
    could be made.
        Some of the analysis that we've done would indicate that,
    with these private activity bonds, we would see investments
    literally in the billions of dollars that would otherwise not
    be available because of the current cap in the current law.
    Here's a great opportunity for us to help strengthen our
    infrastructure by an infusion of monies through private
    activity funds. Yes, the administration is very supportive.
        Senator Craig. There are also concepts, Madam Chairman,
    that we ought to look at that are scored differently, or it is
    believed they would be scored differently than private activity
    bonds so that they don't fit the kind of frustration that OMB
    has as it relates to the expansion of some of these types of
    things being, if you will, a liability factor involved. They
    really hinge on opportunity and tax--unique tax advantagements
    within--advantages within the investment community that don't
    push a Federal obligation.
        Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you----
        Mr. Johnson. Madam Chairman, if I might just add, on March
    21 through March 23, we are having a summit on innovative
    financing. It's a summit that we've been working with, with the
    Western Governors.
        Senator Craig. That's good.
        Mr. Johnson. You're all welcome to come.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Thank you.
        Senator Allard, you're next.

                             COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

        Senator Allard. Madam Chairman, thank you.
        I'm just curious, do you include a cost-benefit analysis
    when you're setting your new regulations, or when implementing
    new thresholds? If you are, are you applying that to certain
    specific groups of size communities?
        Mr. Johnson. The Executive Order No. 12866 requires that
    any economically significant regulation, which is defined as
    greater than $100 million impact, include a cost-benefit
    analysis. Now, having said that, there are certain restrictions
    that are inherent in legislation. For example, in establishing
    a National Ambient Air-Quality Standard, as Administrator, I am
    strictly forbidden by law to consider the costs associated with
    setting the health standard. Other laws, in some cases,
    specifically, require that a cost-benefit analysis be done,
    regardless of that threshold. So, understand that we have an
    executive order that requires cost-benefit analysis, laws
    sometimes require that we conduct it; in some cases, as I make
    a decision, I'm strictly prohibited from including that cost
    consideration in my decision. The National Ambient Air-Quality
    Standard is a prime example of the latter.

                              GOOD SAMARITAN BILL

        Senator Allard. I see. Now, one of the things that we're
    working on in Colorado--and it's a bipartisan effort, both
    Republicans and Democrats working on it--is a Good Samaritan
    bill----
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. Which looks at abandoned mines
    and relieves the new owner of some liability if they move
    forward with cleanup of those particular mines. It's a
    particularly sensitive problem. We have these old abandoned
    mines that continue to discharge and cause water pollution
    problems, and yet nothing's done to clean them up. Until we can
    get that piece of legislation through the Congress, are you
    doing anything, administratively, in your--in the Environmental
    Protection Agency to move that forward so we can begin to get
    some of those abandoned cleaned? As you know, some of them
    are----
        Mr. Johnson. Well----
        Senator Allard [continuing]. Pretty toxic.
        Mr. Johnson. Our commitment is to do everything we can to
    address the estimated 500,000 abandoned--and that is the key
    word--abandoned hardrock mines. We----
        Senator Allard. That's throughout the country----
        Mr. Johnson. That's throughout the country, principally in
    the West.
        Senator Allard. That's a--sure.
        Mr. Johnson. Principally in the West.
        Senator Allard. Yeah.
        Mr. Johnson. We have put in place, through our
    administrative procedures, at least one agreement, with Trout
    Unlimited, to actually clean up a mine. It was very resource-
    intensive. We believe that the best solution is legislation, as
    you have suggested. So, we would certainly urge Members of
    Congress to pass the Good Samaritan legislation. It makes sense
    to have groups who don't want to assume liability for an entire
    site, to go in and make a difference and help clean it up. So,
    we certainly are very supportive of Good Samaritan legislation.
        Senator Allard. It doesn't make sense, when they didn't
    cause the problem, to hold them----
        Mr. Johnson. That's exactly----
        Senator Allard. It doesn't make any sense----
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Right.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. At all. And----
        Mr. Johnson. It doesn't make any sense.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. And they're there for the full
    sole purpose of making that property better, you know----
        Mr. Johnson. Exactly.
        Senator Allard [continuing]. From an environmental
    perspective. So----
        Mr. Johnson. Good.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Madam Chairman, that concludes my questioning. Thank you.
    Or--Mr. Chairman.
        I'm sorry. I didn't see who was in charge around here.
        Senator Craig [presiding]. We're going to third reading
    right quickly.
        Let me turn to the Senator from New Mexico. Senator
    Domenici?
        Senator Domenici. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman. I will just take a minute. Thank you, Senator Allard.
        First of all, I wanted to ask, Do you--did you know Paul
    Gilman?
        Mr. Johnson. Yes. Yes. A great scientist, great colleague,
    and he served the agency and the Nation well. So, yes----
        Senator Domenici. I was----
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Sir, I did.
        Senator Domenici [continuing]. Going to tell you, that's--I
    figured you and some of your cohorts knew him, but I wanted to
    report that I heard from him the other day. They're up--he's
    working in a private laboratory, and he has--his twins are
    growing like asparagus sprouts, and Angela, my secretary of
    years, was his personal friend----
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.

                                ARSENIC STANDARD

        Senator Domenici [continuing]. He and his wife's, and they
    sent for her the other day. She went up to spend a long
    weekend. She was used to babysitting, so they sent her up to do
    something akin to that.
        Sir, I want to tell you, the problem of arsenic has not--
    while it--you know, we continue to say it's just around the
    corner, and therefore, we think it isn't going to bite us. It's
    there, and it's terrible, and we haven't done much about it.
    But I appreciate your ever-consistent ear of concern for the
    very small facilities that are really not going to be able to
    put in this equipment for this new standard. You began
    enforcing the standard in 2006. The level from 50 parts per
    billion down to only 10 parts. My home State of New Mexico has
    high levels of natural-occurring arsenic in its volcanic soil,
    so that 20 percent of the State's municipalities will have to
    treat their drinking water to meet this standard, compared to
    only 5.5 percent of the municipalities nationwide. Of the New
    Mexico communities impacted by this requirement, 90.93 percent
    are small communities--most, well below the national median
    household income level--and yet, they face increased costs of
    water, exceeding $50 to $90 a month. When EPA promulgated these
    new rules in 2001, small-community variances were not allowed,
    because EPA claimed that the rule was affordable for small
    communities based on extraordinary cost thresholds of $1,000
    per family. I am pleased that EPA has agreed to consider
    revisions to the national level affordability and methodology
    for very small drinking water systems. However, the development
    of a new methodology by a lower affordability threshold by
    itself may not help poor communities in my State and some of
    the other States involved.
        Can you commit to me that the EPA will quickly perform this
    revision, and the revision will apply retroactively to arsenic
    standard?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, Senator, what I can commit to you is
    that we'll continue to aggressively work with the small
    communities in your State, and others, to help them achieve
    compliance with the arsenic standard. In the President's fiscal
    year 2008 budget, there's $1.8 million for continuing the 50
    demonstration projects, where we're looking at 15 cost-
    effective technologies that would help small systems. One of
    the provisions in the Arsenic Rule is to allow States to
    monitor; some States have availed themselves of additional time
    for monitoring to help sort through things.
        In addition, we have been working with them through
    administrative orders to provide sufficient time to try to help
    them meet the standard. The good news is that, as we sit here
    today, approximately 50 percent of the systems have been able
    to comply with this new standard. The good news, 50 percent
    have; but we have work to do, and that's what we're committed
    to do to help.
        Senator Domenici. Well, listen, I would be remiss if I
    didn't tell you that we very much owe you a debt of gratitude
    for your concern and consideration, and you're doing everything
    humanly possible. When you go out there and find this little
    tiny system out in the boonies, you're not closing them down.
    It wouldn't accomplish a great deal, you know, in terms of real
    effectiveness. I included four or five other questions in my
    packet of questions for today.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
        Senator Domenici. I would appreciate your--if you would
    answer them. Maybe, if we have to, we'll get you and our
    experts together soon.
        Mr. Johnson. Be happy to.
        Senator Domenici [continuing]. To talk about what we might
    do.
        Thank you.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
        Senator Craig. Pete, thank you very much. We've just been
    joined by Senator Reed. Please proceed, if you're ready.

                                CLEAN WATER ACT

        Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    gentlemen.
        The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
    recently sent my office a letter concerning a proposed EPA rule
    regarding the Clean Water Act, section 106 grant funding. The
    proposed rule would set aside a portion of State section 106
    funding to be distributed only to those States that generate 75
    to 100 percent of their NPDS program costs through user fees.
    The Clean Water Act does not require the use of fees to fund
    the NPDS program. So, what legal authority are you using to
    require the States effectively to impose fees in order to
    qualify for these monies?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Senator. We believe that it's
    important that we invest in clean water. We believe that this
    section, 106 NPDS permit rule provides a financial incentive to
    utilize adequate fee programs. The comment period closed on
    March 5, 2007. We're reviewing those comments. We believe this
    proposal helps promote sustainable management of State and
    local services, and we look forward to reviewing the public
    comments as we make our final determination on this rule.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Administrator. Let
    me point out that, for Rhode Island to meet these proposed
    levels to qualify, they would have to increase fees seven times
    their current levels, which would be extraordinarily
    disruptive. Also, the State of Rhode Island contributes their
    general-fund monies, their own monies, to help regulate and
    administer the NPDES program. So, I would appreciate you
    keeping me posted about the rulemaking that goes forward, and
    to take into consideration the burden that this would impose on
    my State. I'm sure I'm not alone.
        Mr. Johnson. Pleased to do so. Thank you, sir.

                            STAG PROGRAM--REDUCTIONS

        Senator Reed. Each year, EPA generates 50 or so new rules.
    They expect the States to make the changes, implement them, et
    cetera. It gets harder and harder to do that when the
    administration continues to propose significant cuts to the
    STAG program. How can we reconcile the ever-increasing burden,
    changes, et cetera, when there are decreasing monies--or at
    least proposed decreases in the STAG program?
        Mr. Johnson. We believe that the President's fiscal year
    2008 continues to deliver results while meeting a balanced
    budget. We continue to use the tax dollars to not only be good
    stewards in the environment, but good stewards of taxpayer
    dollars. We have an excellent working relationship with our
    States, and want to continue that. Certainly, we look for
    opportunities to leverage those tax dollars for the
    environment. Of course, Brownfields is an excellent example of
    that, as well as our actual enforcement program. So, certainly
    we are committed to working with our State partners to continue
    to improve and to use our resources wisely.

                              CLEAN WATER FUNDING

        Senator Reed. Well, let me ask a final question. It follows
    on, I think, a point that Senator Craig made with respect to
    rural communities. That's the proposed cuts in the budget for
    clean water funding. There's a national annual need of almost
    $20 billion, with the Federal share being close to about $5
    billion for public health and economic development with respect
    to clean water. The demand, I know, not only in rural
    communities, but also in urban areas, like Rhode Island, is
    increasing for these clean water projects. One, I think a more
    robust funding level would be in order. Two, perhaps better
    incentives for the smarter use of these dollars might be called
    for, too. Do you have a comment?
        Mr. Johnson. We think that there are a number of tools that
    we need to employ. One is the President's request for private
    activity bonds which requires a change in the tax code, which I
    certainly urge Members of Congress to do. We think that helps.
    Full-cost pricing helps. Another tool is a program that I
    launched recently, called WaterSense, which is modeled after
    Energy Star that would bring water efficiency labeling into
    products as a piece. We're--and, obviously, continue to support
    meeting the President's commitment for both clean water as well
    as drinking water, State Revolving Loan Funds.
        As I mentioned just briefly, we are hosting a conference,
    beginning on March 21 through the March 23. The title is
    ``Paying for Sustainable Water Infrastructure: A Summit on
    Innovative Financing.'' We are looking at financing, and we're
    looking at policy. The last piece, which I didn't mention, is
    an investment in research and development, not only for small-
    community water systems, dealing with issues such as arsenic,
    but infrastructure needs, in general. So, we think that all of
    these tools will help us move in the direction of a more
    sustainable infrastructure.
        Senator Reed. I think what's been happening is that we've
    been taking water--its prevalence and its accessibility and its
    affordability for granted. I think we're beginning to see
    that--you know, systems all across the country having more and
    more difficult problems, in terms of infrastructure. Up our
    way, it's age. We have water systems that are upwards of 100-
    plus years old. But we have a big bill to pay. Our concern--my
    concern is that we're not putting the resources, either through
    appropriations or the tax system, to make it--to pay the bill,
    and do it in a smart way now.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                               ARSENIC STANDARDS

        Senator Craig. Thank you, Senator.
        We have a revolving chairmanship going on here which is
    fine, because other Senators are coming.
        Let me, in passing through to Senator Alexander,
    Administrator, ask this question, and then I'm going to leave.
        You've heard the whole conversation here. I understand
    policy sometimes can drive a variety of things to happen before
    it's feasible for them to happen. It can drive technology, it
    can do a variety of things. It is also something that is
    phenomenally intimidating to well-meaning people when they feel
    they are out of compliance and cannot get there, have no way of
    getting there without subjecting their clientele and--or their
    voter--to a cost that is just unrealistic. Do you think that
    setting arsenic standards at 10 parts per billion is affordable
    and feasible for a community of less than 1,000 people? Or
    should not, in doing that, there have been some kind of off-
    ramp, with certain activities in mind, that they might follow
    over a course of time as technology catches up to us?
        Mr. Johnson. With regard to arsenic, or, for that matter,
    any chemical, we need to focus our decisions on: What is the
    level that provides sufficient health protection to our
    Nation's population, whether they're in a small community or a
    large community or wherever they might live? Of course, that's
    what was done for arsenic.
        Senator Craig. Ten parts per billion, you believe the
    science was amply there to make the decision that was made.
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, I do.
        Senator Craig. Ok.
        Mr. Johnson. So, then it becomes a matter of, if that is
    the health protective standard, then what are the steps that we
    can take to help communities achieve that, and achieve that in
    the most cost-effective way. That's what we're very actively
    working on, on arsenic, as well as other contaminants of
    concern across the United States.
        Senator Craig. Ok.
        Thank you very much. I'm going to have to leave, so I'll
    turn to the Senator from Tennessee, but I'll also turn him over
    the chairmanship.
        How's that?
        Senator Alexander [presiding]. This is a very----
        Senator Craig. I was granted----
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. Dangerous thing to do.
        Senator Craig. I was granted that authority by the
    chairman, so have at it.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you very----
        Senator Craig. Thank you both very much for being with us.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Craig. I thank the
    chairman for this.
        Administrator, welcome. I'm----
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you.

                           CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE RULE

        Senator Alexander [continuing]. Glad to have a chance to
    talk with you. I'd like to talk with you a little bit about the
    Clean Air Interstate Rule----
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. A little bit about the
    success you've had over the last 15 years working on sulfur and
    nitrogen, and ask you about the future.
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Alexander. Let me start with the Clean Air
    Interstate Rule. My sense of the Clean Air Interstate Rule is
    that it--which is the rule that you've adopted, I guess, nearly
    2 years ago, to--in the EPA, to----
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. To regulate the use of
    sulfur and nitrogen--the emission of sulfur----
        Mr. Johnson. Emission of sulfur dioxides----
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. And nitrogen----
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Yes.
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. Pollutants. How would you
    describe the acceptance of that rule by those who care about
    the environment in the United States?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, we're making great progress. There are
    28 States and the District of Columbia that are subject to the
    Clean Air Interstate Rule. Nineteen States and the District of
    Columbia are preparing full State implementation plans. Eight
    States are preparing abbreviated, and two States are adopting
    the Federal implementation plan. We're very pleased that there
    is good progress.
        Senator Alexander. Is it generally accepted--I know this is
    a generalization, but does it seem to be generally accepted
    that the--those are sufficiently strong rules to clean the air
    of sulfur and nitrogen over a period of time, or----
        Mr. Johnson. Well, as with any EPA regulation, we believe
    that they are not only sufficient, but appropriate for
    achieving significant health benefits. As with any regulation,
    there are those who believe that we have gone too far, and
    others who believe we haven't gone far enough. But at EPA, we
    believe the Clean Air Interstate Rule provides significant
    public-health benefits. When you combine that rule, plus the
    rules I have signed dealing with diesel, these are the most
    health-protective rules in the history of the Environmental
    Protection Agency, with the possible exception of getting lead
    out of gasoline. So, it's a----
        Senator Alexander. Well, that----
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Significant health benefit.
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. That's what I was getting
    around to. Let me take it one step further. Do you recommend
    that the rules that you've adopted, the Clean Air Interstate
    Rule and the standards you've set for sulfur and nitrogen, be
    adopted by law, codified in law?
        Mr. Johnson. We do, and, in fact, would urge Congress to
    push forward the President's Clear Skies legislation, for a
    number of reasons. First is that it codifies them in law.
    Second is that it makes it nationwide. Because of the
    limitations of the Clean Air Act and our use of Title I for the
    Clean Air Interstate Rule, we were limited in our ability to
    make it nationwide.
        Senator Alexander. Right. Just so I understand you
    accurately--so, you're suggesting that the--that, in essence,
    the Clean Air Interstate Rule be codified.
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Alexander. The standards that are there be
    standards in the law, so that there--so that people who care
    about the environment can see that that's permanent, and those
    who are in business and who are making plans can have certainty
    as they make these very large investments to rid the air of
    sulfur and nitrogen.
        Let me pick up on something you just said. I would----
        Mr. Johnson. Just to answer that, yes.
        Senator Alexander. Is yes to that. Well, I would--I would
    urge you to urge the administration to more strongly urge our
    Congress to codify the Clean Air Interstate Rule, and take
    credit for it. Because I agree with you, I think there are a
    number of actions this administration have taken which are
    strong environmental actions and strong conservation actions,
    and I think you should urge the Congress to adopt it, and take
    credit for it. Specifically, I've been a critic of the
    administration, and of other proposals, that haven't been
    strong enough on sulfur and nitrogen, because I live in a part
    of the country, the Great Smoky Mountains, which we have
    discussed--has a clean air problem. But I believe that the
    sulfur and the nitrogen provisions in the Clean Air Interstate
    Rule are sufficiently strong to address that problem, and that
    they ought to be codified.
        Second, I think you're exactly right that the low-sulfur
    diesel-fuel provision that the EPA stuck to, that was started
    under President Clinton, but it was implemented under President
    Bush. I think you deserve credit for that. As I look at my area
    of the country, the Great Smoky Mountains, we have--one of our
    truck stops there is the second-busiest big truck stop in the
    United States, and the low-sulfur diesel-fuel provision will
    make a big difference, in terms of the health of our citizens
    and the visibility of the Great Smoky Mountains.
        When I look at the fact that you are proposing the first
    regulations on mercury----
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. I think you should take
    credit for that. Now, I would like to see them a little bit
    stronger, but the fact of the matter is, no one has proposed
    doing that before you did it. Last session, the Congress
    enacted legislation that extended drilling for oil and gas into
    the Gulf of Mexico, but it also took $1 out of $8 and put it
    into the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, on
    a mandatory basis, as a conservation royalty. I know that's not
    under the EPA, but, to me, it's important as a conservation
    matter. I also like the fact, since I live next to the Great
    Smoky Mountains and not far from other areas, that the
    President has proposed a 10-year centennial initiative that
    basically gives all the--gives the national parks all the money
    they need----
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. For the next 10 years, with
    a bold initiative to attract private money for that.
        So, I think this administration is greener than it gets
    credit for being, and I think, part of the reason, it doesn't
    take enough credit for itself. One thing I would like to see is
    stronger advocacy by the administration to codify the Clean Air
    Interstate Rule.
        I'd like--in doing that, I'd like to ask you a question
    about how it applies. My sense of the regulations over the last
    15 years on--well, let me put it this way, there's a lot of
    talk today about a cap-and-trade system, a market-based so-
    called cap-and-trade system----
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. For dealing with carbon.
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.

                             CAP-AND-TRADE PROGRAM

        Senator Alexander. Well, we've had a good deal of
    experience with that, starting in the early 1990s. How has that
    worked? How successful has it been?
        Mr. Johnson. Our cap-and-trade program has been very
    successful. It started with the Acid Rain Program----
        Senator Alexander. What year was that?
        Mr. Johnson. That was--Bill----
        Senator Alexander. First President--that was under the
    first President Bush, I believe.
        Mr. Johnson. Enacted in 1990----
        Senator Alexander. Yeah.
        Mr. Johnson. Our focus was, what is the level of
    environmental control that's needed? That is, that cap. There
    are a variety of ways to do trading: input allocations or
    output allocations. Our experience with the Acid Rain Program
    was input allocation. The Acid Rain Program showed significant
    progress. Our Clean Air Interstate Rule was modeled after the
    Acid Rain Program. The Montreal Protocol was a success, as
    well. We have a great deal of experience, and believe that it's
    a very effective way of controlling SOX and
    NOX.
        Senator Alexander. What's----
        Mr. Johnson. Since----
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. What has been the reduction
    of SOX and NOX, of sulfur and nitrogen--
    --
        Mr. Johnson. Well, our----
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. Pollutants?
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Clean Air Interstate Rule will
    achieve approximately 70 percent reduction.
        Senator Alexander. Will. But what about the last 15 years?
        Mr. Johnson. Over the last 15 years, about 9 million tons.
        Senator Alexander. Is there a percentage----
        Mr. Johnson. That's----
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. That can be--from the level
    where we were in the early 1990s to the level where are today,
    what amount of reduction is--what percentage reduction is that?
        Mr. Johnson. Cut about in half.
        Senator Alexander. Cut about----
        Mr. Johnson. That's what----
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. In half?
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Alexander. Then----
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Alexander. Then, you'd go--so, if that's 50
    percent, you'd go on to 70 percent----
        Mr. Johnson. Seventy----
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. Reduction----
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Percent.
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. With the Clean Air
    Interstate----
        Mr. Johnson. That's correct.
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. Rule, if that were----
        Mr. Johnson. That's correct.
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. Codified or if it stayed a
    rule. If I may----
        Mr. Johnson. Oh----
        Senator Alexander. Go right ahead.
        Mr. Johnson. I was just going to say, if I might add just
    two interesting facts. When you look at the history of the
    United States over the past 35 years or 36 years ago, we've had
    a population increase of about 40 percent. We've had vehicle
    miles more than tripled, our GDP almost tripled, and yet, when
    you look at the air pollutants, they have come down 51 percent.
    So, it indicates a number of things to me. One is that economic
    development and environmental success go hand-in-hand. The
    other is that we're not finished yet. We're continuing to move
    down that path of accelerating environmental progress while
    maintaining our economic competitiveness.
        The last comment I just wanted to make on the issue of
    mercury is that, we are the first country in the world to
    regulate mercury from coal fired powerplants. It is a
    regulation now in place. I'm very proud of the fact that this
    was done under my watch, and under the President's watch.
    Another great example of commitment that the President has to
    improving the environment--at the same time, maintaining our
    economic competitiveness.

                              CAP-AND-TRADE SYSTEM

        Senator Alexander. Could you give me, in a follow-up note,
    an estimate of--or any comment that you might have now--about
    the cost of reducing the sulfur--SOx and NOx over the last 15
    years through this cap-and-trade system and its effect on our
    competitiveness. I know, at the time that it was proposed,
    there were a great many people who were afraid that the
    imposition of the cap-and-trade system and the regulations on
    sulfur would produce an--a burdensome cost on utilities and an
    excessive addition to the ratepayers. My impression is, that's
    not been the case, but I don't know the--I don't have the
    facts. Can you give me----
        Mr. Johnson. Be happy to respond to the record.
        [The information follows:]
          Impacts of Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments on U.S.
                                Competitiveness
        When the Clean Air Act was being amended in 1990, EPA projected
    that the full cost of implementation of the S02 portion of
    the Acid Rain Program would be about $6.9 billion per year (in 2006
    dollars). In 2005, a study in the Journal of Environmental Management
    estimated annual costs of the Acid Rain Program in 2010 will be $3.5
    billion (in 2006 dollars) with the S02 program accounting
    for about $2.3 billion. This decreased overall cost has also lead to
    less impact on consumers and competitiveness in general. Generally
    retail electricity prices have remained at or below what they were in
    1994 before the program began (see figure 1 below). While this does not
    definitively show that prices would not have been even lower in the
    absence of the Title IV program, it at a minimum suggests that
    increases have not been significant. This is consistent with work that
    EIA has done on this subject. In 1997, EIA looked at the cost of
    compliance for six utilities and concluded, ``compliance has not caused
    electricity prices to increase at least for the six utilities examined
    in this report.'' While there have been increases in electricity prices
    since 2000, those prices are generally related to other factors such as
    increases in natural gas prices. Both EPA and EIA have looked into the
    issue of whether Title IV contributed to increases in natural gas
    prices and have concluded that it did not.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Johnson. From our analysis, the benefits significantly
    exceeded the costs associated not only with the Clean Air
    Interstate Rule of controlling SOX and
    NOX, but mercury. The same is true for our diesel
    rules, as well. We see a significant increase in public-health
    benefit for, you know, relatively minimal costs.
        Senator Alexander. Well, I----
        Mr. Johnson. But I'd be happy to provide that for the
    record.
        Senator Alexander. I would appreciate--and I understand the
    public-health benefit, but I'm just trying to get a rough idea
    of----
        Mr. Johnson. Sure.
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. What the--how much it added
    to the electric bill in order to take it down.
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Alexander. Now, if I could pursue, a little bit,
    your comment, the--when you impose this cap-and-trade system,
    as I understand it, you basically, 15 years ago, and you
    continue to do that, give a set of allowances, or you set
    limits on the amount of pollutant that can come out of a
    smokestack, and you say to a company: ``You can--here are 100
    units. You can pollute this much.'' That's--one way to do that
    is to look into history and say: ``Here's what you're doing
    today; and so, we're going to permit you to do this much this
    year, this much next year, this much this year, and your
    allowances go down.'' Another way to--that's called ``input,''
    as I understand it.
        Mr. Johnson. That's correct.
        Senator Alexander. Another way to do that would have been
    an output system, where you look at some goal and say to
    someone emitting pollution, ``All right, here's your goal, and
    we'll spread these allowances around over the entire
    industry.'' Can you tell me why you chose the input system, or
    the historical system, for the cap-and-trade system that you
    imposed 15 years ago? What would be the effect on the utilities
    around the country if you were to make an abrupt change of that
    kind of an input allocation system to an output allocation
    system?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, I'd like to invite Bill Wehrum, who's
    the Acting Assistant Administrator Office of Air and Radiation,
    to come to the table and can give you a lot more specifics.
        Bill?
        Senator Alexander. Senator Nelson, I will wind up my
    comments in just a moment, and you'll become the chairman of
    the subcommittee.
        We have a--so--if that's all right.
        Senator Nelson. Quite a promotion, yes.
        Senator Alexander. So----
        Mr. Wehrum. Thank you, Senator Alexander.

                               ACID RAIN PROGRAM

        Senator Alexander. Yeah.
        Mr. Wehrum. Again, my name is Bill Wehrum. I'm the Acting
    Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
        Going back to the Acid Rain Program, we used an input
    allocation system, because that's what the law required. We had
    to make a choice, when the Clean Air Interstate Rule was
    designed, as to whether to continue with that approach or to
    shift to a different approach, and an output basis was the
    choice that was available to us.
        Our judgment was that it was far better to be consistent
    with the Acid Rain Program, because we were trying to dovetail
    the Clean Air Interstate Rule into the existing obligations
    created by the Acid Rain Program, to have a seamless structure
    over time that would create predictability and consistency for
    the regulated community.
        Shifting from input allocation to output allocation could
    have significant financial impacts both to the benefit and to
    the detriment of companies. The number of allowances we
    allocate would not change, regardless of the system we use.
    What would change is how many allowances each particular
    regulated entity gets. So, if we were to shift from the current
    input basis to an output basis, many of the entities that are
    getting significant allowance allocations right now under the
    Acid Rain Program and the Clean Air Interstate Rule would no
    longer get those allocations, because they would be sent to
    other companies. So, the financial consequences for individual
    companies could be significant.
        Interestingly, in the aggregate----
        Senator Alexander. They would have to buy them from other
    companies, wouldn't they?
        Mr. Wehrum. That's exactly right. The primary advantage of
    using an input basis is, the allowances are allocated in a
    proportion to the amount of emissions, and they're proportioned
    such that the allowances don't cover the current level of
    emissions, and that's what provides incentive for emissions
    reduction to occur under the program. But the basic concept of
    the input approach is that we look at the level of emissions
    across the industry and then allocate proportional to the
    emissions that people have experienced in the recent past.
        Senator Alexander. What happens to the allowances when the
    standards come down a level as you move through 2009 and 2010?
        Mr. Wehrum. The number of allowances we allocate goes down
    in proportion to the step----
        Senator Alexander. So, the----
        Mr. Wehrum [continuing]. Reduction----
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. Allowances track the
    limits.
        Mr. Wehrum. That's exactly right. The Administrator made an
    excellent point, and I believe you're making an excellent
    point, which is, the amount of environmental control achieved
    under these cap-and-trade programs is dictated by where the cap
    is set and the total number of allowances that are distributed.
    If we have an economically efficient market system in place,
    which we believe we have, under the Acid Rain Program, and will
    have under CAIR, the allowance trading system gives regulated
    entities the ability to make financially efficient judgments as
    to where to install air-pollution controls, versus where they
    should buy allowances to cover the emissions that they make.
    So, that's one of the great values of Acid Rain, you get
    permanent significant reductions in emissions, but, at the same
    time, have an economically very efficient way of managing the
    emissions reductions.
        Senator Alexander. So, whether it's an input allowance
    system or an output allowance system, the clean air standard
    stays the same, the amount--the environmental standard stays
    the same. The issue is about----
        Mr. Wehrum. That's correct.
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. Who pays the bill----
        Mr. Wehrum. That's correct----
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. To reach that----
        Mr. Wehrum. [continuing]. Senator. That's exactly right.
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. To reach that standard.
        Mr. Wehrum. That's exactly right, Senator.
        Senator Alexander. Senator Nelson, do you have time for me
    to ask one more question, or are you----
        Senator Nelson. Sure, that's okay.

                  CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE--ENERGY STRATEGY

        Senator Alexander. It'll be--if you'll--out of respect for
    his time, you'll give him--I want to explore, just for a
    moment, the carbon capture and storage that is so much talked
    about around here. All of us are interested in a coal-based--I
    say ``all of us''--many of--Senators are interested in a coal-
    based solution to clean energy, for a variety of obvious
    reasons; and the limit on it is capturing the--and storing--the
    carbon. What's your opinion about the viability of capturing
    and storing large amount of CO2 emissions from fuel-
    based--fuel-fired powerplants? What resources would it take, if
    you don't have it now, to help you assess the implications of
    carbon capture and sequestration so it can be a viable strategy
    for our country in developing clean energy? That will be my
    last question.
        Mr. Johnson. Let me start off, and Bill can add to it.
        Certainly we, at EPA, want to help the President meet the
    energy security and clean energy goals that he has outlined,
    and certainly would encourage Congress to pass the legislation
    to, one, change the CAFE standard, provide Department of
    Transportation with the authority to make that change, and also
    the alternative fuel standard. As part of our overall energy
    strategy, we're working cooperatively with the Department of
    Energy on the issue of carbon sequestration, both in their
    focus on the technologies to be able to sequester the carbon
    and on our end, in particular, of what are the environmental
    safeguards that need to be put in place to make sure that it
    can not only be captured in a cost-efficient way, but also:
    What do we do with that carbon? We want to make sure that the
    environment isn't going to be harmed as we, if you will, inject
    the carbon, or whatever we end up doing with it. So, we're
    working very cooperatively with Department of Energy to address
    that.
        Bill, I don't know if you have any additional comments.
        Mr. Wehrum. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
        EPA's role today primarily is focused on the sequestration
    piece of your question. My office, in conjunction with the
    Office of Water, were asked a question and made a determination
    as to whether the Underground Injection Control Program should
    be applied to those who want to get a permit for operating
    CO2 and carbon sequestration wells. After careful
    consideration, we made a determination that, in fact, we do
    believe the Underground Injection Control Program should apply,
    and determined that, from now into the near future, these wells
    should be permitted under what's called Class 5, which is an
    experimental classification that allows case-by-case decisions
    to be made. We also understand, and believe, that there's a
    need for greater certainty in the long run. There are many,
    many people talking about doing carbon sequestration projects,
    on many scales and in various parts of the country and around
    the world, so we are already actively working on a new
    classification for carbon sequestration wells that would apply
    specifically to that type of well and have a set of
    requirements that's tailored to the particular needs of people
    who want to engage in that activity. So, we're spending a lot
    of time and effort on that issue right now. As the
    Administrator pointed out, we're working closely with the
    Department of Energy, and the DOE is focusing most of its
    attention and resources on the capture side of this question.
        In any event, we would be more than happy to respond, to
    the record, to particular questions you have on this topic.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you very much.
        Senator Nelson [presiding]. Thank you.
        Well, first of all, I want to thank the Administrator for
    coming before the committee this morning. And I appreciate your
    time.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you.

                                OMAHA LEAD SITE

        Senator Nelson. I'd like to ask you a few questions about
    the lead cleanup project that EPA has been administering at the
    Omaha lead site for a number of years. As you know, EPA has
    completed soil cleanup at about half of the 5,600 household
    sites agreed to as a part of its interim action plan. While I'm
    obviously glad to see continued progress in addressing the soil
    remediation, I have concerns about the project as a whole. Does
    the EPA agree that education activities for homeowners,
    landowners, and tenants would be a vital part of the overall
    effort to limit toxic exposure of lead in children? I'm
    concerned, for example, that we're being foolish if we don't
    provide education on the dangers of the interior of the home as
    we physically address the exterior problems. For example, I
    know my constituents in Omaha have had a very difficult time
    securing funds for these activities. So, I'd like to know what
    they need to do to get adequate funding, since cleaning up the
    yard's one thing, being in a house, breathing toxic fumes with
    lead-based paint is another thing. Is it possible for EPA to
    coordinate with other agencies such as HUD, if that's what's
    necessary? What I need to have you tell me is: What can we do
    so that we're not cleaning up yards and leaving the interior of
    homes as toxic as they can possibly be? It just doesn't make a
    lot of sense to spend all the money to fix someone's yard and
    leave the homes as they are.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, Senator, we are committed to cleaning up
    the Omaha lead site. Putting that site in perspective, Love
    Canal was about 70 acres, and the Omaha lead site is
    approximately 9,000 acres. So, when we talk about the
    complexity of the Superfund sites today, versus yesterday, the
    Omaha lead site, unfortunately, is a prime example of the
    complexity. We're committed to, and we will continue to, clean
    up the yards there. As you point out, we've completed about
    2,800 yards.
        We are committed, across the Nation, to eliminate childhood
    lead poisoning, and we are in the process now of working on a
    final regulation, called the Renovation and Remodeling Rule,
    which focuses on the households that you are referring to. Just
    within the past couple of days, we released a new study that we
    had commissioned to help us better understand what are the safe
    practices for remediating lead in buildings, homes, and our
    commitment is to continue to work to that end, to have a final
    regulation in place that helps to eliminate childhood lead
    poisoning. It is a priority for us. We expect to finalize the
    rule by 2008. In fact, this is such a priority area that there
    is actually an increase in the President's 2008 budget request
    of $2.2 million to help us finalize and implement this rule.
        One last point, specifically for the Omaha lead site, we,
    too, share the concern about making sure that people are
    informed. In fact, last year, we provided $160,000 to the
    Douglas County Department of Health for outreach and education.
    We continue to believe that that's an important effort for
    outreach and education. We, too, believe that it's important
    for us to use those dollars wisely. Actually what we see from
    cleaning up these yards is that, indeed, blood lead levels are
    coming down. That's what our goal is. So, thank you.
        Senator Nelson. So, would part of the funding for the
    preparation/completion of the rule involve making people aware
    of it? In other words, education about the existence of the
    rule so that, if you've got remodeling and remediation underway
    of a building, that the contractor would be aware of what you
    do, or the homeowner would be aware of what you would do, if
    you want to do it yourself, within your own home--repainting,
    whatever----
        Mr. Johnson. That----
        Senator Nelson [continuing]. It may be?
        Mr. Johnson. That will certainly be part of the role of
    education and outreach, the appropriate methodologies for
    actually doing the lead abatement, as well as the test to make
    sure that, once you have cleaned and remediated, that you have
    addressed it? So, we're looking at a variety of ways to get the
    word out, but it is an important area for us, and a priority as
    part of this 2008 budget request.
        Senator Nelson. We appreciate what's being done. We looked
    at the budget, and your budget actually requests, for Superfund
    cleanup, almost 11 percent less than fiscal year 2006 funding
    levels. EPA has averaged soil cleanup of about 1,000 yards per
    year in 2005 and 2006 in Omaha. I guess my questions is, Can
    you commit to me that your fiscal year 2008 budget request
    provides enough funding to complete soil cleanup of at least
    1,000 more households in the Omaha lead site in fiscal year
    2008? Also, what date do you have scheduled for completion?
        Mr. Johnson. Certainly have my commitment that it is a
    priority, and remains a priority, to clean up the Omaha lead
    site. The precise number, let me ask Susan Bodine, the----
        Senator Nelson. She was nodding her head, so I assume she's
    got an answer.
        Ms. Bodine. Susan Bodine, Assistant Administrator for
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Yes, the cleanup
    of the yards has been proceeding at a tremendous rate. With the
    2008 budget, that progress will continue at the same rate. As
    you know, ongoing work is being done under an interim ROD, and
    that the agency is working on a final ROD. That work is
    ongoing. So, because of that, I don't have a date for when the
    whole site will be cleaned up. But the yards are being cleaned
    up as quickly as they can, and that pace is going to continue.
        Senator Nelson. Well, are we looking at 3, 4, or 5 years,
    or do you have a ballpark number of what timeframe you might be
    looking at?
        Ms. Bodine. I'm going to have to get back to you, for the
    record, on that one.
        Senator Nelson. If you would, I would appreciate that.
        [The information follows:]
                             Timeframe for Cleanup
        EPA anticipates that the soil cleanup at the most highly
    contaminated residential properties on the Omaha lead site will be
    completed during the 2008 construction season. EPA plans to issue a
    final Record of Decision (ROD) in 2008 that will determine the scope of
    the final remedy and the time required for remedy implementation.
    Moreover, this schedule provides for continued cleanup work so that
    there should be no stop in work during the transition from the Interim
    to the Final ROD. Currently, EPA is performing ongoing work, including
    a treatability study and a final risk assessment that will support the
    final remedy selection.

        Mr. Johnson. A statistic that I do recall is that there may
    be as many as 16,000 yards that may need to be remediated.
    We're committed to work to turning this problem property into a
    community asset. I should also point out that, with regard to
    Superfund, the President's request is actually higher than last
    year's request and----
        Senator Nelson. Well, yes, but it's 11 percent less than--
    --
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. The response----
        Senator Nelson [continuing]. 2006.
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. The response cleanup program.
    So----
        Senator Nelson. Well, obviously, at 1,000 a year, 16--I
    haven't decided whether I'm going to try to be around here that
    long. So, I would hope that maybe we could--I'm not suggesting
    it's easy to get done, and it takes a while to get the yards--
    but I would hope that we might be able to move a little faster
    than 1,000, if it's going to take 16 years. That's going to
    challenge all of us, timewise. So, that is one of the reasons
    my concern is such about the funding for 2008.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, I think you point out, again, the
    greater complexity of the sites today compared to yesterday.
    Then, there's a variety of ways to look at that. I mentioned
    the acreage. As you're well aware, 9,000 acres, roughly
    speaking, for the Omaha lead site is a lot different than 70
    acres of Love Canal. We've done some analysis of remedies per
    site, and the remedies of the early days of Superfund were, you
    know, 1.7----
        Ms. Bodine. Yes, 1.7 to 1.8 per site.
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. To 1.8. Today, they are over four
    remedies per site. So, we're still devoting the same amount of
    work and energy, but these sites are definitely more complex.

                     SUPERFUND CLEANUP--HASTINGS, NEBRASKA

        Senator Nelson. I have one other question. I just met with
    the mayor and a city council member from the city of Hastings,
    Nebraska, which has had significant issues with Superfund
    cleanup. On the billing, I guess this is an appropriations
    question as much as it is a substantive question--on the
    billing that I just saw, is it true that the EPA grosses up
    whatever the expenses is--are by 50 percent--adds 50.1 percent
    to whatever the--has indirect cost for direct cost and would be
    billing the city of Hastings 44,000 plus 22,000, with the
    half--the grossing-up, for the Department of Justice? I guess
    I'm a little confused about how appropriations and budgeting
    must work, if you're collecting money for the Department of
    Justice and grossing it up 50 percent to the--as charges to the
    city of Hastings. I just saw the billing. I wish I'd have
    brought a copy of it.
        Ms. Bodine. Yeah, we--I'd have to ask to look at the
    specific numbers and get back, for the record.
        [The information follows:]
                               Hastings, Nebraska
        As a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP), the community would be
    charged by EPA for its share of both direct and indirect costs. EPA's
    indirect cost rate is 50.69 percent, which is based on a methodology
    approved by the Government Accountability Office and upheld by the
    courts in several challenges.

        Ms. Bodine. However, under the Superfund program, EPA is
    spending taxpayer dollars and the Department of Justice is
    spending taxpayer dollars. When we have responsible parties at
    a site, we then take enforcement actions to make the taxpayer
    whole, and collect those funds. That includes not just direct
    costs, but also indirect costs, which are real costs. I mean,
    the costs associated with running the agency are real costs,
    and to the extent----
        Senator Nelson. Aren't those--excuse me--aren't those
    included within the appropriations that are sent back to the
    agency?
        Ms. Bodine. Then--yes, the funds are paid for by
    appropriations, and then we seek cost recovery. Those cost-
    recovery funds go back into the trust fund----
        Senator Nelson. Well, I understand----
        Ms. Bodine [continuing]. And then----
        Senator Nelson [continuing]. That the direct costs would,
    but I guess I'm a little surprised that there would be indirect
    costs going back into the Superfund that--for the Department of
    Justice.
        Ms. Bodine. Well, the Department of Justice is also funded
    out of the Superfund.
        Mr. Johnson. Again, the general concept is, if we can
    identify a responsible party, we want to make sure that the
    polluter is paying. We----
        Senator Nelson. Well, this is the city of Hastings. I
    just----
        Mr. Johnson. Again, the way the Superfund law is, whether
    it be a city or another Federal agency or an individual
    business, it is the responsibility of the polluter to pay.
        Senator Nelson. There are some questions about whether the
    audit has to be done on site, with the grassed-in, fenced-in
    area, versus looking at the reports that are submitted--that
    are reviewed once they're looked at in Hastings--versus what
    could be submitted to Region 7 or to some other location. I
    think the costs--this is something I'd like to take up--not the
    whole committee, here, but I do have some serious questions
    about the significant bills that are being run up with direct
    and indirect costs that I think can--could otherwise be handled
    without as many personal visits and audits as are occurring,
    because much of the work is just simply reports that are
    reviewed on site in Hastings, that could be reviewed, either
    electronically submitted to the EPA--to try to cut down on some
    of the costs to the local community. They are taxpayers'
    dollars. These people aren't complaining. They asked me about
    it, and I'm complaining.
        Mr. Johnson. Be happy to work with you, sir.
        Senator Nelson. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Johnson. Thanks.
        Senator Nelson. I think that's--those are all the questions
    that I have.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Thank you very much. The subcommittee will stand in recess
    to reconvene at 2:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 28 in room SD-124.
    At that time we will hear testimony from the Honorable Mark E.
    Rey, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment,
    U.S. Department of Agriculture.
        [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., Tuesday, March 13, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m.,
    Wednesday, March 28.]

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2007

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building. Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Feinstein, Reed, Nelson, Cochran,
    Domenici, Bennett, Craig, Allard, and Alexander.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. DIRK KEMPTHORNE, SECRETARY

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

        Senator Feinstein. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
        Let me begin by welcoming our former colleague, Dirk
    Kempthorne, Mr. Secretary, welcome. We're pleased to have you
    with us, and we look forward to hearing your perspective on the
    2008 budget request.
        I also want to welcome Tom Weimer, the Assistant Secretary
    for Policy, Management, and Budget, and Pam Haze, the Director
    of the Department's Budget Office. We very much appreciate your
    being here as well.
        Mr. Secretary, in the 10 months that you've been at the
    Department of the Interior, I suspect you've come to appreciate
    that you have one of the most diverse and difficult jobs in
    Washington.
        The Interior Department and its 73,000 employees, are
    responsible for managing--among other things--more than 500
    million acres of land, operating 390 National Parks, 547
    National Wildlife Refuges, and providing educational
    opportunities to 46,000 Native American children through 184
    Bureau of Indian Affairs schools. As my granddaughter might
    say--that's a lot of stuff.
        Obviously, the centerpiece of the Department's 2008 budget
    is the National Parks Centennial Initiative. The discretionary
    side of this proposal would provide an additional $219 million
    for base operations at our National Parks. I know that
    additional rangers, guides, and maintenance workers funded
    through this initiative will be really, a welcome addition. I'm
    particularly pleased to see that our Western parks will finally
    get the extra attention that they deserve.
        I also want to commend you, Mr. Secretary, for putting a
    halt to the recent practice of not fully funding fixed costs.
    Over the past 6 years, the Department has absorbed more than
    $450 million in fixed costs that were not budgeted for. As you
    know, the fact of the matter is, these costs do not go
    unfunded. Instead, they end up being nothing more than back-
    door cuts to programs and services.
        So, I very much applaud your efforts on this front, and I'm
    glad to see that all of the $214 million in fixed costs were
    provided for in your budget.
        Now, unfortunately, the laws of budgeting are a lot like
    the law of nature. For every funding increase in one part of
    the budget, there's going to be a decrease in another. It
    appears that this budget is no exception.
        For example, the land acquisition accounts, for Federal and
    State conservation projects have been cut $58.5 million--that's
    a 58 percent reduction from the current enacted level. The
    construction budgets for the National Park Service, the Fish
    and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management have
    been cut $123 million--that's a 35 percent cut, and the
    construction budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs has been
    cut by $74 million, that's a 27 percent reduction. Most of it
    comes from the K-12 School Construction Program.
        The Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, which both Senator
    Craig and I are very much interested in, known as PILT, has
    been cut by $42.5 million, another 18 percent reduction. The
    Indian Land Consolidation Program, which helps alleviate trust
    management problems caused by fractionated Indian lands has
    been cut by $24 million, or 71 percent.
        I'm concerned, Mr. Secretary, that some of these proposals
    really don't make sense, and I believe some of my colleagues on
    this subcommittee have similar concerns. So, we really look
    forward to hearing from you, and then being able to ask some
    questions.
        Now, let me now turn to my friend from Idaho, the ranking
    member of the committee, Senator Craig, for any opening remarks
    he may wish to make, and then--unless others have statements,
    we'll go directly to the witnesses.
        We have a vote at 11 a.m., and I'm hoping to conclude this
    hearing, if it's agreeable to everybody, by that time.
        Senator Allard. Madam Chairman, I do have a statement, I'd
    just like to make it a part of the record.
        Senator Feinstein. All right.
        Senator Allard. Then----
        Senator Feinstein. Directly following the ranking member.
        Senator Allard. Yeah, that's correct, yeah.
        Senator Feinstein. The order is early bird, so we've got
    that list, thank you.

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

        Senator Craig. Well, Madam Chairman, thank you very much,
    for holding this hearing today on the budget for the Department
    of the Interior. It's also an extreme pleasure for me to have
    before us today, Boise's former mayor, one of my Senators, my
    Governor, and now our Secretary of the Interior, Dirk
    Kempthorne. Idaho is extremely proud, Secretary Kempthorne, to
    have you at the helm of the Department of the Interior and to
    be Idaho's second largest landlord. With that comes a local
    responsibility that I hope you won't forget.
        Having delivered that message----
        He wasn't your Governor.
        Senator Feinstein. It might be useful if he were.
        Senator Craig. But having said that, your Department
    administers over 570 million acres of land--that's roughly one-
    fifth--of the land area of the United States. It's an extremely
    tough, and oftentimes controversial job, and I know that when
    our President chose you, I felt confident you would be able to
    handle it, and you're handling it very well.
        The total request for the Department is $9.7 billion, which
    is roughly $190 million less, or 2 percent below fiscal year
    2007's enacted level. Much of the decrease, the $130 million,
    is explained by the bulk of the abandoned mine lands programs
    shifted across from discretionary to mandatory--we understand
    that. The most significant aspect of the Interior budget, the
    chairman has already mentioned, the National Park Service
    Centennial Initiative, this proposal would add about $219
    million for operations to our National Parks, that would be the
    single-largest increase ever proposed by any administration.
        Part of the Centennial Initiative relies on authorizing
    legislation that would make available an additional $2 billion
    on a matching basis, over a 10-year period. I think Americans
    given an opportunity to work with our government, and share in
    that responsibility for the sustenance of our parks is going to
    contribute at that level. I think that breaks out at, what,
    $100 million a year to be matched, and that's going to be
    extremely important.
        The chairman has already mentioned PILT--as a former
    Governor working with county commissioners and local
    communities, I think, Mr. Secretary, you know all too well that
    over the last three decades, or more, as Americans have fallen
    in love with their public lands. Often times it's local units
    of government that have to pick up the cost. We see it go on
    day after day as a hiker is lost, or a mountain climber is
    lost--who picks up the bill? In the first instance, it's
    oftentimes, it's either local government, or it could be State
    government, if the National Guard is employed, and all of those
    kinds of resources are used, and to cut PILT doesn't make a lot
    of sense to me.
        Maybe it's OMB's way of looking at budgets and saying--as
    they often do--``Well, let's see, that's a program Congress
    really likes, so we know they'll fund it, so we can cut it.''
    I've watched that go on year after year, I hope that isn't the
    case here, but it obviously appears to be the case, and that's
    frustrating.
        I also don't support the administration's decisions to
    eliminate the Range Improvement Fund of about $10 million.
    Ranching still remains a vital part of public land resource
    management, both in Idaho, and across the Western Range Lands,
    and I think this cut really shifts to States a responsibility
    that they can't be very good stewards of, simply because of the
    Federal responsibility, and so I think we have to take a look
    at that.
        Finally, we can also see from watching the nightly news
    over the last 2 weeks--the fire season has begun. Last year, a
    record season of 10 million acres of lands burned. That could
    well play out itself again this year. Moisture in our
    watersheds is at 50 to 60 percent of normal. We set a new heat
    record in Boise on Saturday--1 degree above a heat record in
    1952, so you know what's happening in the watersheds of Idaho--
    snow is disappearing very, very rapidly, and as a result of
    that, the ability of the Forest Service, the BLM, the National
    Fire Center in Boise, to work cooperatively together will be, I
    suspect, stressed dramatically.
        Last, we've got a little problem that you've--by necessity,
    and I do not criticize it--had to recuse yourself of, and
    that's a little issue of wolves. At minimum count, there are
    now over 700 wolves roaming the hills of Idaho, and probably a
    considerable amount more. Wolves are showing up everywhere--
    even in most of our small communities' backyards and
    neighborhoods.
        I have said, and said tragically, maybe we will get really
    excited about this when a life is taken--a human life. The
    wolves are marauding the back country, they're destroying our
    elk and our deer base, they're coming into our neighborhoods
    now, and taking dogs down, and cats--it is a problem that, I
    know, as Governor you started to deal with, I'm sorry that
    Secretary Scarlett is not with us today, I've been her kindest
    and loudest critic-friend on this issue, because this is an
    issue that deserves to be expedited.
        At the same time, I understand that those who love the
    wolves--but don't have to live with them--are probably going to
    sue us and take us through the walk, as we try to de-list the
    wolves for Idaho, and as we work on this issue to bring some
    balance, and allow our State Fish and Game Departments to once
    again, manage the wildlife in the public lands, instead of to
    allow Judges and the Endangered Species Act to do that.
        So, I know you're moving ahead on that, you have a friend
    in that issue, you also will have somebody who will be right
    behind you pushing, to make sure it happens as quickly as it
    possibly can.
        Thanks for being with us, it's great to see you again, Mr.
    Secretary.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Feinstein. All right, thank you very much, Senator
    Craig. The order is, Senator Alexander, Allard, Cochran and
    Nelson.
        Senator Alexander.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam.
        Senator Feinstein. If you have a comment, otherwise we'll--
    --
        Senator Alexander. No, I'd like to hear the testimony, and
    then I'll come----
        Senator Feinstein. All right, thank you, Senator Alexander.
    Excuse me, Senator Allard.
        Senator Allard. Madam Chairman, I just have my comments I'd
    like to have inserted in the record.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, so ordered.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Senator Wayne Allard
        Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. I am
    pleased to have a chance to discuss the projected budget for the
    Department of Interior. I would like to welcome Secretary Kempthorne to
    his first appearance before this Committee. This is at least his first
    appearance on that side of the dias.
        The Secretary states in his testimony that his department manages
    one in every five acres of land in this country, and the bulk of that
    land is in the West, so as a western Senator the budget for the
    Department of Interior is very important to me. There are many issues
    difficult issues that face the agencies under your purview. I won't
    address all of them, but I would like to touch on a few.
        First, one of the biggest problems that public land is facing right
    now in my state of Colorado is the bark beetle. I know that this is a
    problem that also exists in the home states of the Chair and Ranking
    Member, as possibly other members of this subcommittee. The state,
    quite simply, has become a danger zone with beetle infected areas
    growing larger and larger all the time. We have to get a handle on
    these insects before they ensure that the entirety of our forests is
    wiped out. This is of gravest concern when we consider that, as a
    headwaters state, the condition of Colorado's waters have the potential
    to be severely impacted by the continued degradation of our forests.
    This will mean a great deal to our neighboring states that receive
    water that flows out of Colorado.
        I would also like to touch briefly on the Endangered Species Act.
    As you are well aware there are a number of proposals before Congress
    to reform this Act and discussions on this issue will likely be
    ongoing. I firmly believe the best way to prevent extinction in species
    is not to place them on a list, but to work proactively up front to
    ensure that they never need to be listed. That said, compliance with
    the ESA costs landowners a great deal of money and time every year. The
    federal government needs to do more to help landowners comply with the
    ESA instead of simply forcing more mandates down their throats. I
    appreciate the work that the Department has done to this end thus far
    and look forward to hearing more about how the Department plans to
    continue these efforts.
        It is my understanding that Landsat 8 is a project being worked on
    jointly by USGS and NASA. It is also my understanding that Landsat 5
    and 7 have thermal infrared (TIR) sensing capability. This capability
    is very important to the state of Colorado. The state is using this
    technology to ensure it meets its interstate compact obligations on the
    Arkansas River. Other uses for this technology include surface and
    ground water management, interstate water use agreements, and dealing
    with drought and wildfire, and other emergency management and military
    applications.
        In this year's budget request USGS has requested funds to develop
    the land-based Landsat control system, to collect and disseminate the
    data, but no funds for the satellite or thermal sensor. NASA has not
    requested the funds for the thermal sensor either and I will have a
    question on this during that portion of this hearing.
        Finally I was interested to note in your testimony the request for
    Safe Indian Communities Initiative to combat methamphetamine--or meth--
    in tribal communities. As you may be aware, earlier this year the
    Colorado Methamphetamine Task Force report cited Denver as a major
    distribution center for meth in the United States. This led me to
    introduce the Methamphetamine Trafficking Enforcement Act of 2007 to
    help curb the trafficking of meth both within and across the Nation's
    borders. This problem is one that will not be solved without many
    people coming at it from many different directions and I am pleased to
    see that the Department is working to curb the meth problem in Indian
    Country.
        I think that we are all aware that this is going to be another
    tough budget year. That is why hearings such as this one are so
    important. So I look forward to working with you, and the rest of the
    Committee, again this year, Madam Chairman, to see that worthy projects
    and programs continue to be funded in a responsible manner.

        Senator Feinstein. Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        Senator Cochran. I'll submit a statement for the record.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
        Madam Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming my friend,
    Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to the committee this morning. Mr. Secretary,
    as you know, Mississippi is still suffering the effects of Hurricanes
    Katrina and Rita. I want to thank you and your staff for helping with
    the recovery of the Gulf Coastregion. A year and half later, we are
    still working to restore our coast and coastal islands, as well as the
    schools, homes, and businesses, and transportation resources that were
    devastated by these horrible hurricanes.
        The Department of the Interior's budget is of great interest to me
    and the people of Mississippi. The National Parks and Wildlife Refuges
    in Mississippi receive thousands of visitors every year, and I am
    pleased to see that the fiscal year 2008 budget focuses on the
    importance of maintaining and protecting our natural treasures. I am
    interested in the new National Parks Centennial Challenge being
    proposed by the Department, and I am hopeful that Mississippi's Natchez
    Trace Parkway and the Gulf Islands National Seashore will have the
    opportunity to benefit from this initiative.
        Mr. Secretary, we appreciate your outstanding public service, and I
    look forward to hearing your testimony.

        Senator Feinstein. Senator Nelson.
        Senator Nelson. I may submit a statement for the record as
    well, thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
        Secretary Kempthorne, welcome.

                      SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DIRK KEMPTHORNE

        Secretary Kempthorne. Thank you.
        Chairman Feinstein, thank you very much for your opening
    statement, for the courtesy and the professionalism by which
    you conduct these hearings.
        Senator Craig, thank you for your comments, as well. To all
    members, the distinguished members of this committee, it's a
    great pleasure to be before you.
        As I looked at the membership of this committee, I had the
    honor of serving with 15 of the 17 sitting members of this
    committee, and those I did not, our gubernatorial routes
    intersected, so I appreciate this opportunity.
        I'm pleased to present our 2008 Budget Request for the
    Department of the Interior to this committee. In undertaking
    this task, I committed to ensure that the Department of the
    Interior and its agencies would maintain high levels of service
    to the American people, and reach even higher levels of
    excellence.
        I look forward to working with you, Chairman Feinstein, and
    other members of the subcommittee to achieve this goal, as we
    move forward in the budget process.
        I thank you for your efforts for securing a final 2007
    budget, after three continuing resolutions, and I appreciate
    the extra steps that you took to provide us a portion of the
    2007 pay costs, and funding increases for some of our most
    important programs. We have developed our operating plans for
    2007, and they have been submitted to you.

                              2008 BUDGET REQUEST

        The President's overall 2008 budget request for the
    Department of the Interior is $10.7 billion. This subcommittee
    has oversight responsibilities for most of our Department,
    excluding the Bureau of Reclamation and Central Utah Project.
    So, the 2008 budget for programs under the jurisdiction of this
    subcommittee, as you note, Senator Craig, is $9.7 billion.

                                  FIXED COSTS

        Within this request, our budget includes an increase of
    $214 million to fully cover the fixed costs of the entire
    Department. Madam Chairman, I appreciate what you said about
    this, and the significance of the fixed costs. This was
    critical to the well-being of the Department. The success of
    our programs depends on the skills and the dedication of our
    73,000 employees.
        My formal testimony outlines many specific features of our
    budget. This morning, I'd like to focus on four initiatives--
    our National Park Centennial Challenge, our Healthy Lands
    Initiative, our Safe Indian Communities, and our Improving
    Indian Education initiative.

                       NATIONAL PARK CENTENNIAL CHALLENGE

        Our first initiative, the National Park Centennial
    Challenge, will foster a decade-long partnership with the
    American people to renew and to revitalize our National Parks
    system for its 100th anniversary in the year 2016. To
    inaugurate this effort, we propose a record $2.4 billion budget
    for the National Park Service. This amount includes $2.1
    billion for park operations, $219 million above the 2007
    enacted level.
        As part of the Park operating budget, we propose a
    Centennial Commitment of $100 million, to upgrade both our park
    infrastructure and the experiences of people visiting our
    parks. This funding will allow us to hire 3,000 more seasonal
    National Park rangers, guides, and maintenance workers. It will
    enable us to repair buildings, to improve landscapes, and
    enroll more children in the Junior Ranger Program.
        We believe our Centennial Challenge will inspire another
    generation of Americans to walk along the Appalachian Trail, to
    climb Mt. Rainier and marvel at the vibrant marine life at Dry
    Tortugas. Linking children to nature will help keep them
    physically fit, so that they can fully enjoy the world around
    them. It will also lay the foundation for this next century of
    conservation.
        We're also requesting $100 million in mandatory spending
    under the Centennial Challenge, to match contributions for
    signature sites and projects. We anticipate that with this
    incentive, Americans will provide $100 million in contributions
    for projects that will improve our parks, and open the way for
    better visitor experiences.
        Our budget request anticipates that Centennial Challenge
    funding will continue at this level for the next 10 years,
    providing at least an additional $3 billion over the next
    decade to support our parks.
        I look forward to joining with all Americans, in the
    historic celebration of our national parks in the year 2016.

                            HEALTHY LANDS INITIATIVE

        Our second initiative, the Healthy Lands Initiative, will
    restore nearly half a million acres of Federal land in six
    targeted areas of the West through cooperative conservation.
    These six areas face growing challenges in maintaining wildlife
    habitat, while providing opportunities for energy production,
    recreation, and other uses.
        We have requested $22 million to partner with local
    communities and companies, and conservation groups, to
    rehabilitate and protect working landscapes. We anticipate our
    partners will provide an additional $10 million, in voluntary
    contributions. Using these funds, we will transform land
    management from the current parcel by parcel approach, to
    landscape-scale management. Through our Healthy Lands
    Initiative, we will preserve habitat corridors and sites that
    benefit species such as sage grouse and pronghorn antelope.

                            SAFE INDIAN COMMUNITIES

        Our final two initiatives will help ensure a brighter
    future in Indian country, especially for Native American
    children. A scourge of methamphetamine has devastated
    communities and families across our country in recent years,
    but few places have seen more devastation than Indian country.
    Tribal leaders I've met with describe a methamphetamine crisis,
    with a potential to destroy an entire generation, if left
    unattended. They call this the second small pox epidemic.
        One of the challenges we face, is lack of adequate law
    enforcement on many tribal lands. As a result, organized crime
    and drug cartels have targeted Indian reservations as a hub for
    the distribution and the transportation of methamphetamine.
    We're requesting $16 million in new investments for a Safe
    Indian Communities Initiative to empower tribes to shut down
    these peddlers of poison. With these funds, we will help tribes
    hire additional officers, and provide specialized drug
    enforcement training that they need to protect their
    communities.
        For example, our budget will increase the number of
    officers that are certified drug enforcement activity officers
    from 11, currently, to 111--a 10-fold increase.

                           IMPROVING INDIAN EDUCATION

        This is more than a budget issue--it's a moral issue. We
    must end this scourge. It's not enough to protect Indian
    children, however, we must also provide them a brighter future
    through better educational opportunities. We're requesting $15
    million in new funding, under our Improving Indian Education
    Initiative, to do just that. Using this funding, we will
    provide educational program enhancements and tools for lower-
    performing schools, in the school system which, Madam Chairman,
    you have identified.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Every child in America deserves a safe environment. Every
    child in America deserves a chance to succeed. Our initiatives
    will help Indian country achieve these goals.
        Madam Chairman, I'd be pleased to respond to the questions
    which members of the committee would have, concerning the
    budget.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Dirk Kempthorne
        It is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the
    President's fiscal year 2008 budget for the Department of the Interior.
    This is my first appearance before this subcommittee. During my time in
    the Senate, I had the pleasure of serving with fifteen of the current
    members of this subcommittee. I hope to work with all of you as we
    chart the future course for what I consider to be one of the most
    interesting and important cabinet agencies: the Department of the
    Interior.
        Since becoming Secretary, I have traveled extensively in order to
    see Interior at work and to talk with Interior employees. I have
    addressed thousands of Interior employees. I have been impressed by the
    dedication and experience of the talented and dedicated Interior
    workforce. Every day, a Bureau of Indian Education teacher, a park
    ranger, a biologist, geologist, naturalist, or land manager is making a
    difference to help Interior fulfill its responsibilities.
        Developing a budget for the Department of the Interior is an
    extraordinary exercise. We have an extensive mandate that rivals just
    about any governmental agency in its breadth and diversity--and its
    importance to the everyday lives of our citizens. Our 73,000 employees
    live and work in communities across America and its territories. We
    have 2,400 field offices. We manage 145,000 assets--second only to the
    Department of Defense. Our work stretches from pole to pole, from
    wildlife refuges in the Arctic to scientific research at the South
    Pole.
        Managing one in every five acres in the United States, we oversee
    land and resources that stretch across 12 time zones from the Caribbean
    to the Pacific Rim. The sun literally never sets on the Department of
    the Interior. We have the third largest contingent of Federal law
    enforcement officers, with 3,400 officers and agents. Interior-managed
    lands and water generate one-third of the Nation's domestic energy
    supply. The Department serves American Indians, including 561 federally
    recognized Tribes, Alaska Natives, and our Nation's affiliated island
    communities. We undertake research and provide information to
    understand the Earth and to assist us in the management of the Nation's
    water, biological and mineral resources, and monitor all manner of
    natural hazards including volcanoes, earthquakes, and landslides. We
    also work with States to restore abandoned mine land sites and protect
    communities.
        Our overall 2008 request for the Department of the Interior is
    $10.7 billion. Included within that is $9.7 billion for programs that
    this subcommittee oversees. Taking into account the shift of funding
    for the Abandoned Mine Land program from discretionary to mandatory,
    the budget is $35.4 million below the 2007 Joint Resolution, enacted on
    February 15, 2007.
        The 2008 budget was carefully crafted within the President's
    commitment to continue to fund the nation's highest priorities while
    eliminating the deficit in five years. The administration is on track
    to achieve this goal.
        At the heart of our budget are four major initiatives:
      --The National Parks Centennial Initiative to enhance National Parks
            as we approach their 100th anniversary in 2016;
      --The Healthy Lands Initiative, which will allow access to public
            lands for a number of uses and provide for energy for the
            nation while also protecting critical lands and habitat;
      --The Safe Indian Communities Initiative to combat the
            methamphetamine crisis on Indian lands; and
      --The Improving Indian Education Initiative that will enable Indian
            children to grow up in an environment that allows them to
            achieve their dreams.
                    the national parks centennial initiative
        The President's 2008 parks budget totals a historic $2.4 billion.
    The park operating budget, at $2.1 billion, the largest budget for park
    operations ever, an increase of $219 million over the level funded in
    the Joint Resolution. This is $258.3 million over the 2006 level.
        Last August, in honor of the 90th Anniversary of the National Park
    Service, and with an eye on the upcoming centennial in 2016, President
    Bush directed me to establish specific performance goals to help
    prepare the national parks for another century of conservation,
    preservation and enjoyment. In addition, the President asked that I
    identify signature projects and programs consistent with these goals
    and that continue the NPS legacy of leveraging philanthropic,
    partnership, and government investments for the benefit of the national
    parks and their visitors.
        The President's budget for fiscal year 2008 sets the stage for the
    next 100 years of our national parks. It includes the National Parks
    Centennial Initiative, one of my highest priorities. This Initiative
    proposes up to $3 billion in new funds for the national park system
    over the next ten years.
        Within our operating budget increase, we propose a $100 million
    Centennial Commitment over 10 years, for a total of $1 billion
    dedicated to park operations. Our Centennial Initiative will also
    inspire philanthropic organizations and partners to donate $100 million
    per year over 10 years to the National Park Service. The Centennial
    Challenge Federal Fund will match all private donations up to an amount
    of $100 million. These Federal mandatory matching funds and
    philanthropic contributions, together with the $100 million annual
    Centennial Commitment in discretionary funds for park operations, would
    infuse up to $3 billion into the park system over the next decade.
        During the last five years, the NPS has built a strong foundation
    of improving parks, with more than 6,600 park improvements completed or
    underway. The Centennial Initiative funds are in addition to the nearly
    $1 billion in the President's budget for National Park maintenance and
    construction programs. The proposed fiscal year 2008 budget will
    further improve our national parks during the next decade leading up to
    the 2016 centennial celebration.
        The 2008 budget and the National Parks Centennial Initiative
    emphasize three key goals:
      --To engage all Americans in preserving our heritage, history and
            natural resources through philanthropy and partnerships, with a
            special emphasis on linking children to nature. An increase of
            $100 million is proposed for these programs, plus another $100
            million in mandatory funds to match donations.
      --To reconnect people with their parks through enhanced technology
            and the seamless network of the trails system.
      --To build capacity for critical park operations to sustain these
            efforts over the next century.
        Our Centennial Challenge offers an outstanding opportunity to
    engage this Nation's youth with the outdoors. Our initiative will link
    children with nature through an expanded Junior Ranger program,
    increased visitor services, an improved trail system, and relevant
    interpretive programs for our young people. The Parks Centennial will
    help ensure that our parks offer improved physical activity, play and
    recreation, and opportunities for learning and social interaction.
        Each year, the NPS welcomes more than 270 million visitors as they
    discover America the beautiful, the historical, the cultural. Our
    national parks preserve majestic natural wonders. They keep watch over
    battlefields hallowed by red badges of courage. They keep culture alive
    at sites dedicated to the performing arts, poetry, and music. Parks
    offer recreation and discovery through spectacular backcountry hiking
    and climbing. They honor great leaders like Thomas Jefferson, Abraham
    Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Chief Joseph, John Muir, Eleanor Roosevelt
    and Martin Luther King, Jr. As havens of enjoyment, recreation,
    learning and personal renewal, national parks must endure. Our budget
    sets the stage for a new century of park excellence.
                            healthy lands initiative
        Another priority for me is my Healthy Lands Initiative, which will
    ensure continued access to public lands for traditional uses and
    recreation, while maintaining strong environmental protections for
    wildlife and habitat. This Initiative builds on the Department's strong
    track record in cooperative conservation to undertake landscape-scale
    conservation efforts and focus on the needs of species that cross
    jurisdictional boundaries.
        As activities on public land increase, we are seeing growing
    conflicts among recreation users, energy developers, hunters, ranchers,
    and others all competing to protect, access, and use these public
    lands. BLM will join with the U.S. Geological Survey and the Fish and
    Wildlife Service to identify, restore, and mitigate the potential
    impacts of increased energy production in wildlife-energy interface
    areas and potentially prevent the listing of certain species such as
    sage grouse.
        The potential listing of sage grouse as an endangered species could
    severely constrain public land use, particularly for current and future
    energy production. The habitat of the sage grouse covers over 100
    million acres. Our Healthy Lands Initiative of $22.0 million will
    implement a strategic vision to protect and restore sage grouse
    habitat, maintain migratory corridors for other species, and assure
    continued access to energy. These investments will support new land use
    planning techniques and new policy tools that will complement current
    activities and enable us to work with non-Federal partners to restore
    and conserve habitat and maintain access for energy and other uses.
        Focused on six strategic areas, these funds will transform land
    management from the current parcel by parcel approach to landscape-
    scale decision making, drawing upon partnerships and new policy tools
    to help BLM provide increased access for energy and other uses, while
    simultaneously preserving important habitat corridors and sites for the
    benefit of species. In 2008, including this increase, over 400,000
    acres will be restored in partnership with Federal leaseholders,
    private landowners, state, local, and tribal governments--to benefit
    wildlife. The Healthy Lands Initiative includes $15.0 million for BLM
    to conduct landscape-scale conservation, $2.0 million for FWS, and $5.0
    million for USGS.
                  the methamphetamine crisis in indian country
        I would like to highlight two other 2008 priorities, our Safe
    Indian Countries and Indian Education Initiatives. While I recognize
    that the Senate Indian Affairs Committee has jurisdiction over these
    matters, I also know many of you represent States and Tribes that are
    struggling with the impacts associated with methamphetamine.
        Methamphetamine is a highly addictive synthetic stimulant that
    creates intense euphoric highs for periods up to 24 hours. It is
    inexpensive and, unfortunately, has rapidly become the drug of choice
    for an increasing number of Americans. Organized drug cartels have
    targeted reservations to establish methamphetamine operations.
        The President of the National Congress of American Indians has
    stated, ``Meth is killing our children, affecting our cultures and
    ravaging our communities.'' Many tribal leaders have told us
    methamphetamine is destroying lives in Indian country. Some leaders
    believe that on their reservations a whole generation of young people
    may soon be lost to this one drug.
        The social effects of methamphetamine use are tragic. Addicted
    mothers are giving birth to drug-addicted babies. The drug is fueling
    homicides, aggravated assaults, rape, child abuse, and other violent
    crimes. Violent crime in Indian Country is reaching crises levels at
    twice the national average.
        Our budget includes $16 million for a Safe Indian Communities
    initiative that reconfigures and tailors our focus to combat organized
    crime, break up drug trafficking, and interrupt the drug supply.
                           improving indian education
        Improving Indian education is also a priority. One of only two
    school systems operated by the Federal government, the Bureau of Indian
    Education should oversee schools that are models of performance for the
    No Child Left Behind Act. Yet only 30 percent of the schools in the
    Bureau of Indian Education system are meeting NCLB goals.
        In recent years, we have improved school facilities by replacing 32
    schools and renovating another 39 schools. It is now time to focus on
    the classroom. Our 2008 budget proposes to invest $15.0 million to
    improve the performance of students in Indian schools. Additional
    funding will provide educational program enhancements and tools for
    lower performing schools and educational specialists to guide Indian
    schools in achieving academic success. The request also provides
    additional funding for transportation to reduce the redirection of
    education dollars to pay for buses and fuel.
                      supporting the department's mission
        The 2008 budget aligns resources to achieve these and other high-
    priority goals guided by the Department's integrated strategic plan.
    Recently revised for 2007-2012, the Department's strategic plan links
    the Departments diverse activities into four common mission areas:
    Resource Protection, Resource Use, Recreation, and Serving Communities.
    A fifth area, Management Excellence, provides the framework for
    improved business practices, processes, and tools and a highly skilled
    and trained workforce.
        Using our strategic plan as the blueprint for improved performance
    and accountability, since 2001, the Department has:
      --Increased access to meet the Nation's energy needs and enhanced
            energy security by more than doubling the approval of
            applications for permits to drill; provided greater
            opportunities for development of alternative energy, including
            wind energy; advanced oil shale and methane hydrates for
            potential future domestic use; and significantly expanded
            environmental protections with inspection and monitoring
            programs.
      --Collected $56.4 billion in revenues from offshore and onshore
            mineral leases that provided income for Indian communities,
            funded State infrastructure, and helped to finance Federal
            programs.
      --Expanded relationships with partners to restore, improve, and
            protect three million acres of wetlands and other habitat for
            migratory birds, anadromous fish, and threatened and endangered
            species.
      --Reduced risks to communities from the threat of fire, conducting
            over 6.7 million acres of fuels treatments through the
            President's Healthy Forests Initiative.
      --Improved park facilities for visitors by undertaking more than
            6,600 projects at national parks and earned a 95 percent
            satisfaction rate from park visitors.
      --Completed condition assessments and performance measures for all
            park facilities and nearly all Interior facilities.
      --Improved the educational environment for Indian children by funding
            32 new Bureau of Indian Education replacement schools and 39
            major school repair projects.
        Looking to the future, the Department of the Interior is committed
    to achieving the goals of our four initiatives and other priorities.
    Our budget will:
      --Prepare the national park system for another century of
            conservation, preservation and enjoyment through the
            President's National Park Centennial Initiative.
      --Encourage increased donations for signature projects and programs
            in our national parks with up to $100.0 million a year in
            matching funds through the National Parks Centennial Challenge.
      --Increase energy security for the Nation through a new Outer
            Continental Shelf five-year plan (2007-2012).
      --Launch a Healthy Lands Initiative to help meet the Nation's needs
            for access to public lands for energy and other uses while
            protecting wildlife and habitat in the West.
      --Leverage Federal funds through partnerships and cooperative
            conservation to restore 800,000 acres and 734 stream/shoreline
            miles. These efforts will support the President's government-
            wide goal of increasing the Nation's wetlands by three million
            acres by 2009.
      --Improve educational programs and meet the requirements of the No
            Child Left Behind Act by completing educational reforms in the
            Bureau of Indian Education.
      --Help Indian Country reduce methamphetamine crime and the
            afflictions it has brought to many Tribes through a new Safe
            Indian Communities Initiative.
      --Manage a network of parks, sanctuaries, reserves, and refuges to
            protect ocean and coastal resources as envisioned in the
            President's Ocean Action Plan.
                                budget overview
        The 2008 budget request for current appropriations is $10.7
    billion. Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of
    existing legislation without further action by the Congress will
    provide an additional $5.1 billion, for a total 2008 Interior Budget of
    $15.8 billion.
        The 2008 request includes $9.7 billion for programs funded within
    the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
        The 2008 budget reflects the changes made in financing for the
    Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fund in the Office of Surface Mining
    that were required by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
    Amendments of 2006. Funding for State and tribal AML grants are no
    longer subject to appropriation and are funded as a mandatory
    appropriation. Federal AML components continue to be subject to
    appropriation.
        The change results in a reduction of $134.2 million in
    discretionary budget authority in 2008. After taking into account the
    AML shift of funding from discretionary to mandatory funding, the 2008
    budget request reflects a decrease of $35.4 million, or four-tenths of
    one percent below the 2007 Joint Resolution and $68.7 million below the
    2006 enacted level.
        With enactment of the Joint Resolution, we now have a full year
    appropriation for 2007 of $9.7 billion. Based on direction in the Joint
    Resolution, we have prepared detailed operating plans for each bureau
    for 2007. Based on these plans, we are preparing comparisons at the
    program level with the 2008 budget request, which will be available to
    the subcommittee very soon. The comparisons in our 2008 budget are with
    the third 2007 continuing resolution, which was in effect through
    February 15. Except where noted, comparisons throughout this testimony
    are on that basis.
        In 2008, Interior will continue an exemplary record of producing
    revenue for the Treasury. Estimated receipts collected by the
    Department in 2008 will be $15.6 billion, a record level of collections
    that offsets Interior's discretionary budget by nearly 1.5 to one.
        The 2008 budget assumes enactment of a number of proposals for
    which legislation has been or will be transmitted to the Congress. The
    Centennial Challenge would provide up to $100 million a year for ten
    years in mandatory funds to match private donations for signature
    projects and programs. These projects and programs will be identified
    in the Secretary's report to the President this May, after a number of
    public listening sessions and recommendations from park professionals.
    The costs for this proposal, contained in a legislative proposal
    transmitted to Congress, are offset within the President's 2008 budget.
        The budget also assumes enactment of proposals to change the manner
    in which bonus bids for coal sales are received consistent with oil and
    gas programs, institute a net receipt sharing provision to return to a
    more equitable Federal-State distribution of onshore mineral revenues,
    and repeal deep gas and deep water OCS incentives that were included in
    the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
        The 2008 budget also contains proposals that were assumed in the
    2007 President's budget. Included are proposals to discontinue
    mandatory appropriations from the Range Improvement Fund and amend the
    Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act to update the public lands
    available for disposal, authorize the use of receipts for restoration
    projects, and change the distribution of revenue. As in 2007, the 2008
    budget proposes repeal of authorizations provided in the Energy Policy
    Act of 2005. Repeal of Section 365 would redirect rental receipts to
    the General Fund and authorize BLM to promulgate regulations to phase
    in cost recovery for energy permits, repeal of Sections 224 and 234
    would restore the historical formula for distribution of geothermal
    energy receipts.
        The budget also proposes leasing in the 1002 area of the Alaska
    National Wildlife Refuge, which significantly increases anticipated
    revenues in 2009 and later years. These proposals, in conjunction with
    the revenue enhancements described above, will increase revenues by
    $136.3 million in 2008 and a total of 5.0 billion through 2012.
                           maintaining core programs
        Department of the Interior programs encompass 390 parks and 547
    wildlife refuges; 261 million acres of multiple use public land; 12
    regional offices, 83 Indian agencies locations, and 184 elementary and
    secondary schools in Indian Country; and numerous laboratories, field
    research facilities, and other offices.
        At each of these sites, the Department's 73,000 employees maintain
    facilities and resources and provide services to those who use or rely
    on them: park visitors, wildlife watchers and hunters, stockmen and
    miners, Tribes and individual Indians, farmers and electric power
    users. In my travels, Interior's managers have told me that funding for
    fixed costs is their highest priority need.
        Pay and benefits for the Department's workforce are a significant
    cost component of Interior's core programs, comprising 58 percent of
    operating budgets. The proportion of Interior's budget committed to
    personnel costs places it among the top three Federal agencies. Only
    the Departments of Justice and Commerce have a higher proportion of
    salary and benefit costs to total budget. Maintaining this dedicated
    cadre of professionals is essential for the uninterrupted delivery of
    programs and services.
        The Department's 2008 budget request includes $214.2 million to
    fully fund increases for pay and other fixed costs. Of this amount,
    nearly 85 percent, or $184.4 million, supports increases in employee
    compensation, including scheduled 2008 pay raises; two additional paid
    days; and projected increases in health benefits. The budget assumes a
    three percent pay raise in January 2008. The request also funds
    increases in workers' and unemployment compensation; rental payments
    for leased space; and centralized administrative and business systems,
    services and programs financed through the Working Capital Fund.
                            other budget priorities
        In addition to the four key initiatives I have already highlighted,
    the budget includes the funding for key goals and objectives.
        Achieving Energy Security.--In his State of the Union address,
    President Bush underscored that America must enhance energy security.
    The Department of the Interior plays a key role in advancing this goal.
    Nearly one-third of the energy produced in the United States each year
    comes from public lands and waters managed by Interior. To carry out
    the goals of the Energy Policy Act and enhance the availability of
    affordable oil, gas, and alternative energy sources, the 2008 budget
    for Interior programs includes $481.3 million for energy programs. With
    these resources, the Department will enhance energy security through
    increased production, protect the environment, promote conservation,
    and expand the use of new technologies and renewable energy sources.
        The BLM 2008 budget request for energy is $142.9 million. Included
    in the BLM request is an increase of $3.1 million for inspection and
    monitoring to ensure environmentally responsible energy development on
    public lands and proper reporting of production. The additional funds
    will provide BLM with the capacity to conduct an additional 1,572
    inspections by 2009, with 522 additional inspections occurring in 2008.
    Also included is an increase of $2.0 million for the Mining Law
    Administration program. This increase is expected to be fully offset by
    anticipated mining claim maintenance fees.
        In 2008, BLM will implement fees for processing drilling permit
    applications to fully replace rental revenue currently available for
    processing oil and gas use authorizations, thereby maintaining BLM's
    capacity for timely permit processing. A legislative proposal will be
    transmitted to the Congress that proposes to repeal Section 365 of the
    Energy Policy Act. Section 365 redirected rental revenue deposits to
    the Treasury to fund BLM pilot offices. Estimated collections of permit
    processing fees in 2008 is $21.0 million.
        The MMS 2008 budget request for energy is $290.8 million, $16.7
    million above 2007. The budget includes increases to facilitate OCS
    development and deepwater activities by implementing the 2007-2012
    Five-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing program and completing environmental
    analyses necessary for newly available areas where data are old and for
    future OCS lease sales.
        The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, signed into law on
    December 20, 2006, significantly enhances OCS oil and gas leasing
    activities and production potential in the Gulf of Mexico. The Act
    opens up 8.3 million acres in the GOM for leasing, including 5.8
    million acres previously withdrawn under Congressional and Presidential
    moratoria. The Act also shares revenues with Gulf-producing States and
    with the Land and Water Conservation Fund, with the first distribution
    estimated to take place in 2009.
        The budget assumes an increase in the royalty rate for new offshore
    Federal oil and gas leases. The Department will begin implementing the
    royalty rate increase in the upcoming 2007 lease sale in the Western
    GOM planning area (Sale 204) scheduled for August 2007. The new rate is
    expected to increase royalty revenues by $4.5 billion over the next 20
    years, and substantially more after that.
        The President's National Energy Policy aims to improve America's
    energy security by increasing domestic production of fossil fuels,
    promoting increased energy conservation, and stimulating the
    development of alternative fuels. The coastal plain in the Arctic
    National Wildlife Refuge is the Nation's single greatest onshore
    prospect for future oil. The 2008 budget assumes enactment of
    legislation opening the Section 1002 area of the coastal plain in ANWR
    to energy exploration and development, with a first lease sale
    occurring in 2009 that would generate $7.0 billion in bonus receipts.
    The budget estimates a total of $8 billion in revenue would be
    generated through 2012. These receipts would be split 50:50 between the
    U.S. Treasury and the State of Alaska.
        Cooperative Conservation.--Through partnerships, Interior works
    with landowners and others to achieve conservation goals across the
    Nation and to benefit America's national parks, wildlife refuges, and
    other public lands. The 2008 budget includes $324.0 million for the
    Department's cooperative conservation programs, $34.6 million over
    2007. These programs leverage Federal funding, typically providing a
    non-Federal match of 50 percent or more. They provide a foundation for
    cooperative efforts to protect endangered and at-risk species; engage
    local communities, organizations, and citizens in conservation; foster
    innovation; and achieve conservation goals while maintaining working
    landscapes.
        The 2008 cooperative conservation budget includes $21.0 million of
    the Department's Healthy Lands Initiative. Also new to the suite of
    cooperative conservation programs highlighted in 2008 are the multi-
    agency Open Rivers Initiative and the National Fish Habitat Action
    Plan. These fisheries conservation programs will leverage $16.2 million
    in Federal resources with State, Tribal, local, nonprofit and private
    groups to protect, enhance, and restore aquatic habitats. A program
    increase of $6.0 million for the Open Rivers Initiative will allow FWS
    to enhance its fish passage program by eliminating an additional 190
    obsolete stream barriers such as small dams and open an additional
    1,300 stream miles. The 2008 budget includes an additional $2.3 million
    to implement the National Fish Habitat Action Plan, which will leverage
    resources provided by State, tribal, local, private, nonprofit, and
    private groups to protect, enhance, and restore aquatic habitats.
        The 2008 budget continues funding for high-priority cooperative
    conservation activities, including $13.3 million for the FWS Coastal
    Program, $69.5 million for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, $4.0
    million for Neotropical Migratory Birds, and $80.0 million for the
    Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund. The 2008 budget
    request for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund is $42.6
    million, an increase of $6.0 million above 2007. Funding for the
    Partners for Fish and Wildlife program is $48.4 million, a net increase
    of $5.7 million over 2007. These programs provide an effective,
    cooperative approach to conservation and leverage Federal funds. In
    2008, these programs will attract over $274 million in non-Federal
    matches and restore over 800,000 acres of habitat for species at-risk
    and migratory birds.
        In 2008, Interior does not request funding for the Landowner
    Incentive and Private Stewardship Grant programs, in order to
    concentrate conservation funding in a smaller number of high-performing
    programs. This results in a $22.0 million reduction from the 2007
    level. The conservation of at-risk species would benefit from shifting
    resources from these two programs to other programs that can
    demonstrate increased results, such as the Partners for Fish and
    Wildlife and North American Wetlands Conservation Act programs. The
    Landowner Incentive and Private Stewardship grant programs will
    continue to allocate and administer grants from funds appropriated in
    prior years.
        Refuge Operations and Species Protection.--Targeted increases for
    the National Wildlife Refuge System and other FWS species conservation
    programs will focus new resources on conserving and restoring the
    habitat necessary to sustain endangered, threatened, and at-risk
    species and prevent additional species from being listed under the
    Endangered Species Act. A program increase of $4.7 million for refuge
    wildlife and habitat management will allow the refuge system to
    increase the number of recovery plan actions completed in 2008 by 111;
    protect or restore an additional 57,983 acres; and fill three new
    positions to manage the new Northwestern Hawaii Marine National
    Monument. The 2008 budget also includes $2.2 million in programmatic
    increases for the recovery of the gray wolf and the Yellowstone grizzly
    bear.
        Healthy Forests Initiative.--The 2008 budget for the Healthy
    Forests Initiative, a total of $307.3 million, supports the
    Department's efforts to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire and
    improve forest and rangeland health. The 2008 budget request funds the
    Hazardous Fuels Reduction program at $202.8 million, an increase of
    $3.0 million for fixed costs over the 2007 level. An additional $1.8
    million in the hazardous fuels program will be shifted from program
    support activities to on-the-ground fuel reduction to help treat high-
    priority acres.
        Wildland Fire Management.--The 2008 budget proposes $801.8 million
    to support fire preparedness, suppression, fuels reduction, and burned
    area rehabilitation. This amount represents a net increase of $32.6
    million above 2007, including an increase of $37.4 million for
    suppression operations. This budget will fully fund the expected costs
    of fire suppression in 2008 at $294.4 million, based on the ten-year
    average. The 2008 Preparedness program is funded at $268.3 million, a
    net reduction of $6.5 million from the 2007 level. A significant
    portion of this reduction will be achieved by eliminating management
    and support positions and lower-priority activities. The 2008 Wildland
    Fire Management program will realign its preparedness base resources to
    better support initial attack capability, which will include the
    addition of over 250 firefighters. These actions will help maintain
    initial attack success.
        Oceans Conservation.--Interior bureaus conduct ocean and coastal
    conservation activities that significantly advance understanding of the
    processes and status of ocean and coastal resources. The 2008
    President's budget includes $929.5 million to support the President's
    Ocean Action Plan. This funding will allow Interior bureaus to continue
    their high-priority work within the U.S. Ocean Action Plan and includes
    an increase of $3.0 million for USGS. In 2008, USGS will begin to
    implement the Oceans Research Priorities Plan and Implementation
    Strategy by conducting observations, research, seafloor mapping, and
    forecast models. USGS will also begin to implement an interagency
    national water quality monitoring network. Also included is $600,000
    for three new positions to support management of the new Northwestern
    Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument.
        Indian Trust.--The 2008 request for Indian Trust programs is $489.9
    million, $17.6 million above 2007. The Indian Land Consolidation
    program is funded at $10.0 million, $20.7 million below 2007. The 2008
    budget also includes $4.6 million in reductions to reflect efficiencies
    and improvements in services to beneficiaries, the completion of trust
    reform tasks, the completion of project task efforts, and management
    efficiencies. The budget includes a $3.6 million increase for the
    Office of Historical Accounting to assist with the increased workload
    associated with additional tribal trust lawsuits.
        The Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians is
    responsible for financial management of the funds held in trust for
    tribal and individual Indian beneficiaries. Currently, the sum of all
    positive Individual Indian Monies account balances is approximately
    $6.0 million less than the sum of all financial assets currently
    invested by OST on behalf of the IIM beneficiaries. To address this
    imbalance the Department will transmit legislation to balance the
    accounts that would authorize up to $6.0 million be made available to
    credit the investment pool.
        Payments in Lieu of Taxes.--PILT payments are made to local
    governments in lieu of tax payments on Federal lands within their
    boundaries and to supplement other Federal land receipts shared with
    local governments. The 2008 budget proposes $190.0 million for these
    payments. The 2008 request is a reduction of $8 million from the 2007
    level. This level of funding is significantly above the historical
    funding level for PILT. From the program's inception in 1977 through
    2001, the program was funded in the range of $96-$134 million.
                                   conclusion
        I believe that our 2008 budget will--in its entirety--make a
    dramatic difference for the American people. We will better conserve
    our public lands. We will improve our national parks. We will protect
    our wildlife and its habitat. We will help craft a better future for
    Indian country and particularly for Indian children. And we will
    produce the energy that America needs to heat our homes and run our
    businesses. This concludes my overview of the 2008 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 Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, for
    those comments.
        Let me begin the 5-minute rounds, again, the early bird.

                                1998/1999 LEASES

        In February, our subcommittee held a hearing on the
    problems the Interior Department is having with the collection
    of royalties from energy companies who operate in the deep
    waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The taxpayers stand to lose, as
    you know, some $10 billion, because of the Department's failure
    to include price thresholds for leases signed in 1998 and 1999.
        Your Assistant Secretary Allred testified that you had been
    able to persuade six of the companies who hold leases without
    price thresholds, to voluntarily begin paying their fair share.
    That's a good start.
        My first question is, how many companies have now
    voluntarily started paying royalties, and how many are still
    holding out?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Madam Chairman, thank you. This is a
    critical issue. As you have identified, it occurred in 1998 and
    1999. We believe that's the only time that that omission
    occurred. We believe that there was a decision for that, but we
    don't know what the motivation was.
        Since then, those price thresholds have been in place. One
    of the actions I've taken, Madam Chairman, is a secretarial
    directive to our Solicitor, so that all future leases--a
    solicitor will sit there with the representative from Minerals
    Management Service, reviewing the entire document, so that it
    would not occur again. Six companies have currently stepped
    forward and have volunteered to pay that share.
        Senator Feinstein. But it is my understanding that the 40
    companies which are responsible for 80 percent of the
    production from these specific lease sales are not paying
    royalties--is that correct?
        Secretary Kempthorne. I believe that number is accurate.
        Senator Feinstein. Okay. We asked Mr. Allred to work with
    us--we have not had success in doing that. The idea is
    extending the 1998 and 1999 leases for those companies that
    agree to pay royalties. What is your opinion of that? In other
    words, to provide some incentive for the payment? Not that we--
    we shouldn't have to be required to provide incentive--every
    one of these companies has made record profits, and they
    haven't, you know, paid for the right to drill oil on what is,
    essentially, public waterways.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Madam Chairman, I appreciate what
    you're saying.
        I believe that those companies are waiting to see if, in
    fact, there's going to be action taken by Congress. Therefore,
    I don't believe, at this time--even though discussions
    continue--that we're seeing any further movement beyond those
    six.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, it would be my intent, then, to
    draft the legislation along the lines that I've suggested,
    which would be, you know, that we would extend leases in return
    for these payments, and if Senator Craig would be interested in
    working with me, I would be very appreciative of that.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Madam Chairman, I know you're looking
    at it, and the Energy Authorizing Committee is looking at it. I
    think to give companies an opportunity to step forward by the
    initiative you're talking about makes a lot of sense.
        I also understand everybody's frustration, at the same
    time. In searching for what might have been--but nobody knows,
    a violation or an intent--these are valid contracts, and valid
    relationships. Contract law is sacred, and that's what we're
    all struggling with here. Do you step in and break a contract?
    No, you don't do that.
        So, I think it's going to take the kind of initiative
    you're talking about, and it is my observation that there's a
    wait-and-see situation here, until Congress finally solidifies
    where they want to be on this issue, but we're talking a lot of
    money.
        Senator Feinstein. I understand. Thank you very much,
    Senator.

                             DRUGS ON FEDERAL LANDS

        Second question--drugs on Federal lands--big problem. The
    Mexican drug cartels have stopped running drugs over the
    border, and have now simply moved their operations onto Federal
    lands.
        I've seen reports which say that in 2006, Federal
    authorities seized some 3 million marijuana plants, worth
    between $10 billion and $15 billion, and I'm told that half of
    that came from public lands in California.
        What I'd like to know is this--what are the National Park
    Service and the Bureau of Land Management doing to address this
    problem? How much money is in the Department's 2008 budget
    request for this?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Madam Chairman, you've identified a
    very important, and a very serious problem. You are correct--
    the drug cartels, the organized crime have found that it is now
    more efficient and effective for them to locate their assets on
    the public lands, such as the National Parks, to grow the
    marijuana plants, and harvest and then sell them here in this
    country, rather than growing them in Mexico and bringing them
    across the border.
        I will note, however, Madam Chairman, the crossing of the
    border is a significant problem, which at some point we may
    discuss today as well.
        These plots where they are growing the marijuana, it is not
    unusual to find that they are being operated by heavily armed
    individuals. Individuals who have been told--in no uncertain
    terms by the drug cartels--you are to defend this product with
    your life. Because, anything less than that, and there may be
    repercussions with your family members back in Mexico. That is
    the leverage which they're using. It is truly significant what
    is taking place.
        Now the Department itself, our 2008 budget includes $680
    million for law enforcement activities. That's an increase of
    $48 million. I will tell you that, we are also now moving into
    flexible funds within the Park Service so that we can use these
    funds. We have three different teams of law enforcement
    entities with the Park Service, that we use for this specific
    use of interdiction of the drugs.
        In Sequoia, for example, in 2004, we increased the budget
    there $450 million, we have maintained that, and will see an
    additional increase in that area in the 2008 budget, as well.
    We've seen significant progress. But I will tell you, Madam
    Chairman, if you look at a chart at the amount of production
    that is taking place in the United States, it would be a steady
    increase, and then suddenly this spike, which is happening.
    Because, as you have identified, they have now determined it is
    better to grow it in the United States than to try to smuggle
    it across the border.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, my time is
    expired.
        Senator Craig.

                                METHAMPHETAMINE

        Senator Craig. Mr. Secretary, would you continue that
    theme, but talk to us about obviously the initiative you have
    on, in Indian country with meth. We're talking, marijuana grown
    on public lands, but we're talking meth brewed in Mexico.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes.
        Senator Craig. Now, in large part, meth labs being brought
    down in this country are fewer and fewer simply because of the
    tightening up of the ingredients, and State efforts, along with
    the Feds.
        You found something startling, and related to me in a
    conversation earlier, would you tell the Committee your
    experience on our southern border? Because you have a
    responsibility for a lot of mileage of border down there. The
    meth movement across that border today, and what Homeland
    Security is--and is not--doing about it.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes. Senator Craig, I appreciate your
    interest in this issue.
        The Department of the Interior has jurisdiction for 40
    percent of the U.S.-Mexico border--that includes our parks, our
    wildlife refuges, Indian country, et cetera. That's 755 miles.
    After the first of the year, when I went down there for the
    first time to see what the situation was, my impression was
    that I would see a great deal of illegal immigration. I will
    tell you that this is truly organized crime, and it is the drug
    cartels.
        We anticipate, for example, in one Park, Organ Pipe Cactus
    National Park that daily there is as much as $3 million in
    illegal drugs going through that Park. That is one area of the
    Southern border that has the vehicle barrier fence that's in
    place, which was put in shortly after the shooting death of
    Kris Eggle, a National Park Ranger who was shot down and
    killed, because of drugs.
        They've learned to breach that fence. So, they're crossing.
    We now have a situation, Senator, where in certain areas along
    the border, we do not allow employees, park employees, for
    example, to go perform their normal duties, without being
    escorted by two armed officers. The drug cartels have issued
    the message that they will shoot park rangers on sight, they
    will shoot border patrol officers, they will shoot the
    helicopters from the sky.
        This is huge business for the drug cartels. This is
    organized crime, and so it takes an organized effort. We're
    working with the Department of Homeland Security, we're working
    with DEA and the Office of Drug Control. But I have great
    concerns, because we're seeing, perhaps, upwards of 50 percent
    of our budgets for parks and refuges down in that area, that is
    now moving more and more toward law enforcement, instead of
    what the original intended purpose was.
        Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much.
        Madam Chairman, a couple of weeks ago, I was holding a town
    meeting in Meridian, Idaho, and a man stood up in the back of
    the room and said he was a retired Boisean who'd been to Organ
    Pipe as a photographer, and he was told by the Park Service,
    there were areas of that preserve or reserve that he ought not
    enter for his own security and his own life.

                               FIRE PREPAREDNESS

        Let me talk briefly about fire preparedness, the Budget
    Request for fire preparedness for fiscal 2008 is lower than
    that enacted in 2007, yet the proposed budget claims to be
    maintaining an initial attack success rate of 95 percent. How
    can you maintain this success rate with less money? That would
    be one question.
        One of the efficiencies you plan to employ is the
    elimination of 78 management and support positions--are these
    anticipated to be employees with direct fire support
    experience? I mean, those are some of the concerns we have,
    obviously, with the anticipated fire season coming off of last
    season.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes, Senator first, like you, I'd
    like to acknowledge the firefighters themselves, these men and
    women and what they do day in and day out fighting these fires
    for us. As you've noted, the National Inter-agency Fire
    Center--an outstanding resource for the Federal Government.
        In 2008, the fire budget is $801 million. That's $43
    million above the 2007 budget. It includes $37 million for
    suppression. So, while the budget is up, Senator, in the areas
    such as the Wildland-Urban Interface, that's been very
    effective, the Healthy Forest Initiative, that has been very
    effective--we continue that. Because we believe that prevention
    is the best step that you can take.
        We also have made a shift in strategy, based on the input
    from fire professionals and management, to the initial
    response. So, rather than waiting until the fire has gotten to
    the point that it is hundreds of thousands of acres, as we have
    experienced in Idaho, it's to move resources from that effort
    to the initial attack, and to hit them faster, and more
    aggressively. To try to knock them down before they take off
    and reach such large magnitudes, where the only way to
    effectively, then, finally put them out, is when the snow
    begins to fall.
        So, the total fire budget is actually up, but you are
    seeing--in that area of suppression--a shift.
        Senator Craig. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        I'm going to alternate sides, and so I'll give you the
    order now, it will be Senator Nelson, Senator Alexander,
    Senator Reed, Allard, Cochran, Bennett, and Domenici.
        Senator Nelson?

                      PLATTE RIVER RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION

        Senator Nelson. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for your efforts,
    particularly on the efforts of your Department, regarding the
    Platte River Recovery Implementation Program. I'm glad to see a
    $6.4 million increase for the Great Plains Region, to implement
    the program in your proposed budget.
        I was proud to have signed that cooperative agreement back
    when I was Governor of Nebraska in 1997, and I'm equally proud
    to be a co-sponsor of the Senate bill, together with Senator
    Allard and others. This bill, when enacted, will authorize your
    continued participation in this very important program.
        I look forward to working with the Senate Energy and
    Natural Resources Committee, so we can get that bill moving and
    we can further the basin-wide effort between the Department and
    the States of Nebraska, Colorado and Wyoming, to help recover
    species in the basin. I look forward to working with my
    colleagues in this committee to ensure the appropriate funding.
        I know your efforts to date have been very, very
    significant, and the funding requested would be recognized, the
    importance. I hope that we can continue to have that a priority
    for Interior.

                                  STREAMGAGES

        I have a question regarding streamgage activities. At the
    time when the Plains States are suffering from an historic
    drought, all of the components of the Department seem to be
    cutting back on the streamgage programs and other projects that
    monitor water levels, stream flows, and similar programs. I
    wonder if you have an explanation for this. It doesn't appear
    that streamgage activities and programs are a priority, and I'm
    perplexed by that, and I wonder if you might help clarify that,
    if you can.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes, Senator Nelson--the 2008 request
    with regard to the streamgages is held level with 2007. Now, we
    will look at that, and I will get information back to you, but
    at least it is being held level.
        [Information follows:]
                       Increased Funding for Streamgages
        In 2007, USGS increased funding for streamgages. The 2007 operating
    plan includes $16.6 million for the National Streamflow Information
    Program, which includes an increase of $2.3 million for the streamgages
    operating network. In the 2008 President's budget, USGS has requested
    an additional $1.65 million, including $250,000 that would enable
    installation of three new streamgages in southern California and
    deployment of storm surge monitors in support of the bureau's ongoing
    hazards program.

        Senator Nelson. Yeah, I'm not suggesting it is being cut
    back, I'm just suggesting that it doesn't seem to be picking up
    any support for the future because of the increasing need and
    importance of having streamgauge activities, given the drought
    conditions. Unfortunately, they haven't gone away, they
    continue.

                                INVASIVE SPECIES

        One other question--does the Department give any priority
    or preference to States or regions of the country where
    invasive species are choking rivers, and consuming scarce water
    supplies in drought-stricken areas of the country, especially
    considering the concerns in the Republican Platte River Basins.
    Are you taking into account water problems that come about
    because of the invasive species? Red cedar and other species
    that are invasive?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, we do, and I'm very familiar
    with invasive species. It's something that, as a Governor, I
    dealt with, and that we always included in our State budget.
    It's something, ironically, Senator, that I served on the
    National Invasive Species Commission. I remember attending one
    of the early meetings, and they didn't think I would show up,
    because they didn't think I would understand what the issue
    was, but we lived that issue. We do prioritize. Invasive
    species are a critical, critical issue.
        Also, Senator, going back to Senator Craig's comments about
    the forest fires. It's not unusual to see the devastation of
    the entire loss of a forest, it doesn't necessarily mean that
    the forest will come back, because with invasive species, you
    might get a monoculture of something you don't want.
        Senator Nelson. That's right.
        Secretary Kempthorne. I was down in New Mexico, Senator
    Domenici's State and saw the creosote plant that is now an
    invasive species, and what it's doing. We do prioritize, and
    it's something that we do put a great deal of emphasis on.
        Senator Nelson. Well, I hope that you would take a
    particular look at the Platte and Republican River basins,
    because the influx of invasive species there, due to the
    drought, similar situation to a forest fire, the removal of
    water, or the removal of timber can result in an even greater
    invasion.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, I'd be glad to do that. I
    appreciate your work on the Platte River, and I signed that
    Memorandum of Understanding late last year, and again, thank
    you for leadership that has been there for the years. I've
    signed it now with the Governors of Nebraska, Wyoming, and
    Colorado. Senator, may I just take a moment and acknowledge--
    this is a little bit like deja vu, in that when I was a Member
    of the Senate, and you were the Governor of Nebraska, and I
    brought forward with Senator Glenn our efforts to stop unfunded
    Federal mandates, you sat at the witness table, and I was up
    there, so, you did a great job.
        Senator Nelson. Well, sometimes roles are reversed.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes, they are.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Alexander.
        Senator Alexander. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
        Secretary Kempthorne, thank you for coming.
        If I were authorized to give out report cards--which I'm
    not--I'd give some A pluses in your direction, and I'd give the
    President an A plus for the Centennial Challenge, I'd give you
    one for being bold enough to suggest it at a time of fiscal
    tightness. I would give you an A plus for your decision on the
    management policies, to preserve conservation as the primary
    part of the National Park's mission, and I'd give you at least
    a pat on the back for your picking the Great Smoky Mountains
    National Park as your first visit----
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes.
        Senator Alexander [continuing]. On your listening tour.
        I would suggest something that would seem to some listeners
    as counter-intuitive--I think quietly, the administration is
    building up a conservation and environmental record that's
    under-appreciated. I mean, if you added those things together--
    the law that the extension of conservation easements by the
    last Congress, which is the fastest growing conservation
    movement, the EPA rules on sulfur and nitrogen, the low-sulfur
    diesel rules that President Clinton started, and President Bush
    put in place, the passage of Lease 181 for the expanded
    drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, to put in what, we sometimes
    call the Domenici one-eighth, which took $1 out of every $8
    from that expanded drilling and made it a conservation easement
    to go into the Land and Water Conservation Fund. So, that's an
    under-appreciated record, I think.

                      GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK

        I have three questions to go along with my A pluses. One
    is--as much as we appreciate the extra funds for the Great
    Smokies, and the other Tennessee national parks--when I looked
    in the report in USAToday, Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon
    were all receiving more than the Great Smokies, both in
    amounts, and by percentage increase, which surprises me, since
    the Smokies have 10 million visitors a year, which is two or
    three times more visitors a year than any other park.
        I wonder if you would take a look at that, and help me--not
    today--but, if later, you could help me understand why the
    percentage increases for other parks are higher, it would
    appear, than the percentage increases for the Smokies?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, I'd be glad to get back to
    you, and work with you on that, and certainly note that the
    chairman would probably be watching what we do with those
    numbers.
        [The information follows:]
                      Great Smoky Mountains National Park
        The fiscal year 2008 funding level of $18,690,000 includes an
    increase for Great Smoky Mountains National Park of $1,459,000 over the
    fiscal year 2007 enacted level of $17,231,000. The park has experienced
    49 percent growth in base funding over the last 10 years, which is
    equal to the average growth for all parks in the system, and exceeds
    the growth rate at large park units such as Yosemite National Park,
    Yellowstone National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, Gateway NRA, and
    the National Mall. The fiscal year 2008 budget growth rate for Great
    Smoky Mountains National Park likewise exceeds that of many of its peer
    parks, including Yellowstone National Park, Grand Canyon National Park,
    Independence NHP, and the National Mall.
        The fiscal year 2008 increase for Great Smoky Mountains National
    Park of $1,459,000 includes +$676,000 to cover planned pay and cost of
    living increases and projected cost increases for health benefits;
    +$316,000 to fund 26 maintenance seasonals during the peak visitation
    season; +$214,000 to fund 17 interpretation seasonal rangers during the
    peak visitation season; +$157,000 to fund 12 visitor and resource
    protection seasonals during the peak visitation season; and +$96,000 to
    provide a volunteer coordinator, improving the training and
    certification of volunteers, and providing additional funds for
    housing, and recruiting materials.

        Senator Alexander. I respect that as well.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        The second is, the Land and Water Conservation Fund hasn't
    fared too well over the last few years, it's authorized for
    $450 million a year in the Federal account, and in the State
    account, the President's not asked for much if, or nothing.
        You and Senator Nelson were talking about role reversals--I
    remember when I was testifying as Governor 20 years ago, and
    suggested that the Great Smokies, which is managed, basically,
    as a wilderness area, ought to be declared a wilderness area,
    and the whole western side of the Energy Committee nearly went
    into cardiac arrest at the thought of another wilderness area.
        But, there are big differences in the West and the East. I
    mean, we're not like Idaho, we're not mostly owned by the
    Federal Government, we are a rapidly growing State as well, and
    we have very little park space. As you found when you were down
    there in a very highly Republican, conservative area, we like
    the Smokies managed as a wilderness area, and around it we need
    more park space. For example, Alcoa, and the Nature Conservancy
    and others have arranged for 10,000 acres between the Cherokee
    National Forest and the Great Smokies, to be purchased. So we
    need the extra money for open space. My question is--you have
    the authority this year to take some of the funding that
    Congress gave you, and put it in the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund State account or Federal account--do you plan
    to do so?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, as you know from
    conversations you and I have had, I'm a great advocate for the
    State side accounts. I'm dealing in a world of limited
    resources right now, and that's one of the problems. One of the
    things I would like to do and would hope that we would be able
    to do, is work with you to identify new funding sources in the
    future, so that we can properly put the funds into that
    account.
        Senator Alexander. Well, I appreciate that, and I hope that
    we can work together as we expand drilling for oil and gas in
    the Gulf of Mexico or other appropriate places, that we can
    continue this idea that the last Congress passed of the
    Domenici one-eighth, the idea of a conservation royalty, to
    begin to build up funding for the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund, at least the State side, where there's very little
    controversy about it.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, I agree with that. I would
    look forward to working with you, and too, may I say that we
    did have our first listening session in the Great Smokies,
    which is the number one visited National Park in our system, in
    the Nation. Dale Ditmansen and the team down there--he is your
    superintendent, of course, but it was very apparent, too, that
    they recognize that you are the great champion of parks. That
    is all across the country, as well, so we appreciate your
    leadership.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Senator Reed?
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

                           WEAVER'S COVE LNG PROJECT

        Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Last October I joined Senator Kerry
    and Senator Kennedy writing to you about the Weaver's Cove LNG
    project up in Massachusetts, but it also affects the Taunton
    River and the Narragansett Bay Estuary, which is a large part
    of my State. I wonder if you might give us an update on that
    project--there are some concerns, in fact, I think reflected by
    the Department of the Interior scientists, that the dredging
    for the project could harm the natural resources and fisheries
    of both the Taunton River, and the Narragansett Bay Estuary.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, I don't believe I can give
    you great details, I will just tell you that----
        Senator Reed. Could you follow up?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes. The Fish and Wildlife Service
    and the National Park Service are working in conjunction on
    this issue. So, I would be glad to follow up, though, and give
    you----
        Senator Reed. I wish you would, Mr. Secretary. This is--as
    you can imagine--a very important issue in our way, Taunton is
    in, and Fall River is in Massachusetts, but the transit of
    these ships and the impact is all through--mostly through Rhode
    Island, as they transit from Narragansett Bay up into Fall
    River.
        The real issue here is making sure that scientific and
    legal procedures are followed, particularly, if the best
    science of your Department is used.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Right.
        Senator Reed. I would urge you to take all of those steps
    necessary to make that happen.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Very good. I appreciate that.
        Senator Reed. Thank you. I would also appreciate any
    information you could follow up with in to my office.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Absolutely.
        [The information follows:]
                 Weaver's Cove Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) Project
        The Weaver's Cove LNG Facility planned for Fall River,
    Massachusetts on the lower Taunton River called for 2.5 million cubic
    yards of dredge, resulting in 11 acres of permanent intertidal/subtidal
    habitat loss. The Department of the Interior has been coordinating the
    development and review of potential permit conditions based on
    scientific review by National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service staff. In particular, FWS has provided technical assistance
    regarding impacts of dredging on anadromous fish species, which use the
    Taunton for migration and spawning habitat. The issue is the number of
    months the company can dredge the river and avoid potential adverse
    effects to anadromous fish species using the river.
        The U.S. Coast Guard issued a preliminary finding in May 2007 that
    the most recent Weaver's Cove proposal did not sufficiently address
    potential navigational and security challenges, that the Federal Energy
    Regulatory Commission (FERC) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is
    deficient in analyzing safety and environmental issues, and that a
    supplemental EIS or separate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
    review (Environmental Assessment or EIS) is needed. As of July 12,
    2007, this additional NEPA review had not been initiated.
        The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection issued a
    letter in June 2007 to Weaver's Cove Energy (WCE) advising that the
    Department had stopped processing the required 401 Water Quality
    Certificate for the proposed LNG development, and will resume only when
    the Coast Guard issues have been addressed. The Army Corps of Engineers
    confirmed to the National Park Service that they will not proceed with
    processing of its permit for the LNG facility until both the Coast
    Guard and State 401 issues have been settled. Movement on these permits
    is not anticipated until the additional NEPA analysis cited above has
    been completed and the Coast Guard has finalized their position
    relative to navigational safety and environmental concerns.

                       ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT REGULATIONS

        Senator Reed. I also understand that your Department is
    working on regulations for the Endangered Species Act. Can you
    give us an update on those regulations?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, I can't tell you that
    there's anything that's been defined, or any conclusion
    reached, I will tell you that, in meeting with the President
    who has stressed during his entire term, cooperative
    conservation, we held 25 different cooperative conservation
    listening sessions across the United States. Some 2,000
    different speakers came forward, we had over 30,000 written
    comments, based on these listening sessions.
        The number one topic--in fact it was the number one topic
    by a 6-to-1 ratio--was the Endangered Species Act. People, as
    you can well imagine, the full spectrum from, ``The Act is
    doing what it's supposed to do, do not touch it,'' to those who
    think that it should be rescinded.
        But, the bulk of the comments were, we believe that the
    intent of the act is proper, but that improvements could be
    made in how it is administered. So, those are some of the
    things that we're looking at.
        Senator Reed. But, will that be reflected in regulations
    that you propose in the near future? Do you have a work plan to
    revise the regulations?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, at this point, I can't tell
    you there's any conclusion. It's just--it is all part of the
    discussion at the current time.
        Senator Reed. Do you have any notion, Mr. Secretary, when
    you might, sort of, reach a conclusion? At least begin
    proposing regulations? Or is this still in morphs, that you
    don't have any idea?
        Secretary Kempthorne. I'll just tell you that it's very
    much in the discussion phase, and I'd be happy to sit down with
    you, if you'd like, as we get closer to it.
        Senator Reed. Well, thank you.

                            SAVE AMERICA'S TREASURES

        There's one other program that's been very helpful to my
    State, that's the Save America's Treasures program, it's very
    important for historic preservation, it's done a lot, actually,
    for the economic well-being of Providence. It's a city that's
    really coming back, a renaissance. When we've used this
    program, very effectively, to leverage private contributions
    and private development, and I understand that the budget
    request would cut funding below the amount of the last several
    years. I think this is a program that works, and I wonder what
    the justification is for cutting it.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, I can't argue with you on
    all of the positive attributes that you've said. Save America's
    Treasures speaks for itself. Again, in tight budget restraints,
    yes, there is a reduction. I wish it were otherwise, but in the
    total scheme of looking at the budget, and trying to make
    things work, that was one area that had a reduction.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate your
    effort, and I wish you well, and we will stay in communication,
    on Weaver's Cove, and Endangered Species and historic
    treasures.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Very good. Thank you very much.
        Senator Reed. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Allard.
        Senator Allard. Madam Chairman, thank you very much, and
    welcome, Secretary Kempthorne.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Thank you, Senator.

                     GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT

        Senator Allard. Over a decade ago, the Congress passed an
    act called the Government Performance and Results Act, I think
    you're familiar with that, where it directed the agencies to
    set up objectives that are measurable, and then those results
    get reported. Both the Clinton administration and now the Bush
    administration have been working on this program, we have some
    agencies that are rated, as being ineffective, by OMB--they are
    the ones that sort of help manage this and I'm sure that you
    talk to your agencies. I have introduced an amendment in the
    Budget Committee that said that we're looking at those programs
    that are ineffective, and saying, ``Well, we need a 25 percent
    reduction in that group of programs.''
        You know, to me it's hard to explain why we would let taxes
    increase, and the debt increase when we have taxpayer dollars
    going to these ineffective programs. I think even more
    egregious than agencies who have attempted to measure their
    results and failed, are those programs that absolutely have not
    put together any plan at all in how they're going to do it.
        You have a number of those programs that are listed in the
    Department of the Interior. We have about seven of them in the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs, for example. By the way, some of
    these programs, I support because of their benefits. But, on
    the other hand, we want to see taxpayer dollars spent
    effectively, we want accountability on how they're spent.
        The land-use planning section of the Bureau of Land
    Management is one of those that aren't doing anything to try
    and measure their results. Also there's a mining law provision,
    Southern Nevada Land Sales, rural water, Colorado water
    management projects, and planning construction, land and water
    conservation and farmland acquisition which, you said, ``Well,
    you need more resources there,'' but how do you know that the
    dollars are going to be well spent if you're not doing anything
    to measure performance and how the taxpayer dollars are coming?
        So, I hope that you, in the Department of the Interior will
    look at these lists--there's about 21 altogether--you will look
    closely at these, and tell them at the least there's one Member
    in the Senate who's concerned, and I think I'm joined by a lot
    of other Members, who want to see our taxpayer dollars spent in
    a responsible way, and hope that they can report.
        Now, I understand that in some cases, you maybe do need to
    give them more money to be more effective, and get their job
    done. On the other hand, if they absolutely refuse to measure
    their performance, I think that sends the wrong message back to
    Congress on what we're expecting of the agencies.
        I'm wondering if you might comment a little bit about your
    efforts on the PART Program of the President, and what you're
    doing, and what you're going to do about these programs that
    refuse to even demonstrate, and do anything that even
    demonstrates any results.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Right. Senator, the fact that you
    flagged it, I think is significant.
        Senator Allard. I hope so.
        Secretary Kempthorne. It is, indeed.
        Senator Allard. Yeah.
        Secretary Kempthorne. I will tell you that we have been
    working with the Inspector General in our Department, in going
    through and looking at these different entities which you've
    identified. Some have been completed, some are nearing
    completion, but we need to do this. It was prescribed to us,
    and we need to do so. We've been working with OMB. I cannot
    tell you what the final conclusion will be. I can tell you,
    Senator, that this is one of the measures. Approximately 1 or 2
    months ago, there was another measure that was given to us by
    the Office of Personnel Management. It has been used for the
    past few years, and my point to the Assistant Secretaries, to
    the Bureau Directors is, in fact, that, that is a measurement--
    what are we going to do about it? We need to use these
    measuring tools. If the tools need to be fine-tuned, then we
    ought to step forward and suggest any changes to that.
        I believe, part of my role in the months that I have
    remaining, is to do what I can to ensure that we have an
    effective, efficient Department.
        Now, I'm very proud to be at the Department of the
    Interior--it's a great Department, outstanding individuals. I
    believe we can continue to make improvements, however.
        Senator Allard. Well, thank you. I'm sure when you were
    Governor of Idaho that you used the management objectives to
    kind of bring accountability to your programs, or under your
    administration. I have all of the confidence in the world, and
    I'll bring up the question next year and see how well things
    are going.

                                LANDSAT SENSORS

        Secretary Kempthorne. I appreciate that, Senator.
        Senator Allard. There's a program on thermal sensing
    technology, this money for this program goes, is funded jointly
    by the USGS as well as NASA. The technology is used to measure
    water flows, among other things. The State of Colorado uses it
    to meet its interstate compact obligation--you know, we're kind
    of at the top of the heap, we have some seven drainage systems
    that come out, and a lot of them are downstream, but it's
    particularly useful in the Arkansas River, where we've had some
    lawsuits because Kansas wanted to make sure they had enough
    water going down there.
        I see that neither USGS or NASA has provided the dollars
    for that program, and I'm concerned that maybe we've got a tug-
    of-war between the two agencies, and this is not being taken
    care of like it should.
        I wonder if you have a response for us on that, if you
    don't, some kind of written response would be helpful.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, I believe Assistant
    Secretary Weimer can comment on that.
        Mr. Weimer. Yes, I believe, Senator, you're referring to
    the Landsat sensors----
        Senator Allard. Yes, that's it.
        Mr. Weimer [continuing]. On the new Landsat satellite.
        Senator Allard. Yes, that's it.
        Mr. Weimer. Yes, conversations are continuing with NASA, I
    believe, between USGS Director Myers, looking at the need for
    that new sensor. I'm not sure exactly where those conversations
    are now, so we'll have to get back to you on that.
        [The information follows:]
             Thermal Sensor for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission
        Landsat data continuity, which is the collection of data to
    continue a long-term record, includes the acquisition of thermal data.
    Landsats 5 and 7 both have thermal sensors and have been collecting
    thermal data to add to the USGS data set of 35 years. These data are
    increasingly important to States, water districts, and others, for the
    management of western water resources, particularly agricultural water
    use.
        NASA and the Department are partners in Landsat Program Management.
    NASA built and launched Landsats 5 and 7, which are now owned and
    operated by USGS. The USGS also manages the Nation's Landsat data
    archive and distributes products to a wide variety of domestic and
    international customers.
        Both USGS and NASA have clearly defined roles for the development
    and operation of the upcoming Landsat Data Continuity Mission, or
    Landsat 8, due for launch in 2011:
      --NASA will develop and procure the LDCM spacecraft, sensor(s),
            mission operations element (flight software), and launch
            vehicle. NASA is also responsible for end-toend mission
            integration, in consultation with USGS. To date, NASA has not
            included a thermal sensor in its design of Landsat 8. USGS is
            working closely with NASA to influence this issue.
      --The USGS will develop and procure the LDCM ground data processing
            and archive systems plus a flight operations facility, in
            consultation with NASA. The USGS will also own and operate the
            spacecraft after launch, and manage and distribute the LDCM
            data.

        Senator Allard. Well, it's really important for our ranch
    management, I happen to use the Arkansas River, because right
    now it's got everybody's attention, but I think on these
    interstate compacts, it's important to know what's happening on
    water flows and this is an important program in that regard,
    and I hope you're serious about your discussions.
        Senator Craig [presiding]. The chairman has given me the
    gavel, Mr. Secretary. What else would you like in your budget?
        Having said that, let me turn to Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Mr. Secretary, I wanted to congratulate you for the
    leadership you're showing on a wide range of subject fronts,
    and as Secretary of the Interior, I specifically appreciate the
    leadership and the off-shore gulf coast area planning and
    supporting legislation to make it possible to invigorate the
    production of natural resources, energy products from that
    region, sharing royalties with the gulf coast States, that's
    really a breakthrough in my view, and it's going to mean a lot,
    not only to helping satisfy our energy needs, but to
    environmental protection and restoration of those offshore
    islands, which were so devastated by Hurricanes Rita and
    Katrina. The leadership you're providing in that area is to be
    commended, I thank you for that.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Thank you, sir.

                            NPS CENTENNIAL CHALLENGE

        Senator Cochran. One other area I think deserves mention,
    too, and that's the Centennial Challenge which you have
    developed to help spur the protection and resource conservation
    in the national parks. This is something that's definitely
    needed--I wondered, in the area of the mandatory match that you
    foresee coming from private contributions, what is your
    assessment of the reception to that proposal--are there any
    early indications that this is really going to be something
    that will achieve the results you anticipate?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator Cochran, I appreciate you
    focusing on that.
        The response has been extremely positive. I've met with
    many members of the friends organizations that support our
    national parks. There's 144 different entities, each of which
    supports a different Park. They had told me early on, as did
    NPCA--the National Park Conservation Association, different
    foundations and the private sector--they are willing to step up
    and be the margin of excellence, but they do not want to be the
    margin of survival for the Parks. They said, ``We need to see
    the Federal Government step up and to do its part.''
        The NPCA, for example, had said, ``We'd like to see you
    really reach, and using 2006 as a benchmark, if you could
    increase your operating budget by $250 million,'' they knew
    that was a real stretch for us, but the President came in with
    $258 million. So, they're very supportive.
        Now, we turn to that part about the local matches--the
    philanthropy is part of the heritage of national parks. The
    Great Smoky Mountains that Senator Alexander referenced, the
    Rockefeller family stepped forward initially, and said they
    would put forward $10 million in a match if the private sector
    would come forward, that's what was accomplished. I think
    something like 30 of our parks are the result of families or
    foundations that have stepped forward. Historically, we have
    raised approximately $20 million per year from the private
    sector. We believe now, that with this incentive, that we can
    achieve $100 million.
        A recent example would be in Philadelphia when we announced
    this, Rebecca Rimel who is the Director of the Pew Foundation
    said that the Pew Foundation would bring forward $6 million for
    the renovation and restoration of the Ben Franklin Museum in
    Philadelphia. She'd spoken to Governor Rendell where the State
    and private entities would match that $6 million if the Federal
    Government would use its $6 million as a match. So, there's $18
    million that's real, that shows you the response that we get
    from the foundations and the private sector.
        Senator Cochran. Well, that's very encouraging, and again,
    I think it points to the effectiveness of your personal
    involvement and hard work in this area. We are hopeful that
    some of this will spill over into our State and be helpful to
    us as we try to develop tourist-friendly sites along the
    Natchez Trace Parkway for visitors who choose to use that
    scenic parkway as a way of transportation and an educational
    experience, traveling all the way from Nashville to Natchez,
    Mississippi, the Merriweather-Lewis Area where that famous
    person died. There's an initiative underway to enhance that
    particular area for education benefits, for those who are
    interested in early-American history.
        We're also urging the Department to look carefully at
    developing the Chickasaw and Choctaw Native American historical
    areas of interest. Those were the civilizations that were quite
    prominent in the State of Mississippi, but the Cherokee Nation
    in Tennessee is another example of early history, early-
    American history that is very interesting, and these National
    resources can be used as a way to make us all more familiar and
    appreciate the contributions to our country that these Native
    American tribes have made.
        So, your support for initiatives that we're trying to
    develop for that Parkway would be appreciated, as well.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator Cochran I appreciate what you
    have said, and one of the areas that we are emphasizing with
    the National Parks Centennial, are the trails, so that we can
    link these magnificent entities to one another, and continue to
    have the tourism be very much a part of this.
        It resonates very strongly with me when you talked about
    the revenue-sharing that we're doing with offshore oil and gas.
    I agree in revenue-sharing, I believe in incentives. I think
    this is a very effective tool that's there, and it can
    certainly help with Coastal restoration. I commend you for your
    leadership, post-Katrina, in helping Mississippi to rebuild,
    and the great progress which you're making there.
        Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran.
        Now, let me turn to Senator Pete Domenici. Pete.
        Senator Domenici. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    It's my privilege to be here today. I had to attend an earlier
    hearing on appropriations, and I'm glad that----

                                1998/1999 LEASES

        Senator Craig. Senator, thank you. Before you arrived, both
    the Secretary and the chairman and I dialogued for a moment
    about the lease issue in the gulf, and the chairman had talked
    about using an extension of lease--I know it's something you've
    looked at seriously--to bring those companies into compliance.
    The Secretary was observant, I think, to that conversation, and
    offered to get something done.
        Senator Domenici. Yeah, well the 1998, 1999 leasehold, I'm
    not going to take much time, other than to tell you that it
    will be my proposal that we extend those leases 3 years, the
    first opportunity I have, whichever is first, this committee,
    or the other Committee on Appropriations, or Senator Bingaman's
    Committee on Natural Resources is just authorizing, I will
    offer that, and indicate that that's going to be made available
    to those who were part of that bid process, that time, and I
    think there's an awful lot of them that are willing to sign on,
    in exchange for which they will receive, under my proposal that
    you all have been referring to, they'll receive the extension
    of their leasehold.
        Thank you for bringing that to my attention so I would not
    waste time.

                        INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS

        The other matters that are, obviously very, very important,
    I'm sorry the Senator isn't here, but let's put them on the
    table--Indian water rights settlements. I say, Mr. Secretary,
    this year, this Congress, we have three big ones, that are New
    Mexico in origin, and we have been sort of waiting around,
    wondering when the government would be ready, and it looks to
    me like we can't do that, we have to be a bit more active, than
    just being observant, waiting around to see when they will do
    something.
        We will not--we will be much more proactive, we will tell
    the Secretary, and we start today, so that it's totally clear,
    and we are looking for the money that the settlements envision
    and that we are not, we're not going to just say, just run away
    when somebody from your Department, Mr. Secretary, says,
    ``Well, where is the money?'' You know, that's kind of a two-
    way street. The money's going to be--we're going to ask you all
    where the money is, too, not just you ask us to go to the
    appropriators to find the money.
        The government is going to get stuck with these because
    we're going to be passing the bills, and passing them along,
    and I can't imagine the President of the United States,
    literally, wanting to veto a bill compensating the three Indian
    tribes in New Mexico for 40-year old water rights, 40-year old
    suit, one's 40, one's 30, one's 28--that's how long we've been
    in court--and in one instance, there's been some real give, a
    big kind give, and we've got to get around to the Federal
    Government understanding that with that, you've got to proceed.

                                     ENERGY

        We've got a BLM, present, has indicated $141 million in
    energy and minerals management, a 31 percent increase, we think
    that's, that's much-needed, and we salute him for putting it
    up, and we want to see if we can get the best possible use for
    that.
        The Department of Energy estimates that technically, in
    recoverable oil--shale in the United States is roughly
    equivalent to three times Saudi Arabia reserves. Section 369 of
    the Energy Policy Act directs the Secretary of the Interior,
    that's you, sir--and it directs you to move ahead and I'm very
    pleased that you included $4 million in your, to add to your
    ongoing oil shale activity.
        You will be feeling in your Department, the vitality of
    that investment as the year goes by. You don't have $4 million
    invested out there in shale not to find some real action.
    Between Shell Oil and a couple of others, and the others and
    the activity in shale development this year, will be a big, big
    item. I don't think we ought to hide it from the rest of the
    world, Mr. Secretary. I believe you ought to flaunt it, and
    make sure that the Arab countries know we have it, and it's
    usable, and it's big, big amounts. If done properly, within a
    decade, you might have a very large shale production on the
    continent side of the United States that will be ours.
        Now, that doesn't satisfy some in America, who think we
    need to just not use oil, and this is oil, but to me, it
    satisfies us in the if we get it working, we don't need to go
    down in the gulf and get it, we use our own, and we'll be able
    to use our own. That's something which I think is vitally
    important. I hope you feel the same way.
        If we pursue it with vigor, it wouldn't hurt you, would it,
    Mr. Secretary?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, it would not. I share your
    enthusiasm. I think it's one of those areas where we need to
    look at the innovation. I will tell you that this summer, we
    will be coming forward with a programmatic EIS that allows us
    to do so. So, again, I appreciate--and may I, if I may just
    reference your comments concerning Indian water rights?
        Senator Domenici. Yes.

                              INDIAN WATER RIGHTS

        Secretary Kempthorne. I know how important that is to you.
    It's important to the tribes. Senator Craig and I know from our
    own experience of water rights settlements, and how critical--
    especially with water, it's this finite resource. The leader of
    my team within the Department who is charged with that
    responsibility just returned from New Mexico, that was his
    second trip down there, meeting with----
        Senator Domenici. Who was that?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Michael Bogert.
        Senator Domenici. Yes.
        Secretary Kempthorne. He'll be meeting with your staff as
    well, and Senator Bingaman, because we know of your intention,
    and we want to work with you on that.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Thank you.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                1998/1999 LEASES

        Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much, Senator Domenici,
    and I'm anxious to sign on with you, this initiative to try to
    extend those leases. I think that your leadership there solves
    potentially a very big problem that needs to get solved, sooner
    rather than later, and that seems to be a reasonable way to
    approach it.
        I believe this morning she expressed support for that
    approach of the extension. Yeah.
        Senator Domenici. We will have a nice bipartisan group on
    the committee taking it out of here to the full committee, I
    think we'll be on top of it. Some will complain that it doesn't
    pick up everybody, but nothing picks up everybody.
        Senator Craig. No.
        Senator Domenici. I think ours picks up the most. That's
    good. We don't have to, then, do anything to other people that
    is damaging to their rights and privileges as citizens,
    citizen-entities in the United States, we hope that's the case.
        Senator Craig. Thank you.

                            HEALTHY LANDS INITIATIVE

        Mr. Secretary, one last question of you before we let you
    go--the Department's budget includes $22 million for the
    Healthy Lands Initiative split between U.S. Geological Survey,
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and BLM for large-scale land
    management approaches. Can you describe how healthy, how the
    Healthy Lands Initiative is different than the approaches the
    Agency is currently employing?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes, Senator, this will be a joint
    effort between the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife
    Service, and USGS. Again, historically there have been efforts
    dealing with parcel by parcel, or where there is energy
    development, wellhead to wellhead, instead of looking at the
    large landscape. This is now to change the emphasis, so that
    we're looking at the entire landscape.
        I'll give you a specific approach to this, which we're
    seeing in New Mexico. I mentioned the creosote plant. It is
    now, what traditionally had been taking up something 10 to 15
    percent of the landscape, is now approaching 80 percent. And
    nothing grows where the creosote plant is. So, what happened?
    What was past practices? Or what was the past practice? It was
    the Chisholm Trail.
        Senator Craig. Yeah.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Now we're using aerial application by
    helicopter with pellets that are specific to the plant and with
    the rains, it is the demise of that plant. The natural grass
    seeds are already there. So we're now seeing a return of the
    historic grasses.
        When we talk about this, Wyoming, for example, you have
    significant wildlife corridors that have been there for
    centuries, and they need to be there for centuries. So we need
    to look at the total landscape so that we don't get down to
    such fine detail that we inadvertently, somehow, squeeze those
    landscapes. We need to ensure that energy development and
    world-class habitat are not mutually exclusive. We're now to
    the point that, with technology, instead of 10 acres per
    wellhead, we're down to a footprint of a half an acre. That's
    part of what this effort is, is to be sensitive to the world-
    class environment we have, knowing that we need to have energy
    development for the well-being of the country.
        Senator Craig. Well, I appreciate that explanation. When
    you were talking creosote, I was hoping maybe we could apply
    that in relation to the Juniper, in part, in Eastern Oregon,
    Southwestern Idaho, which has become an invasive species,
    literally wiping out tens of thousands of acres of rangeland,
    upland game bird habitat, as you know. Like creosote, Juniper
    takes over, controls, robs the land of moisture, and obviously
    other vitalities.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes, and Senator, in this Healthy
    Lands Initiative, there's six targeted areas, one of which
    includes Idaho, because of the sage grouse.
        Senator Craig. Good.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Because of the critical nature, we
    want to get ahead of the herd, ahead of the curve, with regard
    to the Sage Grouse so that we don't have difficulties that
    could inadvertently cause us to look at the energy development.
        Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much, on behalf of the
    Chairman and myself, let me thank you for your presence here
    today, we'll look forward to working with you as we shape these
    budgets and get them ready. Well, we're in the debate over the
    budget this week, and that will then allow us, this
    subcommittee, to move forward with your budget and the
    appropriating process.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, I appreciate again, number
    one, your friendship, and your years of service to the State of
    Idaho and to the Nation. You're one of our leaders. It's so
    sorely tempting with you as the Chair, and myself sitting here,
    unanimous consent for something.
        Senator Craig. Okay. Thank you very much.

                   SENATOR BENNETT'S STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD

        Senator Bennett has submitted a statement that will be made
    part of the hearing record at this time.
        [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Senator Robert F. Bennett
        Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today to examine
    the Department of the Interior's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal. I am
    pleased to see my friend, Secretary and former Senator Kempthorne, this
    morning, and look forward to working with him during this year's
    appropriations process.
        I am sure that Secretary Kempthorne has heard from a lot of people
    regarding the department's oil and gas program in my state. Let me give
    you the senator from Utah's perspective on this program.
        Utah is a public land State. Nearly two-thirds of the State is
    managed by a federal agency. The Department of the Interior, through
    the Bureau of Land Management, oversees the management of approximately
    23 million acres of surface area and an additional 10 million acres of
    subsurface rights in Utah. This represents around 44 percent of my
    State.
        I am pleased at the progress the BLM's oil and gas program has
    made, not only in terms of production but also in terms of conservation
    and efficiency. For example, compare these numbers: in 1984, the BLM
    leased almost 20 million acres for oil and gas resources in Utah.
    Today, that number is only around 4.5 million acres.
        Another interesting fact is that the surface disturbance from an
    average well is only about one-quarter of the acreage that it was 30
    years ago. Opponents of this program often fail to acknowledge that in
    Utah, only approximately 30,000 acres experience actual surface
    disturbance from oil and gas operations--that's less than 1 percent of
    BLM managed land in Utah.
        I am also pleased to see your Healthy Lands Initiative included in
    the president's budget. This will help to mitigate oil and gas leasing
    activities, including secondary impacts, and to benefit endangered
    species, such as the sage grouse. We have funded a similar program in
    the Agriculture Appropriations Bill that has been very successful in
    Utah. I also understand that the State has appropriated funds that will
    be used in conjunction with federal funds for this program. This
    program represents real progress, and I am excited at its future
    prospects.
        These successes notwithstanding, we will continue to hear from the
    alarmists that claim that BLM is not properly managing our natural
    resources. I would urge the department to not overreact to such claims.
    I believe that under Secretary Kempthorne's watch, the department has
    taken positive steps to balance responsible development with
    conservation, and has used the appropriate discretion. I would
    encourage you, Mr. Secretary, to continue your course of action, and
    not be dissuaded by the ill-informed.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the department's
    budget, and I look forward to productive discussions about this
    appropriations bill.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Craig. There will be some additional questions
    which will be submitted for your response in the record.
        [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 Dianne Feinstein
                         san francisco bay restoration
        Question. I would like to direct your attention to a matter of
    critical concern to me and hundreds of thousands of people who live and
    work near the San Francisco Bay. A few years ago I brokered a transfer
    of land for the Fish and Wildlife Service from the Cargill Corporation.
    Cargill conveyed the land in the south bay for salt production so that
    it could be restored to its natural state--tidal flats and marshland
    perfectly suited for wildlife habitat. In exchange for its generosity
    to the United States, the responsibility for restoring the salt ponds
    fell to the new owners, the Fish and Wildlife Service.
        The earthen water control structures at the salt ponds also serve
    as the flood protection for the communities and businesses along the
    south bay. Unfortunately, this presents a serious threat because the
    levees and dikes are made of clay and sand and sit near a fault line.
    The Corps of Engineers acknowledges that the earthworks are inadequate.
    An earthquake or major flood could turn the levees to mush. If this
    happens, we could face a Hurricane Katrina-type catastrophe because
    much of the occupied land near the south bay is 25 feet below sea
    level. Salt water would inundate the valley, causing untold loss of
    life, property, and agriculture.
        What can the Department of the Interior do to address the public
    safety and ecological problems facing the San Francisco Bay?
        Answer. The Fish and Wildlife Service, in partnership with the many
    State, Federal and local agencies, is working on a long-term
    restoration plan for the salt ponds. The final plan and environmental
    documents are expected to be completed by the end of 2007. Phase I of
    the South Bay Salt Pond Project is expected to begin in fiscal year
    2008. Interim steps have already been taken that have increased fish
    and wildlife populations in the area. The South Bay Salt Pond Project
    will restore and enhance a mosaic of tidal marshes and managed ponds.
    Restored tidal marshes will provide critical habitat for the endangered
    California clapper rail and the salt marsh harvest mouse. Large marsh
    areas with extensive channel systems will also provide habitat for fish
    and other aquatic life as well as areas for harbor seals. In addition,
    the restored tidal marshes will help filter and eliminate pollutants.
    Many of the ponds will continue to be managed ponds, while enhancing to
    maximize feeding and resting habitat for migratory shorebirds and
    waterfowl traveling the Pacific Flyway.
        When the Fish and Wildlife Service acquired the salt ponds, the
    Service agreed to maintain the levees in a manner similar to how
    Cargill had done in the past. In fiscal year 2004, the Service
    reprogrammed $2.5 million in construction funds that has been used for
    levee maintenance at the salt ponds. In the fiscal year 2007 Continuing
    Resolution budget, the Service is allocating $1 million in construction
    funds to maintain the levees.
        The salt pond levees in question were never constructed to provide
    flood control for neighboring communities. Rather, Cargill Salt and its
    predecessors constructed and maintained the levees to provide for
    commercial salt production (i.e., the levees were not designed or
    engineered to meet flood control standards). However, with the land
    subsidence that has occurred in the South Bay, these salt pond levees
    have been providing de facto flood protection. Since the Service is not
    a flood control agency, it is cooperating with the Army Corps of
    Engineers, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Alameda Country Flood
    Control agency, to complete a Shoreline Study that will provide a long-
    term flood protection strategy for the South Bay.
          inspector general report on interior department contracting
        Question. The Department's Inspector General reported this January
    that Interior's franchise fund, GovWorks, and its working capital fund
    have repeatedly and routinely violated Federal appropriations law and
    contracting regulations. The most damaging finding was that there was a
    continuing pattern of abuse of the Antideficiency Act by Departments of
    Defense and Interior. DOD purchasers routinely used Interior revolving
    funds as places to ``park'' or ``bank'' funds that were to expire soon
    for later use. Interior ``placed contracts for DOD customers using
    funds from expired funds, thereby circumventing DOD appropriations
    law.'' Approximately $400 million was identified that should have been
    returned to Treasury. Instead, Interior converted these expiring funds
    into multiyear funds.
        The IG points out that the GovWorks retains 4 percent of the DOD
    money it parks to pay for Interior priorities. This certainly gives the
    appearance of profiting from illegal or irregular contracting. I do not
    think running a profitable business center is one of the authorized
    missions of the Department of the Interior. How much money has GovWorks
    retained?
        Answer. Specifically the OIG recommended that certain transactions
    be reviewed to evaluate the potential use of expired funds and to
    research possible non-compliance with contracting regulations related
    to the bona-fide needs rule. NBC has worked diligently with DOI and DOD
    officials to implement operational improvements and much progress has
    been made.
      --Reviews of compliance with fiscal law have been completed for $577
            million of interagency agreements. As a result of these
            reviews, GovWorks identified $200 million in funds that were
            not expired, referred $119 million to the DOD Comptroller for
            review and determination of compliance with the agency's rules
            and interagency agreements, and deobligated approximately $235
            million, which was returned to the respective client agency.
      --Additional controls have been implemented to ensure that
            acquisition requisitions provided by the requesting agency
            identify a bona fide need before the purchase request is
            accepted and prior to any contract action being taken.
      --Since DOD has implemented policies that are more restrictive than
            the applicable legislation, the DOD and DOI have jointly
            developed and approved a Memorandum of Agreement that further
            defines the roles and responsibilities of the respective
            organizations and includes additional improvement actions to be
            completed.
        GovWorks provides acquisition services to Interior bureaus and
    offices, as well as other Federal agencies, under authority of the
    Government Management Reform Act of 1994 and the 1997 Interior and
    Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which established the Interior
    Franchise Fund in 1997.
        From its inception over 10 years ago, GovWorks has evolved into a
    major provider of cost competitive acquisition services for Interior
    bureaus and offices and other Federal agencies. We believe that much of
    the acquisition work provides value added to Interior by contributing
    knowledge and skills to core service areas for Interior, but we are
    currently reviewing the scope of our acquisition services to see if
    further changes are merited.
        Of the $1.4 billion in contract funding received from customers in
    2006, GovWorks retained $47 million or 3.2 percent. This funding
    supported GovWorks acquisition services including development,
    administration and close out of the contracts. Funding used supports
    the acquisition staff and support costs, maintenance of reserves for
    annual leave, depreciation, and potential shut-down costs and for
    capital improvements. The majority of the retained earnings support the
    122 Federal employees and 76 contract employees that perform the
    acquisition services.
        In prior years GovWorks had retained earned amounts each year as
    follows:

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Year                                Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2001.......................................................          4.6
    2002.......................................................         10.9
    2003.......................................................         30.5
    2004.......................................................         40.2
    2005.......................................................         44.0
    2006.......................................................         47.4
                                                                ------------
          Total................................................        177.6
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The overall percent of fee earned for this period was 3.1 percent
    of contract dollars awarded.
        Question. What did your Department do with these funds?
        Answer. Funding retained was used for operation of GovWorks as well
    as for reserves and investments in equipment and financial management
    improvements. Of the total $177.6 million retained through 2006, $126.9
    million was used to support operations of GovWorks, $1.8 million was
    retained for reserves for accrued annual leave and depreciation, and
    $42.5 million was used for investments. These investments include
    funding for the Financial and Business Management Information System,
    Enterprise Services Network and Information Technology Security
    improvements. These investments provide or will provide enhanced
    information technology and financial services and systems to Interior
    and its customers. For example, GovWorks Interior and other
    governmental customers will benefit from the modernized acquisition
    module of the Financial and Business Management System that is being
    deployed.
        Question. Please explain why this committee should not close this
    enterprise down.
        Answer. The acquisition organizations in DOI are operating in
    compliance with legislation specific to the Department and/or under
    legislation applicable to all Federal agencies as a Federal service
    provider.
        GovWorks provides high quality acquisition services at competitive
    prices. By offering acquisition services that are related to Interior's
    mission, GovWorks can provide specialized, unique services to Interior
    bureaus that may not be available in-house. For example, GovWorks
    manages the Department's contracts for major information technology
    investments--these projects are on a scale and complexity that requires
    skills and capacity that may not available through in-house acquisition
    staffs. GovWorks also has staff that can focus on areas of expertise,
    hiring experts and providing specialized training to create centers of
    excellence. Interior and other customers benefit directly from these
    services by spreading costs over a larger client base resulting in
    lower operational costs resulting from economies of scale and
    efficiencies.
        Further, GovWorks has able to attract and retain the highly
    technical and professional employees who perform these services and are
    thereby able to provide improved expertise and timely support and at
    the same time assure compliance with the complex laws and regulations
    that surround Federal financial and administrative programs.
        Finally, the ability to utilize earning reserves for equipment and
    financial improvement allows the lines of business to have funds to
    invest in improvements and enhanced services that benefit all
    customers. An example, GovWorks' Business Information System provides
    customers with an automated system to track acquisition requests and
    the status of their acquisitions throughout the process from inception
    to close-out.
        Interior has and will continue to implement improvements based on
    the OIG recommendations to strengthen oversight and management of
    GovWorks and the Franchise Fund in order to address the Subcommittee's
    concerns. The following highlights some of the actions that we have
    taken:
      --Established and filled an SES leadership position for the
            acquisition program.
      --Developed and implemented new policies and enhanced procedures and
            guidance to ensure funds and contracts are administered in
            compliance with applicable laws, policies, and regulations.
            This has included additional requirements regarding the
            determination of price reasonableness, enhanced file
            documentation, strengthened procedures for producing the
            independent government cost estimates, and use of checklists to
            ensure that all required procurement actions are taken and
            adequately document.
      --Broadened training requirements for procurement professionals to
            ensure compliance with FAR and Appropriations Law provisions.
      --Established a new internal review team tasked with conducting
            independent quality reviews of randomly selected procurement
            actions to ensure that acquisition procedures are being
            followed and appropriately documented.
      --Enhanced DOI legal reviews for both solicitation and award. All
            contracts valued at over $500,000 are reviewed by the Office of
            the Solicitor.
      --Establishing a formal review program conducted annually and
            performed by an independent organization/entity (consistent
            with Department risk assessment program) using sampling
            techniques to review compliance with FAR, Department/NBC
            acquisition policies, documentation requirements, etc.
                             wildland firefighting
        Question. Interior's wildland fire management budget request
    includes a proposal to decommission six Type-1 firefighting crews.
    These are the ``hotshot'' crews who lead the frontline fight against
    major wildfires. Why are you shutting down 6 of your top crews when the
    trend has been for more and more severe fires?
        Where are these six crews headquartered--are any in California?
        Answers. While the request notes the reduction in the number of
    hotshot crews, it also provides for an increase in the number of
    initial attack firefighters.
        The Budget proposes reconfiguring approximately 6 hotshot crews,
    which are typically mobilized on long-duration fires, into initial
    attack resources. Individuals would retain their Type-1 credentials,
    and these highly skilled firefighters would be used to build efficient,
    effective and mobile initial attack forces to respond to high-priority
    new fire starts. Critical fire expertise would be retained, but their
    focus would be on keeping fires small. These reconfigured crews would
    be positioned according to where our Predictive Services group believes
    significant fire activity is most likely to occur.
        We are continuing to assess options that would allow us to maintain
    the best possible fire response organization; however, no decisions
    have yet been made regarding which crews, in which locations, would be
    affected.
        Question. The request also zeroes out wildfire assistance grants to
    rural fire departments--the same fire departments that respond and put
    out thousands of wildfires every year. I must tell you that this
    proposal is penny-wise and pound-foolish. These fire departments
    provide an indispensable first response for only $10 million per year.
    I believe these small fire departments, most of them volunteers, save
    the Federal Government many times that amount in fires they suppress
    before they become Federal responsibilities. What incentives do you
    plan to offer rural fire departments in exchange for taking on the
    costs and risks for responding to wildfires?
        Answer. Rural and community fire departments are indeed an integral
    and important component of the nation's wildland fire community. Their
    first-response capabilities are crucial to keeping many wildland fires
    small and manageable, and we agree their services result in tremendous
    cost savings to taxpayers.
        Although Rural fire assistance was a highly successful program from
    2001-2006, it had achieved the primary goal of updating the equipment
    and prevention programs in rural fire departments across the country.
    The program is also duplicative of other Federal fire assistance grant
    programs administered by the Forest Service and the Department of
    Homeland Security.
        We have turned our focus and funding to the Ready Reserve program,
    which provides training to rural departments to enhance their expertise
    and capability in responding to and managing wildland fires. The Ready
    Reserve program is available to the same departments served by the
    Rural Fire Assistance program and is designed to provide critical
    training that meets the needs and schedules of those departments and
    firefighters. This training is available on-line or in packages
    specifically designed to be presented in classrooms and within
    timeframes that meet the needs of rural and community fire departments.
        The goal of the Ready Reserve program is to develop fully trained
    local response units and teams capable of managing a wildfire incident
    within their jurisdiction. More than $1.8 million was allocated to the
    Ready Reserve program in 2006, and an additional $1.8 million is
    targeted for the program in 2007. The 2008 Preparedness budget request
    includes $1.3 million for the Ready Reserve program. The reduction
    reflects completion of the Ready Reserve training package re-write.
        Question. How much funding will rural fire departments in
    California lose because of this proposal?
        Answer. During the life of the Rural Fire Assistance program,
    annual funding to California ranged from $350,000-$390,000. If the
    program had continued, we would expect the amount of RFA grants to
    decline as departments achieved upgrades in their equipment and
    prevention programs. We still offer training to these same departments
    through the Ready Reserve program.
        Also, through the California Department of Fire and a high number
    of full-time, professional departments at the local level, we note the
    State has a first class fire community. We are pleased our
    contributions have contributed to their capability.
                                  polar bears
        Question. According to recent accounts in the Washington Post and
    the New York Times, the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service has
    forbidden his agency's premier polar bear scientists from discussing
    climate change, polar bears and sea ice at international conferences.
    This gives the appearance that he is trying to prevent the truth about
    the seriousness of the threat to polar bears from getting out. Of
    course all the attendees at these conferences are very knowledgeable
    about global warming and the threats to polar bears. Is it now Interior
    Department policy for scientists to be forbidden to publicly discuss
    their areas of expertise?
        Answer. Long-standing Departmental policy requires employees who
    are traveling to foreign countries to make an official foreign travel
    request through our International Affairs office, which forwards these
    requests through the Director's Office to the Assistant Secretary.
    These requests must include the purpose of the travel and the subjects
    expected to be discussed. This policy is intended to ensure that all
    foreign travel is focused on achieving a clear purpose, is cost-
    effective and conducted in accordance with Federal laws and policies.
    This policy has been in place for at least two decades within the
    Service. The Service does not, however, limit the ability of our
    scientists to engage in open dialogue with international colleagues on
    climate change, polar bears, sea ice reduction or any other issue
    clearly within their professional discipline while on foreign travel.
    We do, however, specifically assign responsibility for various topics
    among our scientists and manage foreign diplomatic meetings to
    designate which scientists are responsible for various issues.
                               volunteer programs
        Question. The President's budget request includes reductions to
    volunteer programs in several agencies. Volunteers provide the agency
    with hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of hours of labor to
    national parks, scenic trails, and wildlife refuges. While their labor
    is donated, volunteers require training, tools, supplies, and travel
    money to do their great work.
        Please provide for the record a table showing 2006 enacted
    appropriations, 2007 funding, and 2008 requests for all of the
    Department's volunteer programs.

                         FUNDING FOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           2006         2007         2008
                  Bureau                 enacted      enacted      request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM..............................        1,278        1,300        1,300
    OSM..............................           60           35           35
    USGS.............................           30           30           30
    BOR..............................           10           10           10
    FWS..............................          735          735          735
    NPS..............................        1,831        1,832        5,232
    Take Pride.......................          493          495          513
                                      --------------------------------------
          Total......................        4,437        4,437        7,855
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            healthy lands initiative
        Question. The President's request includes a $22 million increase
    for a healthy lands initiative to improve wildlife habitat while
    allowing recreation and energy production. These seem to be mutually
    exclusive activities. Would you give us some examples of how this would
    work?
        Answer. Improving wildlife habitat and allowing for recreation,
    energy development and other uses are not mutually exclusive when
    approached on a broad scale. For example, the Green River Basin in
    southwest Wyoming contains tremendous energy resources and world-class
    wildlife, including moose, deer, elk, pronghorn and sage-grouse. The
    Healthy Lands Initiative proposes to focus habitat restoration dollars
    on the most important wildlife habitat areas while energy development
    occurs in the most energy-rich areas. The Healthy Lands Initiative is
    not a substitute for onsite mitigation required of energy developers.
    It is designed to complement it. The 2008 BLM Budget Request includes
    $15.0 million for the Healthy Lands Initiative for habitat restoration
    work in six BLM project areas: New Mexico ($3.5 million), Wyoming ($4.5
    million), Utah ($2.0 million), Oregon/Idaho/Nevada ($1.9 million),
    southern Idaho ($1.8 million) and Colorado ($1.3 million). An
    additional $8.2 million in existing funding from various BLM
    subactivities complements the $15 million in new HLI funding for a
    total of $23.2 million available for restoration activities in the six
    emphasis areas of the Initiative. The 2008 Healthy Lands Initiative
    includes additional funding for USGS ($5.0 million) and FWS ($2.0
    million) to support and complement BLM's habitat restoration and
    conservation efforts in the Green River Basin area of Wyoming.
        These project areas were selected because partnerships were already
    in place and NEPA compliance had already been completed. The $23.2
    million in BLM funding will be augmented by private and State
    contributions to achieve immediate results on the ground. BLM estimates
    that its $23.2 million will allow the agency to treat 317,000 acres of
    important wildlife habitat through such means as treating weeds,
    establishing native plants, treating pinyon juniper encroachment and
    improving riparian areas by installing erosion control structures,
    planting willows and cottonwoods, and fencing. The BLM further
    estimates that partner funding will support the treatment of an
    additional 90,000 acres, including 56,000 acres of BLM land and 34,000
    acres of non-BLM land.
        The energy industry is already engaged in projects to support the
    Healthy Lands Initiative. In Utah, for example, energy companies,
    including Questar, Enduring Resources, and the Bill Barrett
    Corporation, are collectively providing $180,000 for projects that
    support Utah's statewide Initiative. In New Mexico, the industry
    contributed $365,000 last year to reclaim roads and pads from orphaned
    wells. The industry also worked with BLM and used their own equipment
    to remove the hard clay soils that were impeding plant growth.
        The Healthy Lands Initiative will also improve habitat in areas not
    affected by energy development, but impacted by other pressures such as
    weed invasions and drought. That is the goal for projects in Nevada,
    southeast Oregon and southwest Idaho, where sage-grouse habitat is
    slated for improvement. Once the six proposed projects prove
    successful, BLM would look to expand the initiative to other key areas
    where Federal and partner investments could reap the greatest return
    for the habitat.
        Question. The budget justification claims that $10 million is
    anticipated from partner contributions. Why would you expect such a
    large amount in contributions? What is the basis for this estimate?
        Answer. This estimate is based on recent experience with the BLM in
    New Mexico and Utah and their completion of vegetation enhancement work
    at the landscape level and success in working with partners. In
    particular, Utah partners committed more than $8.0 million in 2005 to
    restore more than 120,000 acres of public and private land within 22
    counties. The Utah State Legislature contributed $2.0 million of the
    total $8.0 million to support the State's ongoing watershed
    conservation program in 2005 and followed that up with a similar
    appropriation in 2006. Utah energy industry/commercial oil and gas
    exploration and development companies, including Questar, Enduring
    Resources, and the Bill Barrett Corporation, have provided $180,000 in
    funding for habitat management project work. This has included funding
    for archeological surveys, a 1,000 acre pinyon-juniper lop and scatter
    project, a 4,000 acre pinyon-juniper chaining project, and an agreement
    to manage a recently acquired 5,000 acre block of private land for the
    benefit of wildlife.
        In New Mexico, the energy industry contributed $365,000 in 2006 to
    reclaim roads and pads from orphaned wells and provide other
    reclamation work, such as reseeding.
        Question. Over $4.2 million of the Healthy Lands request is offset
    by a reduction in the wild horse and burro budget. What impacts will
    there be to wild horse and burro populations from this 12 percent
    budget cut?
        Answer. By December 2007, the wild horse and burro program is
    expected to be near the Appropriate Management Level for wild horses
    and burro populations, which is the closest the program has ever come.
    We do not expect to conduct any BLM gathers; however, we will conduct
    gathers for the Forest Service which they pay for under an interagency
    agreement. The BLM's focus will be on caring for the animals off the
    range and promoting the adoption and sale of animals in both short-term
    and long-term holding facilities in order to reduce holding costs in
    future years. As of February 2007, there were approximately 28,900
    animals on the range and 29,000 in holding facilities. The population
    on the range by the end of fiscal year 2007 will be approximately
    31,000 with approximately 31,000 animals in holding facilities. The BLM
    will continue to search for ways to decrease costs of long-term holding
    and increase adoption rates. If cost savings are found, BLM gathers
    will be conducted with the funds saved.
                        oil and gas legislative proposal
        Question. The budget request includes proposed legislation that
    would undo provisions of the recently enacted Energy Policy Act.
    Specifically, oil and gas leasing rental receipts would be redirected
    to the general Treasury, and BLM would be able to impose processing
    fees for approving applications for permits to drill (APD). I
    understand why the agency would want to offset some of its costs for
    APD approval, but why are you proposing to give up lease rental
    receipts? How much in lease rentals would BLM return to the Treasury?
        Answer. The BLM believes that the objectives of Section 365 of the
    Energy Policy Act, which called for improved cooperation with other
    Federal and State agencies, can be implemented using cost recoveries as
    the funding source for these important initiatives, rather than
    diverting rental revenue that is needed for other national priorities.
    The BLM would return an estimated $21 million in annual mineral lease
    rental receipts to the Treasury, if the administration's proposal is
    adopted. BLM expects to fully offset the foregone leasing rental
    revenues with cost recoveries.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
      u.s. geological survey--national stream gaging network modernization
        Question. The national network of stream gages provides an
    invaluable tool to water managers across this country in planning for
    water programs, regulating flows, meeting federally mandated compacts
    between States, measuring legal requirements in treaties with our
    neighboring countries of Mexico and Canada, anticipating and reacting
    to flood conditions and many other purposes. The stream gage network
    receives its funding through two USGS programs--the National Streamflow
    Information Program (NSIP) and the State Cooperative Water Program. The
    President's fiscal year 2008 budget provides an increase of $2 million
    for NSIP but no increase for the Cooperative Water Program. The
    increase for NSIP will barely cover the increase in costs and will do
    little to address the backlog of maintenance and other problems left in
    the system by Katrina and other floods. Additionally, this increase
    does not provide for the expansion of the system essential to improving
    our understanding of the nation's water resources.
        What is the size of the existing backlog of maintenance and repairs
    for stream gages nationwide? What is the size of the backlog for stream
    gages in New Mexico?
        Answer. There is a maintenance backlog for streamgages in New
    Mexico as there is for streamgages nationwide. The President's fiscal
    year 2008 Budget Request includes an increase of $1.4 million to fund
    fixed costs of Federally-funded streamgages in the national
    streamgaging network, which includes maintenance. This funding will
    support continued operation and maintenance of currently active
    streamgages that are part of the NSIP national network and funded in
    cooperation with others, in cases where partners are no longer able to
    provide adequate funds. The use of these funds will help keep the
    network more stable and reduce the loss of streamgages in the future,
    including New Mexico streamgages.
        Question. How does the administration plan to address this backlog
    and make a sufficient investment in the national river monitoring
    network to ensure that it continues to fulfill its many crucial
    functions?
        Answer. Because of the cooperative way most USGS streamgages are
    funded, funding shortfalls could be from partners, the USGS, or both.
    This is the instability in the network that the NSIP ``backbone''
    Federal goal streamgaging network is designed to lessen or eliminate
    for priority streamgages. The goal of NSIP is to provide a unified
    network to meet National needs of streamflow information while ensuring
    that local needs continue to be met. The President's fiscal year 2008
    Budget Request includes a $1.4 million increase for NSIP, over and
    above the $2.325 millon increase in the fiscal year 2007 President's
    Budget request which is reflected in the fiscal year 2007 operating
    plan. These increases will keep the network more stable and reduce the
    loss of streamgages in the future. They will fund currently active
    streamgages in the national network, to reactivate recently
    discontinued NSIP Federal-goal streamgages, or to supplement funding
    for operation and maintenance of NSIP Federal-goal streamgages that are
    currently active but funded through partnerships. The exact allocation
    of funds from this increase will be determined when partner
    contributions to network operations for 2008 are better known.
      u.s. geological survey--water resources research institutes funding
        Question. The National Water Resources Research Act Program
    provides a strong partnership between the Federal geological research
    in the USGS and that partially funded by 54 State research institutes.
    However, the President's budget again does not provide any funding for
    this program.
        Why has the USGS again eliminated funding for the Water Resources
    Research Institutes?
        Answer. The State Water Resources Research Institutes have been
    highly successful in leveraging the USGS grants under the Water
    Resources Research Act Program with other Federal and non-Federal
    funding. The Department considers this program a success, as the
    initial grants from the Department were considered implementation
    funding for the Institutes. Today, the Department anticipates that the
    majority of these Institutes will be able to continue operations
    without Federal grant funding, due to the successful partnerships that
    the Institutes have been able to make with others.
        Question. What funding will be provided to the Water Resources
    Research Institutes out of the fiscal year 2007 funding available to
    the USGS?
        Answer. The USGS operating plan for 2007 includes $5,404,000 for
    the Water Resources Research Act Program, a decrease of $1,000,000 from
    the 2006 funding level. Each of the Institutes will receive a base
    grant in the same amount as last year's, and only the competitive
    grants program will be affected by this reduction.
       u.s geological survey: united states-mexico transboundary aquifer
                                   assessment
        Question. Congress passed the United States-Mexico Transboundary
    Aquifer Assessment Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-448) at the end of the
    109th Congress. This law authorizes the USGS to undertake
    characterization of the aquifers underlying the U.S.-Mexico border.
    This specific region has significant importance to meeting treaty
    obligations with Mexico and for managing two of the most important
    river systems in the western part of the nation--the Rio Grande and the
    Colorado.
        While this new program was not authorized during the time that the
    President's fiscal year 2008 budget was being developed, it is
    essential that the program be initiated given the continued drought
    that afflicts much of the Western United States and growing population
    demands on these water systems.
        What financial and human resources can the USGS dedicate from the
    fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 budgets to initiate this program?
        Answer. The 2007 and 2008 budgets include no funding for projects
    specifically for the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Act. The USGS
    has begun discussions with the International Boundary and Water
    Commission, representatives from Mexico, and representatives from the
    three State Water Resource Research Institutes who would be partners in
    this program. Mexico has been very receptive to the idea of this work
    and to the concept of cost-sharing that is stipulated in the Act.
                                1998/1999 leases
        Question. Mr. Secretary, one of the ideas that I have been thinking
    of--and I know Senator Feinstein has been looking at this as well--is
    by statute giving the Department of Interior the authority to extend
    the 1998/1999 leases for an additional three years in exchange for the
    lessees agreement to apply price thresholds on the 1998/1999 leases.
    What assurance can you give, if any, based on your preliminary
    discussions with these companies, that they would in fact agree to such
    an arrangement? In other words, what percentage of the full amount of
    the $10 billion over 25 years that has been lost as a result of the
    failure of the Clinton Administration to put thresholds on the leases,
    would you expect to recover from such a provision?
        Answer. We estimate that had the 1998 and 1999 leases included
    price thresholds, the government would have received between $6 and $10
    billion in royalties over the life of the leases that produced or that
    are expected to produce. If the leases had included the price
    thresholds, we estimated that nearly $1 billion in royalties would have
    been paid on resources that have already been produced.
        On December 14, 2006, six companies signed agreements with the
    Department of the Interior to establish price thresholds for deep water
    royalty relief in connection with the leases each company holds from
    sales held in 1998 and 1999.
        While we have had discussions with the companies that have not yet
    signed agreements, it is difficult to predict how many companies would
    be willing to sign agreements if Congress extended the lease terms by 3
    years. Extending the lease terms is one option that was suggested by
    one of the companies during our discussions. We cannot say whether this
    option would encourage the remaining companies to sign agreements.
    However, whatever the motivation of individual companies to
    renegotiate, if all of the remaining holders of interests in 1998 and
    1999 deepwater leases that are expected to produce were to sign
    agreements, we estimate that an additional $4.6 to $7.7 billion in
    royalties could be paid on future production over the life of these
    leases.
        In order to solve this problem, the administration and the Congress
    must work together to ensure that we have the authority to reach an
    appropriate resolution. We appreciate Congress' efforts to encourage
    companies to come to the negotiating table.
        Question. Please comment on your thoughts of Congress setting up an
    independent panel or a special master, or giving you the authority to
    appoint such a person to settle this price threshold issue created by
    the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act of 1995 and the failure of the
    previous administration to implement it properly?
        Answer. In the present circumstances, we do not see a particular
    advantage in establishing a panel or granting authority to appoint a
    special master. Special masters ordinarily are appointed in the context
    of adjudications involving highly complex factual situations. Our
    efforts to resolve the problems with the 1998 and 1999 deep water
    leases involve neither complex facts nor adjudication.
        Question. In your judgment, would Congress create a cause of action
    for the 1998/1999 lessees with a reasonable likelihood of success on
    the merits if it mandated that the Secretary apply a different royalty
    rate going forward for those 1998/1999 lessees who agree to apply price
    thresholds to their leases and those who do not? Potentially, what
    specific impact would an injunction on lease sales in such an instance
    have on our domestic production of oil and gas?
        Answer. We appreciate Congress's efforts to encourage companies to
    come to the negotiating table. However, we must be mindful of potential
    unintended consequences. Were Congress to mandate a different royalty
    rate on future leases only for lessees who own interests in 1998 or
    1999 deep water leases who have not entered into agreements to apply
    price thresholds, we believe that it is very likely that the Department
    would become embroiled in litigation challenging such a law or seeking
    to enjoin a future lease sale in which such a law would be applied, or
    both. If a judge were to enjoin future lease issuance for a period of
    time, the resulting impacts would be significant. Litigation could take
    years to resolve. The MMS has attempted to project the potential loss
    of production, revenue and royalties if lease sales were delayed for a
    3-year period.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Attached Figure C shows for example MMS' estimate that, for a 3-
    year delay, production over 10 years could be reduced by 1.6 billion
    barrels of oil equivalent (boe).

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Attached Figure D shows for example, the potential cumulative
    revenue decline over a 10 year period of $13 billion for a 3-year
    delay.
        I believe we would all agree this would not be in the Nation's best
    interest. The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is a significant supplier
    of our nation's oil and gas. We cannot afford major delays in offshore
    energy production due to unintended consequences.
        Question. Based upon all that you know about the 1998/1999 lease
    issue, do you believe that the failure to include price thresholds on
    those leases during the Clinton administration amounts to the legal
    definition of ``mistake''?
        Answer. It is my understanding that lawyers for both the Department
    of the Interior and the Department of Justice have been closely
    examining the legal definition of ``mistake'' in the context of the
    1998 and 1999 deep water leases and are still in deliberation.
        Question. Hypothetically, if Congress mandated that you issue
    regulations within a year that resulted in recovering the full amount
    lost as a result of the failure to include price thresholds on the
    1998/1999 leases, how do you think you would achieve that objective?
        Answer. It is not clear what type of regulations this question
    contemplates. MMS cannot unilaterally add price threshold terms to
    leases that do not include them by promulgating a regulation
    (particularly if the rule effectively constituted a retroactive
    change). MMS also cannot by regulation require lessees to pay the
    equivalent of royalty on production that under the terms of their
    leases is exempt from royalty. If the question contemplates seeking to
    recover the equivalent of the royalty amount from parties other than
    the lessees of the 1998 and 1999 deep water leases who owned interests
    at the time of production, it is not apparent how MMS could do this by
    rule.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
        Question. Mr. Secretary, can you tell me what--if anything--the
    agencies within the Department of Interior are doing to address the
    bark beetle problems on public lands throughout the Rocky Mountain
    Area?
        Answer. The BLM has been diligently working on bark beetle problems
    in the Rocky Mountain States for many years. In fiscal year 2006, the
    BLM allocated approximately $900,000 from the Public Domain Forest
    Management program to projects that help address bark beetle problems
    in the Rocky Mountain region. This allocation was repeated in fiscal
    year 2007 and is expected in 2008 as well. In addition, in fiscal year
    2007, the BLM will allocate $1,860,000 to the same Rocky Mountain
    region from the Forest Ecosystem Health Recovery Fund for forest health
    and restoration treatments, including insect and disease treatments.
        The BLM's commitment at the State level can be demonstrated by its
    active participation in the Northern Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative.
    The main objectives of the Cooperative are to address urgent concerns
    about forest health and wildfire risk to communities and watersheds,
    the loss of key wildlife habitat, and the impacts to local economies.
    This Cooperative works to treat infested areas with salvage efforts and
    fuels reduction programs.
        The North Park Stewardship Project, located in Jackson County,
    Colorado, is an example of the project work being planned and initiated
    under this Cooperative. In fiscal year 2006, the BLM sent an additional
    $200,000 to the Colorado BLM State office to plan this large scale
    stewardship contract to respond to the bark beetle infestation in north
    central Colorado. The BLM expects to implement the stewardship project
    in 2007 with the signing and execution of the North Park Stewardship
    Agreement with Jackson County and the addition of $50,000 of Public
    Domain Forestry funding. The BLM is anticipating that in the first year
    of implementing the Operating Plan, 1,000 acres of beetle infested
    trees could be removed as salvage timber or through fuels reduction
    projects. The project has the potential to treat up to 15,000 acres of
    beetle infested BLM managed public lands over the 10 year span of the
    project.
        Question. Please tell me a little more about the Safe Indian
    Communities Initiative and how this initiative will work with tribal
    communities to work toward the elimination of meth in those
    communities?
        Answer. The $16 million Safe Indian Communities Initiative in the
    2008 budget is the first of a multi-year investment to address the
    methamphetamine crisis in Indian country.
        Indian country is faced with the ever increasing threat of drug
    trafficking. In many cases, international drug cartels from Mexico and
    Canada have targeted Indian country as a production and distribution
    point for methamphetamine. This is because of the lack of specialized
    training and law enforcement presence to combat organized crime's
    efforts on Indian lands. Currently BIA has only eleven certified drug
    enforcement officers to service all of Indian country. The budget
    increase will combat the highly visible drug crisis by developing and
    providing specialized drug enforcement training for one hundred
    additional BIA and tribal officers. As a result, more officers on
    patrol will have the essential knowledge and tools to break up drug
    trafficking, disrupt the activities of organized crime groups and
    international cartels, and seize illegal substances. This reduction in
    trafficking and drug supply will have residual positive impacts in
    communities surrounding Indian lands, as well. Increased Federal tribal
    law enforcement activity combined with local city and county law
    enforcement will allow for better coordination between tribal and non-
    tribal law enforcement agencies.
        Additionally, these funds will allow for a more robust
    methamphetamine public awareness campaign to educate the at-risk
    American Indians about the dangers of methamphetamine and its affects
    on both physical and mental health. The education campaign will utilize
    the highly successful ``mobile meth labs'' to alert communities to the
    warning signs of clandestine drug labs and the environmental dangers
    associated with these toxic environments. Additionally, the public
    awareness campaign will leverage existing partnerships between the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Office of National Drug Control Policy,
    the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Congress of
    American Indians, and the Partnership for a Drug Free America that are
    currently working to develop an Indian country specific methamphetamine
    public awareness campaign. By increasing the number of officers with
    specialized methamphetamine interdiction training, and by educating the
    public about the dangers of methamphetamine, BIA will take further
    steps toward battling methamphetamine and other drugs in Indian country
    in order to ensure safe and healthy Indian communities.
        With the dramatic increase in violent crimes resulting from
    methamphetamine and the significant shortage of law enforcement
    officers, BIA and tribal law enforcement agencies are often forced to
    make difficult staffing decisions that place their officers and the
    community at risk. This funding will also be used to address this
    shortage by adding fifty one additional officers and enable targeted
    agencies to more directly combat the methamphetamine crisis in Indian
    country.
        Question. How do you plan to work with Congress to provide States
    with more control over the implementation of laws and regulations, for
    example the ESA?
        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. 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 explicitly 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.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Craig. Okay. Thank you all very much. The
    subcommittee will stand in recess to reconvene at 10 a.m.,
    Tuesday, May 22. At that time we will hear testimony from the
    Honorable Mark Rey, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
    Environment, Department of Agriculture and Abigail R. Kimbell,
    Chief, U.S. Forest Service.
        [Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., Tuesday, March 20, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday,
    May 22.]

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2007

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Feinstein, Craig, Stevens, Cochran,
    Gregg, Allard, and Alexander.

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                 Forest Service

    STATEMENT OF HON. MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY
    ACCOMPANIED BY LENISE LAGO, BUDGET DIRECTOR

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

        Senator Feinstein. The meeting of the Interior
    Appropriations Subcommittee will come to order. I'd like to
    thank you for attending this hearing on the President's budget
    request for the U.S. Forest Service.
        I'd like to welcome Mark Rey, the Under Secretary for
    Natural Resources and Environment at the Department of
    Agriculture. Under Secretary Rey is accompanied by Lenise Lago,
    the Budget Director for the Forest Service.
        I just want to point out to you that the Chief, Gail
    Kimbell, couldn't be with us today because she's traveled to my
    State, California, to attend the release of the report on last
    year's deadly Esperanza Fire, which took the lives of five
    firefighters in California.
        I happened to go to their funerals, and it was just a
    terrible, terrible thing. I'm very sorry Chief Kimbell could
    not be with us today, but I'm very pleased that she's focusing
    her attention on ensuring the health and safety of our
    firefighters.
        Mr. Rey, as I think you know, approximately 20 percent of
    all the land in California is national forest lands, so this
    account is particularly important to me.
        The President has requested $4.1 billion for the Forest
    Service in fiscal year 2008. This request reduces the agency's
    budget by $200 million from the 2007 enacted level. That's a
    4.6 percent cut.
        These cuts will have a huge impact on the 193 million acres
    of forest and grasslands across the country. As ranking member,
    Senator Craig knows, and Senator Cochran and Senator Stevens,
    we've all tried to work together to create a situation where we
    could both manage our forests and fight our fires in a much
    more effective manner.
        So I'm worried that many of these cuts are being driven by
    the skyrocketing costs of fighting wildfires, and unless
    something changes, the problem's only going to get worse.
    Funding for the 10-year average for fire suppression has
    increased by 23 percent over last year, for a total of $911
    million.
        That means that fire programs now account for 45 percent of
    the Forest Service budget. That's a doubling from 2000--I think
    this is good news, actually--when fire programs accounted for
    21 percent of Forest Service spending.
        I'm concerned, though, that if we continue at this pace,
    the Forest Service will turn into the Nation's fire department
    instead of a land management agency. I understand the choices,
    and I appreciate them, however.
        To pay for these increases, the administration is proposing
    steep program reductions, including $108 million in cuts to the
    operating budgets of national forests, an 8 percent reduction,
    and $78 million in cuts to grants and assistance for State and
    private landowners. That's another 28 percent cut.
        Funding for hazardous fuels reduction is also reduced from
    $301 million to $292 million. As you know, fuels reduction is a
    big public safety issue, since nearly 7 million people in my
    State alone live in the wildland-urban interface near southern
    California forests.
        I should also point out that there has never been more
    drought in southern California than there is today, so this
    year's fire season is very worrisome.
        I'm also concerned about the cuts to the Fire Preparedness
    Program. The Service's budget includes $97 million in cuts for
    training, equipment, and support staff. That's a 15 percent
    reduction. We've seen recently catastrophic wildfire already.
        Despite these enormous budget holes, I'd really like to
    commend the administration for proposing $124 million in
    funding for law enforcement on national forests to help
    eradicate drug production and trafficking. That's an 8 percent
    increase over the 2007 level.
        Mexican drug cartels, I'm sorry to say, have discovered
    that it's easier to grow marijuana on public land than to try
    and smuggle it across the border. In 2006, Federal authorities
    seized some 3 million marijuana plants on public land, worth
    between $10 and $15 billion. Half of that harvest, I'm sorry
    and ashamed to say, came from my State.
        I'm told that nationwide, 83 percent of the problem on
    public land is centered on national forests. Clearly, this
    problem is reaching epidemic proportions, and we should address
    it squarely.
        So I'd like to commend the Forest Service for making
    additional resources available for this effort, despite their
    lean budget.
        I was also pleased to add an additional $12 million to the
    Iraq supplemental that would help the Service fund additional
    hiring and training that's central to solving this problem.
        It's clear from looking at the details of this budget that
    this subcommittee has its work cut out for it, but I'm really
    very pleased to be able to work with my distinguished ranking
    member, Senator Craig. We've worked together before on these
    issues, and I think we see things very similarly.
        So I'd like to offer him now the time, as ranking member.

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

        Senator Craig. Well, Madam Chairman, thank you very much,
    and let me welcome Under Secretary of Natural Resources and
    Environment, Mark Rey, to the subcommittee today.
        As we look at the agency's proposed 2008 budget, what is
    inescapable is that the Forest Service seems to be turning into
    the Fire Service. Now, Madam Chairman, it isn't that you or I
    compared notes prior to this, but it's obvious that we are
    reacting in a similar fashion to the proposed budget.
        As recently as 2000, the percentage of the budget devoted
    to fire management activities was 21 percent. Now, it is 45
    percent. I understand that part of this is because we made a
    policy decision to increase the budget for fire programs to
    fund the national fire plan in the wake of the massive 2000
    fires.
        But that doesn't explain the skyrocketing expenditures on
    fire suppression that we've seen over the last few years. The
    budget for fire suppression has grown from $418 million as
    recently as 2003 to a proposal for fiscal year 2008 of $911
    million. That's a 118 percent increase in just 5 years.
        Mark, all the more disturbing is that over the same period
    of time, we have spent roughly $2.5 billion in fuel reduction
    between the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior.
    I believe all of us had thought this investment would start to
    bring some suppression costs down. That is just not happening.
        From what I see, virtually every program in the budget is
    being cut besides fire suppression in order to pay for these
    skyrocketing costs. The size of the pie stays the same, but
    fire is becoming an even larger slice of that pie. Even
    programs within the fire account are not immune from cuts. This
    budget proposes to cut preparedness by over $95 million.
        Coming off the worst fire season on record, I agree with
    the chairman. It is dry in California. It appears to be getting
    dry in Idaho and in the Rocky Mountain West. To me, this will
    lower the agency's readiness capacity and lead to more
    catastrophic fires.
        Perhaps the most concrete way to see what is proposed in
    this request for the Forest Service is to look at the number of
    people that will lose their jobs. If we were to accept this
    budget without change, it would mean over 2,100 fewer employees
    at the Forest Service level.
        I spend a lot of time with the Forest Service in Idaho at
    the district level and across the forest. I know they are
    dramatically stretched today just to do maintenance--
    reasonable, environmentally sound, and appropriate
    maintenance--let alone fight the fires.
        I also find it ironic that at the Department of the
    Interior, which houses three other public land agencies, their
    fiscal year 2008 budget would add over 2,000 people, roughly
    the same amount that will be cut from this budget.
        I simply can't see the equity in that, particularly when so
    many rural communities depend on the Forest Service to sustain
    their fragile economies through timber harvest, recreation,
    grazing, and a host of other important programs that do take
    maintenance, and take personnel on the ground.
        So I thank you, Mark, for being here today. I look forward
    to hearing from you in your testimony as you attempt to justify
    this budget.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, that's a challenge.
        Senator Craig. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Feinstein. Senator Cochran, would you like to make
    a statement?

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. I'm
    pleased to join you and Senator Craig in welcoming our
    witnesses today to review their budget requests for the Forest
    Service.
        In our State of Mississippi, we have about 70 percent, I
    guess, of forest lands that are privately owned, and much of
    that land borders public forest land. So it's important to us
    that the Forest Service continue its research programs to
    develop management and treatment methods that will help keep
    our national forests healthy and protect forest lands that are
    owned by individuals.
        I want to commend also, just for your information, the
    staff of the Center for Bottomland Hardwoods Research, which is
    located at Stoneville, Mississippi. I was just there, and I
    understand that they are engaged in some very important work on
    hardwood genetics and stand management practices.
        I hope that the funding for that activity will be supported
    by the administration, because the success of hardwood for
    reforestation efforts throughout the Southeast are very
    important.
        I know you've also begun a review of a policy regarding
    all-terrain vehicle use in national forests in Mississippi.
    Some of my constituents have expressed concerns that this might
    unfairly affect those who have disabilities or those who are
    elderly, and prevent them from using all-terrain vehicles in
    the national forest area, so I hope that'll be taken into
    account as you review any changes to those activities.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We appreciate your good stewardship and your leadership,
    and we look forward to working with you in this new fiscal
    year. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
        Madam Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming Under
    Secretary Mark Rey to the committee this morning. We appreciate very
    much his hard work to ensure that our National Forest system is
    maintained in a way to guarantee the appropriate use of our Nation's
    forest resources as well as to protect the health of our forests.
        An important part of forest health in the Southeast is forest land
    research and treatment of insects and disease. In my State, about 70
    percent of the forest land is privately owned, and much of this land
    borders public forest lands.
        It is very important for the Forest Service to continue its
    research programs and develop management and treatment methods that
    will protect Federal lands. I especially want to commend the staff at
    the Center for Bottomland Hardwoods Research at Stoneville,
    Mississippi, for their work on hardwood genetics and hardwood stand
    management practices. This research has been an important part of the
    success of hardwood reforestation efforts throughout the Southeast.
        It is my understanding that the Forest Service has begun a study to
    amend the current policy of all terrain vehicles use on National Forest
    lands. My constituents have expressed concern that the proposed changes
    would not take into consideration the use of these vehicles by the
    elderly and handicapped. I hope that the Forest Service will review
    these issues as policy is developed.
        Madam Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing and I
    look forward to the testimony.

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Senator Stevens.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Just a short comment, Madam Chair. I'm
    disturbed as I look at this budget to realize how far the
    Forest Service has come from being a manager of harvesting
    timber to a fire department, as my two colleagues have said.
        When I came to the Senate, the Forest Service managed the
    harvest of 1.5 billion board feet a year from Alaska. Last
    year, it was, what, 140 million.
        We look at this budget now and I think State and Private
    Forestry in Alaska is reduced. National Forest System budget in
    Alaska is reduced. Wildland Fire Management in Alaska is
    reduced. Capital Improvement and Maintenance in Alaska is
    reduced.
        We have two of the largest forests in the United States,
    and they're basically being neglected, and they're being
    neglected from the pressures you face from the extremists, who
    somehow or other believe they should be turned into national
    parks.
        I just wonder when we're going to wake up and realize that
    we're coming to the point where we have two climaxed forests
    now in Alaska because they've been ignored, and one of these
    days, they're going to burn, too, despite our weather. They're
    normally fairly damp places, but now, they're climaxed.
        Deer are getting smaller. All the wildlife is getting
    fewer. We're losing even some of the birds, because of the lack
    of the vitality of these forests. It can only be restored by
    management. So I'm very disturbed about it, really, and I don't
    know what to do about it. Thank you very much.

                     MEXICAN CARTELS AND MARIJUANA GROWING

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Stevens.
    Before calling on Senator Allard, I was just handed an article
    entitled ``A Budding Invasion: The Mexican Cartels Have Made
    Marijuana a Cash Crop Worth Billions of Dollars,'' and it goes
    on and describes some of this.
        I'm going to put it in the record, but I'd like to just
    pass it down and ask each one of you to take a look at it.
        [The information follows:]

                       [From Men's Vogue, February 2007]

                               A Budding Invasion
                               (By James Verini)
     the mexican cartels have made marijuana a cash crop worth billions of
      dollars by infiltrating america's national forests and turning them
            into vast pot plantations. can anyone halt the harvest?
        The Shasta-Trinity National Forest in Northern California covers
    over two million acres, stretching roughly from the former lumber town
    of Redding north to near the Oregon border, and from close to the
    Pacific Ocean east toward Nevada. Like most of the public land in this
    part of the country, Shasta is beloved of campers and hunters, a
    seemingly endless expanse of pine, fir, and oak trees, glistening
    lakes, and snowy mountaintops. It is the kind of place where a visitor
    resolves to write a check to the Sierra Club immediately upon returning
    home. It is also a new front in something else seemingly endless--the
    drug wars. Which is why I found myself, last August, knee-deep in
    Shasta's undergrowth, bushwhacking my way up a hillside with a group of
    Forest Service agents. Clad in dark camouflage and Kevlar vests, they
    carried M-16 rifles and hip-holstered pistols.
        They were not being overzealous. In 2006, authorities here seized
    over $700 million worth of illicit marijuana from gardens--the
    euphemistic name generally given to pot farms--planted in Shasta, most
    of it by trained, and heavily armed, Mexican growers. As an occasional
    hiker myself, it was not hard for me to imagine being out on a trail
    (we were not far from one now, and only about a mile from the nearest
    road), my gravest concern a twisted ankle or the odd grizzly, only to
    stumble upon a garden and find myself facing a gun barrel. Things could
    go bad fast. They have before. In 2000, a grower shot a hiker and his
    young son. The year before, growers kidnapped a Bureau of Land
    Management botanist. In 2005, Forest Service agent Matt Knudson,
    walking a few yards ahead of me in Shasta, was on a raid near Los
    Angeles when a grower took two blasts at an agent. ``Come harvest
    season they start bringing in more guns,'' Knudson explained. He
    regularly recovers shotguns, AK-47s, even MAC-10s and Uzis.
        Late summer--harvest season was beginning. After an hour of hiking,
    the air grew heavy with a familiar scent, and just as my mind was
    transported back to my college dorm room, we arrived at our quarry:
    Cannabis plants, many thousands of them sprouting five and six feet
    tall from the forest floor, came into focus, their thin, serrated
    leaves and hirsute emerald buds everywhere. This was no Grateful Dead
    concert parking-lot piddle, mind you; these specimens were the size of
    tropical fruit.
        The growers had fled in a hurry the night before, it seemed,
    leaving their camp looking like a scene from Pompeii. Spread on a crate
    between two cheap tents was a freshly dealt hand of cards. Sleeping
    bags, worn and stained, lay in the tents near an outdoor kitchen
    outfitted with a propane-burning skillet. Sweatshirts, chain-store
    jeans, garbage bags, ramen-noodle wrappers, emptied cans of jalapeno
    peppers and El Pato brand tomato sauce, detergent bottles, and
    countless supermarket plastic bags littered the ground. Black PVC
    tubing fed a reservoir dug out of an embankment--a water system for
    drinking, bathing, and irrigation. The growers had bolted in such
    haste, they'd even left their shoes.
        But there were no guns to be found: A bunch of felons, working
    under some very nasty auspices indeed, were now running around this
    bucolic paradise barefoot, cranky, and possibly in possession of some
    large automatic weapons.
        Until recently, marijuana cultivation in the United States was
    mostly the province of small-time ex-hippies and the occasional
    rancher. In the last two decades, however, Mexican drug trafficking
    organizations (DTOs) have taken over the business. Before 9/11, these
    cartels produced much of their marijuana in Mexico and ran it over the
    border. But since then law enforcement has squeezed many smuggling
    routes, and the gangs have increasingly taken to growing it here.
        This is their new, brazen approach: commandeering large patches of
    public land in the United States and smuggling in illegal growers to
    convert them into mega-gardens. They're easy and cheap to grow and
    extremely difficult to detect, except from the air. In 2006,
    authorities seized nearly three million marijuana plants from public
    lands, a harvest with a potential street value of between $10 and $15
    billion, nearly half of it in California. Most investigators I spoke to
    agree that the amount seized was a fraction of the total produced. In
    other words, growing marijuana on public lands is a business worth more
    money than most Fortune 500 companies--more money, in fact, than the
    Mexican cartels (who, since the nineties, have wrested majority control
    of the American drug trade from their Colombian cohorts) make from such
    upper-shelf wares as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine, a fact that
    has gone strangely underreported in the press.
        ``You have to be kind of crazy, as a drug trafficking organization,
    not to jump on the marijuana bandwagon,'' Patrick Kelly, a special
    agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration in Sacramento, told me.
    ``In California, even if you are caught, the chances of being
    successfully prose-cuted are almost nil.'' Prosecutors, usually a
    contrarian lot, agree. ``The Mexican DTOs have figured out the
    penalties are less for marijuana,'' said McGregor Scott, U.S. Attorney
    for California's vast Eastern District, the hardest hit in the country.
    Building cases is difficult, to put it mildly. A tangle of Mexican
    cartels and families control the trade. In turn, they enlist fierce
    Latin American gangs such as the Surenos and Mara Salvatrucha to
    distribute the weed. Many trails lead back to Michoacan, a rugged state
    on Mexico's Pacific coast, but direct ties are hard to establish. Much
    like members of terrorist cells, the growers who are caught in the
    United States either aren't privy to larger operational details or
    won't talk if they are. This is understandable. According to the
    Associated Press, 2,000 people were killed last year in Mexico's
    escalating drug wars, many of them traficantes, though not all; among
    the casualties were police and journalists.
        Gardens--they're also called ``grows''--have been found in 15
    States, from the Northwest to the Midwest to the Southeast, in a
    pattern that mimics the general trend of Mexican immigration. In
    California, every single national forest and park--from Shasta to
    Sequoia, Kings Canyon to Tahoe, and even Yosemite, the crown jewel of
    the public-land system--has been infiltrated. Each spring, the gardens
    grow more fecund and more growers are smuggled in. And each spring,
    they are bolder and better armed. The average garden requires four men
    to cultivate it. If the higher estimates of total production are right,
    that adds up to the equivalent of about five large army battalions--
    roughly the number of U.S. troops dispatched to invade Grenada in 1983.
        ``An informant told us this year that word came down from the
    higher-ups to the growers to shoot if they need to,'' Knudson tells me
    one frosty morning in December. I have come to see him at his station
    in Upper Lake, a tiny town on the edge of Mendocino National Forest, a
    two-hour drive northwest of Sacramento. He doesn't bother to specify
    the growers' intended targets--himself and his fellow Forest Service
    agents. ``It's only a matter of time before a member of the public gets
    killed.''
        Mendocino National Forest is ground zero in the marijuana battles,
    having led the country in seizures last year. Amazingly, though,
    Knudson is one of only four agents patrolling its million acres. A
    young-looking 34, with a goatee and close-cropped hair, he joined the
    Forest Service at 19 to pay for college, working at first as a
    firefighter. When he wasn't putting out forest blazes, he was
    contending with tweakers and exploding kitchen labs: California has the
    distinction of supplying the country with much of its meth, as well as
    most of its pot. Indeed, the same cartels seem to control a large
    portion of both markets. ``You can't look at the whole picture,''
    Knudson tells me. ``If you looked at the whole picture you'd be on
    medication.''
        As we drive into the forest along dirt roads, Knudson's M-16 rifle
    stowed within arm's reach, he points to the location of a raided
    garden. Then he points to another one. And another. The pointing is
    ceaseless, and the gardens are everywhere, once you know how to spot
    them--usually no more than a few hundred feet from the road.
        Every year in March and April, the growers are driven in to begin
    planting at spots that have been scouted during the winter or used
    before. After being dropped off, they hike into the forest with their
    seedlings and sophisticated lightweight irrigation systems, even
    sprinklers with battery-powered timers. After planting, they live in
    the forest through the summer and into the autumn, when they harvest
    their crop and then pack out the buds in trash bags. In their wake they
    leave terraced, eroding hillsides, dead trees, soil and water
    contaminated with pesticides, and tons upon tons of garbage--an eco-
    disaster. (The Forest Service estimates that 18,000 acres have been
    affected since 2005 alone.) With each passing year they become more
    comfortable with the terrain. ``The growers know the land better than
    we do--they live in it,'' Knudson says. ``They know our schedules, they
    know when we work.''
        That none of his colleagues have been killed yet is due to little
    more than luck, Knudson believes. In 2002, a deputy sheriff was shot,
    as was a Fish and Game warden in 2005. So far, five growers have been
    shot and one killed in shootouts with agents. ``Working marijuana is
    not by choice--it's pure necessity,'' Knudson says. ``You'd think a
    Forest Service officer would be out dealing with fires or poaching or
    rowdy campers, that kind of stuff.''
        ``Would you rather be doing those things?'' I ask him.
        ``Truthfully, no,'' he says, smiling faintly. Chasing down the
    grower cells, he adds, has ``become a passion for me.''
        Passionate as Knudson may be, the frustration is audible in his
    voice. ``My job is to protect and serve, but I can't protect and serve
    a quarter million acres,'' he says. The Forest Service, part of the
    Department of Agriculture, is one of the most capacious landholders in
    the United States, but it employs only about 500 full-time agents like
    Knudson. (The National Park Service, better staffed and resourced and
    less affected by marijuana cultivation, is in the Department of the
    Interior.) Help comes from local sheriffs, California's Bureau of
    Narcotics Enforcement, the D.E.A., and the drug czar's office, which
    set up a special marijuana task force for California and an
    intelligence center in Sacramento in 1999. But even with that
    assistance, Knudson usually feels he's on his own. The D.E.A. doesn't
    disagree. ``There's no backup to call,'' Agent Kelly told me. ``There
    are no hospitals nearby.''
        ``We're getting to the point of saturation,'' Knudson admits. ``We
    just can't handle it.''
        Mexico has a long and storied history with marijuana cultivation.
    Traficantes are folk heroes, and in raided gardens, Knudson regularly
    finds figurines depicting Saint Jesus Malverde. Not recognized in the
    Roman Catholic canon, Malverde, also known as El Bandido Generoso and
    El Narcosanton (roughly translated: the Big Drug Saint), is the patron
    saint of the poor and, incongruously, drug traffickers. Some
    investigators believe the growers are indentured servants, brought over
    the border against their will. But Knudson disagrees. He thinks the
    growers brought to the United States hail from this drug demimonde.
        ``There's a true science to it that's probably been handed down
    from generation to generation,'' he says. ``As much marijuana as I've
    worked, I could never grow plants like these.'' Knudson juts out a
    forearm: ``We'll find buds like this''--a foot or more long, inches
    thick. Knudson then points to the hillside where he chased down a
    grower who was packing a 9-millimeter pistol in a belt holster. That in
    turn leads him to recall the raid in which he pulled up a sleeping bag
    and found a grower hiding beneath it, holding a loaded MAC-10.
        A week after riding through Mendocino with Knudson, I meet Scott
    Burns in Washington, D.C. An otherwise unostentatious man who bears the
    raja-length title of Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs at the
    White House Office for National Drug Control Policy (colloquially known
    as the drug czar's office), Burns is the Bush administration's point
    man on domestic marijuana eradication. His office, one block from the
    White House, is not much larger than Knudson's ranger station room, but
    he wields considerably more power, having access to the czar's $12.6
    billion budget. A faithful soldier in the war on drugs, Burns, like his
    boss, czar John P. Walters, professes to be a true believer where
    marijuana is concerned. ``More 12- to 17-year-olds are in treatment for
    marijuana addiction than all other drugs combined,'' he tells me when I
    point out that it's hard to get Americans concerned about rolling
    papers and bongs, even when foreign cartels are involved.
        But when I present him with the figures from California and tell
    him about my tour with Knudson, Burns appears almost unfazed. Unlike
    the Forest Service, the D.E.A., and the U.S. Attorney, Burns implies
    that the problem is under control, and he disputes the claim that only
    a fraction of the marijuana grown on public lands is being found. When
    I point out that public-land seizures have leapt over 300 percent in 2
    years, he tells me the figure is ``not about an explosion in plants,
    but a better efficiency in law enforcement.'' This is a curious
    statement, considering that Walters devoted a mere $3.5 million--.03
    percent of the drug czar's total budget--to the problem of domestic
    marijuana production in 2006.
        Yet Walters says that combating marijuana is a cornerstone of his
    policy. He was chief of staff to the first drug czar, William Bennett,
    who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1989. The current
    President Bush appointed him in 2001, and since then domestic
    production--thanks to grows like those I saw at Shasta and Mendocino--
    has reached an all-time high.
        From his cramped quarters, Burns must vie with an indifferent, even
    hostile, public, and he must look south of the border at a situation
    that may well be intractable: Mexico is in the midst of a long and
    bloody drug war all its own. The cartels are battling each other for
    control of production and access routes to the United States, but
    they're also engaged in a lethal struggle with the state governments--
    when they're not infiltrating them. Gruesome violence afflicts
    Michoacan--stomping grounds of some of the cartels that dominate the
    American marijuana market--where cartel henchmen have lately developed
    a partiality for leaving human heads, with written warnings attached,
    outside government offices. Last year they rolled five of them onto a
    discotheque dance floor.
        The bloodshed is dismaying, but Burns sees it as a potentially
    promising sign. ``The violence can be an indication of many things,
    such as disrupting the cartels,'' he says. ``If everything is running
    smoothly, there's no reason to shoot somebody. It can be an indication
    of good work by the Mexican and United States governments.'' D.E.A.
    agents and prosecutors are now working with a new crop of extradited
    traficantes and are moving their way up the cartel ranks, but their
    success, and Burns's, may depend on new president Felipe Calderon. So
    far, Calderon, who was educated in Mexico and the United States, seems
    eager to impress. During protests over his controversial election, he
    sent over 6,000 soldiers and federal police into Michoacan to set
    ablaze acres of marijuana fields. He didn't rely on the Michoacan
    police, because they are underpaid, hopelessly inept, and often
    corrupt.
        But no one is safe from the cartels, it seems--perhaps not even the
    presidential family. In December, the body of a Calderon relative was
    found in Mexico City. Calderon has denied any explicit connection
    between the murder and the cartels, but the timing and the manner were
    ominous. It happened just after the crackdown in Michoacon and was
    carried out execution style.
        Then there is the Left Coast of America, an interminable irritant
    to Burns, who describes California marijuana laws with Rumsfeldian
    coyness as ``not helpful.'' California's judges, juries, and sentencing
    laws are famously forgiving, and in 1996 the State flouted Federal law,
    passing Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act. Burns and many
    others believe that the law has opened the floodgates for a generation
    of clever dealers claiming to be medicinal marijuana distributors and
    has directly contributed to the precipitate spike in production. In
    other words, they say, not only is California law not preventing
    Mexican cartels from infiltrating the state, it's aiding them.
        Walters may not be particularly effective in combating marijuana--
    but then, neither were William Bennett and General Barry McCaffrey;
    nor, in all likelihood, will any future drug czar be. It should be news
    to no one that marijuana is an enduring feature of American life--just
    as it is in Mexico, Europe, and Asia. Recent reports suggest that at
    least a third of Americans have smoked it. Rates of use among various
    age groups rise and fall, but talk to an average high school student--
    or, for that matter, an average middle-aged lawyer--and you'll find
    rather quickly that marijuana is not going away anytime soon.
        Still, the war on drugs, no less than the drug wars being waged in
    places like Mendocino National Forest, will go on. For our last stop,
    Knudson took me to an eradicated garden hours deep in the woods. How
    anyone could have found the spot was mind-boggling. Knudson only
    noticed it by chance from a helicopter while on his way to another
    garden across the ravine. The cannabis plants were gone, a field of
    truncated stalks left in their place. The ground, however, was still
    buried ankle-high in the familiar refuse--plastic bags, clothes, the
    ever-present cans of El Pato. The garbage was still there because the
    Forest Service doesn't have the budget to get rid of it. All Knudson
    could do was hope the growers wouldn't come back to this spot in the
    spring--and hope, if they did, that some unfortunate hiker wouldn't
    stumble upon it.

        Senator Feinstein. Senator Allard.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

        Senator Allard. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, for
    holding this hearing. I am going to be joining in the chorus, I
    guess, expressing my concern about the amount of money that we
    actually use for fire suppression when we could be doing so
    much more for managing our forests.
        Colorado is unique in many regards, in that we have 13
    national forests, and they provide lots of scenic viewing
    opportunity. Trees are part of that. We are having health
    problems in our tree populations affecting not only lodgepole
    pine, but also aspen.
        We haven't exactly identified what the aspen problem is.
    The lodgepole pine problem is beetles. Many States are affected
    with beetles, and Colorado is no exception. We're particularly
    being affected by the beetle problem in Colorado.
        Also unique to Colorado is that we are a State where four
    major watersheds are originating: Arkansas, the Upper Colorado,
    Rio Grande, and South Platte Rivers, which supply water to 19
    Western States.
        The key to keeping that water flowing is a good healthy
    forest. They provide the shade and protection for the snow to
    retain later on into the summer, which keeps those streams
    flowing. So we have a particular interest in good healthy
    forest management.
        I'm particularly concerned about the fire suppression cost
    and funding for national forest programs, and I have an
    editorial from Monday's Denver Post outlining the same that I
    would like to submit to the record, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Feinstein. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

                      [From the Denver Post, May 18, 2007]

                           Fighting Fire With Funding
                       (The Denver Post Editorial Board)
        The restoration of $2 million in U.S. Forest Service funding for
    Colorado fire management projects this year is welcome and potentially
    lifesaving news.
        Until Colorado's congressional delegation intervened, the money was
    set to be diverted to other forestry programs as a midyear effort to
    balance the books at the service, which manages federal forests,
    recreation and wilderness areas.
        The restored Colorado money is intended to thin forest land of
    easily ignitable tinder that can turn a manageable fire into an
    inferno. That the administration even considered diverting the money to
    pay for other expenses points out a systemic problem with the agency's
    budgeting that ought to be addressed.
        The driving force behind the problem is the increasing cost of
    fighting wildfires and the failure of Congress to adequately budget for
    firefighting.
        It's not a problem that's going away. The price of fighting
    wildfires has spiraled as the country faces the effects of drought,
    climate change and residential development in forested areas. In recent
    years, the service has spent more than $1 billion annually to fight
    fires.
        Yet, the agency's overall budget has remained flat. Jay Jensen,
    executive director of the Council of Western State Foresters, notes,
    ``Basically, everything else gets squeezed.''
        Since 1998, the agency's fire-suppression costs have routinely
    outstripped the money appropriated to pay them.
        Typically, Congress will pass supplemental measures that only
    partially cover costs incurred. To make ends meet, the agency siphons
    money from other projects. Ironically, the projects that get raided
    frequently are mitigation initiatives intended to lessen the severity
    of fires or prevent them to begin with--things such as forest thinning
    and equipment purchases, according to a 2004 Government Accountability
    Office report.
        The GAO suggested Congress consider alternative funding strategies,
    including the creation of an agency-wide or government- wide recurring
    emergency reserve account that that could be tapped to pay firefighting
    costs.
        While Colorado's congressional delegation deserves a pat on the
    back for its success in persuading Forest Service chief Gail Kimbell to
    restore the Colorado money, it's clear that a structural change in the
    budget is necessary. As fires raged through California, Florida, and
    Georgia last week, it could hardly be more apparent.

        Senator Allard. On forest management, if I may. I'm also
    concerned that funding the Northwest Forest Plan at the levels
    outlined in the President's budget will affect funding for
    forest management programs in Colorado.
        For these reasons, I look forward to this hearing and the
    discussion it will enable us to have about the Forest Service
    budget. I think this will help us to make a responsible
    decision about what is best for our Nation's forests. Thank
    you, Madam Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Senator Wayne Allard
        Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing.
    Colorado has an abundance of forests and the Forest Service budget is
    of great importance to me. The role the Forest Service plays in
    managing our public lands is of particular interest to the people of
    Colorado.
        I understand that Chief Kimbell is in our Chair's home State of
    California to unveil an accident report relating to fire, but
    Undersecretary Rey, I thank you for your appearance before the
    subcommittee today. I also appreciate the assistance that you and Chief
    Kimbell gave us in restoring funding to help address the bark beetle
    epidemics in Colorado. This was an important issue to the entire
    Colorado delegation.
        Colorado is home to 13 National Forests, more than almost any other
    State. These forests provide countless scenic vistas and some of the
    Nation's most popular recreational areas. Several of Colorado's ski
    areas lie on or adjacent to Forest Service lands. They are also very
    popular destinations for hunting and fishing, and for summer activities
    such as hiking and camping. Perhaps most importantly, Colorado's
    forests contain 4 major watersheds, the Arkansas, Upper Colorado, Rio
    Grande and South Platte, which supply water to 19 western States.
    Colorado is truly the Headwaters State.
        Unfortunately most areas of the State continue to suffer from
    drought conditions and the potential for catastrophic fires has been
    very high for a number of years. We are also experiencing forest health
    issues on an unimaginable scale. Over 600,000 acres of lodgepole pine
    are infested and dying from mountain pine beetle, over 100,000 acres of
    spruce have been infested and are dying from spruce bark beetle, and
    another 100,000 acres of aspen are affected by aspen decline. And
    forest exerts see no relief in sight. These problems only serve to
    compound one another and increase our fire risk. Colorado was very
    lucky to have dodged the bullet last year in that we did not experience
    the kind of catastrophic wildfires that other states experienced, but I
    am concerned that it is only a matter of time before we have another
    catastrophic fire year like 2002, when the Hayman, Missionary Ridge,
    and other fires burned over 200,000 acres and hundreds of homes and
    other buildings.
        I am particularly concerned about the effect of fire suppression
    costs on funding for all other national forest programs, and I have an
    editorial from Monday's Denver Post outlining the same concern that I
    would like to submit for the record. I am also concerned that funding
    the Northwest Forest Plan, at the levels outlined in the President's
    budget, will affect funding for forest management programs in Colorado.
        For these reasons I look forward to this hearing and the
    discussions it will enable us to have about the Forest Service budget.
    I think that this will help us to make responsible decisions about what
    is best for our Nation's forests. Thank you again, Madam Chairman.

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Allard.
    Senator Alexander.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

        Senator Alexander. Thanks, Madam Chairman. Just two points.
    One, I'd like to commend the Forest Service for what I
    understand are its efforts to establish guidelines for
    alternatives to big cell towers on national forest lands by
    camouflaging, collocating, and concealing them.
        They're some of our most scenic areas of the United States,
    and many communities are now doing that, and I think it would
    be wise to do that wherever we can. I commend you for that; I
    hope I'm correct that that's what you're doing.
        The second is, as we go on, I wanted to raise questions
    about your proposal to sell nearly 3,000 acres of the Cherokee
    National Forest, which is in Tennessee and North Carolina, to
    pay for rural schools and roads. That seems to me like selling
    off the back 40 to pay the rent, and especially when, in
    Tennessee, just 3 percent of our land is Federal land, unlike
    Idaho, where it's 50 percent. We'd like some more Federal land,
    not less.
        We just completed purchase of 10,000 acres for Cherokee
    National Forest from Alcoa Power. There are three additional
    tracts that the Forest Service has identified that you'd like
    to acquire. If you're going to sell low-priority tracts, I
    wonder why you wouldn't take the money and use it to buy high-
    priority tracts. So that was the second area, Madam Chairman,
    that I wanted to explore. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Alexander.
    With that, we will turn to Mr. Rey. Mr. Rey, welcome.
        If you could summarize your remarks, I think we'd love to
    have the opportunity for questions, and if you could possibly
    keep your statement within 5 to 7 minutes, that would be
    appreciated; we'll activate the time clocks. Thank you.

                       SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. MARK REY

        Mr. Rey. We'll summarize for the record.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Mr. Rey. What I'll do is discuss two issues relating to the
    2008 budget, both of which you all have raised concerns about,
    and then I'll ask Ms. Lago to talk about the broad outline of
    the budget, as she is substituting for the Chief of the Forest
    Service here today.
        The two issues that I will address will be changes to the
    Wildland Fire Management account and associated issues, and the
    need to provide further transitional assistance to rural
    communities through the proposed National Forest Land
    Adjustment for Rural Communities Act.
        With regard to fire, the 2008 budget proposes a total of
    $1.9 billion for activities associated with wildland fire
    management, including a new appropriation for wildland
    firefighters and other cost-saving measures.
        The events of the 2006 season made a compelling case for
    these strategic changes. On the heels of Hurricane Katrina, the
    2005 fire season flowed seamlessly into that of 2006, without
    the respite normally provided by winter precipitation.
        From November through April, extremely low humidity,
    persistent drought, and winds contributed to ignition of fires
    through Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Missouri, and New Mexico.
        By late July, the wildland firefighting community had
    entered preparedness level five, the highest level of fire
    activity, during which several geographic areas were
    experiencing simultaneous major incidents.
        During 2006, the Forest Service was at preparedness level
    five from late July through late September without
    intermission.
        Although the 2006 fire season had one of the highest number
    of fire starts in a single day, and an extraordinary number of
    lightning-caused fires, as well as a record number of
    simultaneous large fires, it also resulted in significantly
    fewer dwellings and other structures being destroyed; 750 homes
    in 2006, as compared to more than 4,500 homes lost in 2003.
        That, we believe, is directly attributable to the fuels
    reduction work that's been done over the last 4 years,
    concentrating in the wildland-urban interface, and does
    represent a return on the investment that we've made in fuels
    treatment work.
        Congress has repeatedly expressed concerns, including
    today, about rising fire suppression costs. Large fire costs
    are a persistent challenge for the agency and threaten to
    compromise the achievement of levels of other critical mission
    areas.
        In response, a number of key actions are underway in fiscal
    year 2007, and the 2008 budget request makes additional
    significant proposals. These include a refinement of the
    concept of appropriate management response toward a risk-
    informed fire suppression approach.
        This approach provides risk-informed fire protection by
    introducing the concept of managing wildland fire in
    relationship to the risk that the incident poses.
        The Forest Service Chief will also designate an individual
    with access to a support team to provide oversight on fires of
    national significance and assistance to local units, and will
    collaborate with the Department of the Interior on interior
    lands.
        Third, national resources, such as smoke-jumpers, hotshot
    crews, and helicopters will be moved to areas and incidents
    based on predictive services and on planning levels, as opposed
    to simply based on prior practice.
        Fourth, aviation resources will be managed more effectively
    to reduce their high cost. A full-time national helicopter
    coordinator will be selected to provide oversight for the
    assignment and positioning of helicopters.
        Helicopter management will be centralized as a national
    resource, and the agency will attempt to shift more to
    exclusive use versus more expensive call-when-needed contracts
    for helicopters.
        Fifth, efforts will be made to maintain our initial attack
    success, while reducing the dependence on severity funding.
    This explains the distribution of funding between suppression
    and preparedness, and with those two accounts, we believe we
    have adequate flexibility to respond to the 2007 fire season.
        I would note that in a previous appropriations bill, the
    Congress required an independent audit of large incident fires
    each year. Yesterday, we released the independent audit of the
    19 large fires that burned more than 1.1 million acres and cost
    more than $470 million to suppress.
        The independent panel organized by the Brookings
    Institution found that the Forest Service exercised appropriate
    and adequate fiscal diligence in suppressing wildfires on each
    of these 19 incidents.
        The report also provides a number of recommendations for
    additional potential cost reductions, which will be evaluated
    and adopted as appropriate, as we move into the 2007 fire
    season.
        I'll make a copy of the Brookings Institution report
    available for the record of this hearing.
        [The information follows:]

        The report can be accessed at the following location:
    http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/BR6988%7E1.PDF

        Mr. Rey. The second thing that I'd like to talk about is
    the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act
    of 2008, and our proposal to reauthorize that statute.
        The statute was enacted in 2000 to provide transitional
    assistance to rural communities affected by the decline in
    revenue from timber harvests on Federal lands. The last payment
    authorized by the act was for fiscal year 2006 and was made in
    December 2006.
        In lieu of a multi-year reauthorization, the administration
    continues to support a 1-year extension of the act with agreed-
    upon offsets as an interim step.
        With our budget proposal, we have submitted the National
    Forest Land Conveyance for Rural Communities Act, which would
    also authorize a 4-year extension of the funding formerly
    provided by the 2000 legislation. The legislation would also
    provide conservation funding for national forests and
    grasslands.
        Sale of identified National Forest Systems lands, similar
    to those lands described in the fiscal year 2007 budget
    proposal, would provide funding to both replace what was
    provided to schools under the 2000 legislation, as well as
    additional money for land acquisition.
        Our proposal would authorize the Secretary to sell the
    sufficient national forest land to fund an $800 million
    account. Under the legislation, 50 percent of the receipts
    obtained from land sales would be used as a funding source to
    make the rural school payments over a 4-year period, with a
    gradual phase-out.
        The remaining 50 percent of receipts from land sales within
    a State would be used for land acquisition and related
    conservation purposes.
        Over the last 20 years, as we've exchanged less desirable
    parcels for more desirable parcels, we have added lands to the
    National Forest System, because the lands that we have been
    exchanging out are more economically valuable and less
    environmentally valuable. Conversely, the lands we've been
    acquiring through these exchanges are more environmentally
    valuable and less economically valuable.
        Because these exchanges are value-for-value exchanges,
    we've averaged about three acres received for every acre
    transmitted out of Federal ownership.
        If this proposal were to become law, using half of the
    money from the sale of lands, we would probably net increase
    the number of national forest acres, and we would do it more
    effectively than doing it through exchanges, because exchanges
    require a one-to-one correlation between what we want to
    exchange and what somebody else wants to exchange, and that's
    often difficult and time-consuming to do.
        We often have to find a third party to bridge the gap--the
    difference between what we'd like to get and what we'd like to
    exchange away.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So I think should this proposal be enacted, we would not
    only have money to fund the schools, but we would have money to
    effect a net increase in national forest acreage, and acquire
    acres that are more valuable for the National Forest System at
    the same time.
        That will conclude my remarks, and I'll turn the podium
    over to Ms. Lago.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark Rey
                                    overview
        Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year 2008 Budget for the
    Forest Service during today's hearing. I am pleased to join Gail
    Kimbell, newly appointed Chief of the Forest Service, at this hearing
    today.
        I will discuss two issues that relate to the 2008 Budget. First, I
    will address changes in the Wildland Fire account and associated
    issues. I will next address the need to provide further transitional
    assistance to rural counties through the proposed National Forest Land
    Adjustment for Rural Communities Act.
                                 wildland fire
        The 2008 Budget proposes a total of $1.9 billion for activities
    associated with Wildland Fire Management, including a new appropriation
    for Wildland Fire Fighters. The events of the 2006 fire season make a
    compelling case for these strategic changes.
        On the heels of Hurricane Katrina, the 2005 fire season flowed
    seamlessly into that of 2006--without the respite normally provided by
    winter precipitation. From November through April, extreme low
    humidity, persistent drought conditions, and winds contributed to the
    ignition of fires through Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Missouri, and New
    Mexico. By late July, the wildland fire fighting community had entered
    Preparedness Level 5--the highest level of fire activity, during which
    several geographic areas are experiencing simultaneous major incidents.
    During 2006 the Forest Service was at Preparedness Level 5 from late
    July through late September, without intermission. Although the 2006
    fire season had one of the highest number of fire starts in a single
    day (548), an extraordinary number of lightning-caused fires (over
    16,000), and a record number of simultaneous large fires (affecting
    nearly every region in the country); it also resulted in significantly
    fewer dwellings and other structures destroyed--750 homes lost in 2006
    as compared to more than 4,500 lost in 2003.
        Despite many positive accomplishments, fire suppression
    expenditures topped $1.5 billion in 2006. Moreover, the agency has
    spent over $1 billion on fire suppression in 4 of the last 7 years. The
    increasing frequency of ``billion dollar'' fire-fighting years is
    driving up the 10 year average suppression cost figure, which is used
    to determine suppression funding levels. Congress has repeatedly
    expressed concerns about rising fire suppression costs. Large fire
    costs are a persistent challenge for the agency and threaten to
    compromise the achievement levels of other critical mission areas. In
    response, a number of key actions are underway in fiscal year 2007, and
    the 2008 Budget request makes additional significant proposals.
        The most significant actions underway in 2007 include:
    1. From Appropriate Management Response to Risk-Informed Response
        The Appropriate Management Response (AMR) was articulated in the
    2001 update of the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. Further,
    the 2008 Budget reflects refinement of the concept of AMR toward a
    risk-informed fire suppression approach. This approach provides risk-
    informed fire protection by introducing the concept of managing
    wildland fire in relationship to the risk that the incident poses. If a
    wildland fire has potential benefits to natural resources and poses a
    relatively low risk to impact other valued assets, the fire would
    receive a lower intensity suppression effort. Conversely, if a fire
    incident is determined to pose high risk to property or community, high
    suppression efforts would be applied. The approach utilizes risk
    management and tools such as probability analysis and actuarial data to
    inform rigorous and systematic ways to reach decisions that allocate
    resources on the basis of risk posed by the wildfire and the strategy
    used by managers to address it. The Forest Service has developed a
    draft guidebook that presents a coherent strategy to implement this
    approach. DOI is reviewing this guidebook and will work with Forest
    Service on interagency implementation.
    2. Forest Service Chief's Principal Representative
        The Forest Service Chief will designate an individual with access
    to a support team to provide oversight on fires of national
    significance and assistance to local units and will collaborate with
    the DOI on DOI lands. The individual will be highly experienced in
    wildfire management, and the team will have knowledge and capability
    with decision-support tools. These changes will immediately provide for
    experienced decision-making that should reduce costs on large fires.
    3. National Shared Resources
        National resources such as smoke jumpers, hot shot crews and
    helicopters will be moved to areas and incidents based on Predictive
    Services and on Planning Levels. This will create a more centralized
    and flexible management of these response resources. Funding and
    decision-making from the national level will ensure consistency across
    regions, flexibility in the assignment of resources and eliminate
    geographic concentration of resources that impose costs in both time
    and money.
    4. Aviation Resource Cost Management
        Aviation resources will be managed more effectively to reduce their
    high cost. A full-time National helicopter coordinator will be selected
    to provide oversight for the assignment and positioning of helicopters.
    Helicopter management will be centralized as a national resource. The
    Forest Service will attempt to shift more to ``exclusive use'' versus
    ``call when needed'' contracts for helicopters. This will increase
    preparedness costs initially, but is expected to greatly reduce large
    fire suppression cost with potential saving of tens of millions of
    dollars per year. We will pursue longer term aviation contracts for all
    aviation resources with increased performance-based contracting. DOI
    also is pursuing strategies to reduce its costs.
    5. Initial Attack and Severity Funding
        Efforts will be made to maintain our initial attack success while
    reducing the dependence on severity funding. The Forest Service will
    require lower thresholds for the approval of severity funding to be
    elevated for approval by the Chief. National Shared Resources will be
    pre-positioned whenever possible in geographic areas where fire risk is
    the greatest during the fire season. The Forest Service and DOI
    agencies will continue to submit a coordinated severity request so as
    to not duplicate effort or expense.
        In addition to the changes for 2007, the 2008 Budget proposes a
    separate appropriation for Wildland Firefighters. The Budget proposal
    moves funding for firefighters out of the Preparedness budget within
    Wildland Fire, and into a separate appropriation. There is no net
    program change as a result of this move. Importantly, this adds a
    higher degree of visibility and transparency to fire suppression
    activities and provides $220 million for hiring and training the 10,000
    firefighters necessary to ensure a successful fire season.
        The Wildland Fire account's Suppression line is funded at $911
    million, reflecting the updated 10-year average for total suppression
    costs as adjusted for inflation and includes indirect costs not charged
    to fire suppression in previous years--but now required by Congress to
    be included in the account.
        The Budget funds Fire Preparedness at $349 million, which is a
    reduction of $97 million as compared to the fiscal year 2007 when
    considering the strategic shifts and creation of the new Wildland
    Firefighter account.
        We expect that the management improvements implemented and underway
    will enable managers to be better prepared for wildfires; help managers
    to make better decisions during firefighting operations; and provide
    managers with the tools necessary to analyze, understand and manage
    fire suppression costs. While the factors of drought, fuels build-up in
    our forests and increasing development in fire prone areas have the
    potential to keep the number of incidents and total cost of wildfire
    suppression high for some time to come, we are confident in our
    strategy to address wildland fire suppression costs and are committed
    to action. We believe that the measures discussed today promise to
    expand efficiency and reduce suppression costs. We look forward to
    continued collaboration with our Federal, State, local, Tribal, and
    other non-Federal partners to address our shared goal of effectively
    managing wildfire suppression costs.
       continuing transitional support to rural communities through the
           national forest land conveyance for rural communities act
        The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of
    2000 (SRS) (Public Law 106-393) was enacted to provide transitional
    assistance to rural counties affected by the decline in revenue from
    timber harvests in federal lands. Traditionally, these counties relied
    on a share of receipts from timber harvests to supplement local funding
    for school systems and roads. Funding from SRS has been used to support
    more than 4,400 rural schools and to help maintain county road systems.
    In addition SRS has authorized the establishment of over 55 Resource
    Advisory Committees (RAC) in 13 States, which has increased the level
    of interaction between the Forest Service, local governments, and
    citizens--resulting in greater support and understanding of the
    agency's mission. RACs have implemented more than 4,500 resource
    projects on National Forests, Grasslands, and adjacent non-federal
    lands with a value from SRS funds and leveraged funds of more than $292
    million.
        The last payment authorized by the SRS Act was for fiscal year 2006
    and was made in December 2006. The administration continues to support
    a 1-year extension of the SRS Act with agreed-upon full offsets as an
    interim step. The Budget underscores the President's continuing
    commitment to states and counties impacted by the ongoing loss of
    receipts associated with lower timber harvests on Federal lands. The
    National Forest Land Conveyance for Rural communities Act is included
    in the fiscal year 2008 President's Budget to fund transition payments
    targeted to the areas of greatest need, and to provide counties
    additional time before payments are phased-out. Under the proposal,
    half of land sales proceeds will be available to offset county payments
    and half will be available for national forest acquisition or habitat
    improvement in the states in which lands are sold. Counties benefit
    from 4 additional years of payments, and states receive an
    environmental benefit from exchanging land with low environmental
    values for lands with high environmental value.
        The National Forest Land Conveyance for Rural Communities Act would
    authorize a 4-year extension of the funding formerly provided by SRS.
    The legislation would also provide conservation funding for National
    Forests and Grasslands. Sale of identified National Forest System
    lands--similar those lands described in the fiscal year 2007 budget
    proposal--would provide funding to replace that which SRS had provided.
    Our new legislation differs from our previous proposal by including
    additional provisions which allow for land sale receipts to also be
    used for the acquisition of land for the National Forest System,
    conservation education, improved access to public lands, wildlife and
    fish habitat improvement.
        This year's proposal addresses the concern that affected States
    would not receive financial benefit from the sale of Federal lands
    within their borders. It does so by including a requirement that 50
    percent of all land sale receipts be retained for conservation purposes
    within the State from which the receipts were derived.
        The legislation would authorize the Secretary to sell excess
    national forest land or interests in land that the Secretary determines
    to be both eligible for disposal and in the public interest. Many of
    these lands are isolated from other contiguous National Forest System
    lands, and because of their location, size, or configuration are not
    efficiently managed as components of the National Forest System.
        Isolated tracts can be expensive to manage because of boundary
    management and encroachment resolution costs. The sales of these lands
    will not compromise the integrity of the National Forest System;
    instead, it will allow the agency to consolidate federal ownership and
    reduce management costs. Land sales would be limited to a list of lands
    identified by the Secretary. By selling lands that are inefficient to
    manage or have limited ecological value, and subsequently 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.
        Our proposal would authorize the Secretary to sell sufficient
    National Forest land to fund an $800 million account. Under the
    legislation, 50 percent of receipts obtained from land sales would be
    used as a funding source to make SRS payments over a four year period
    with a gradual phase-out. The remaining 50 percent of receipts from
    land sales within a State would be used for conservation purposes.
        Finally, the legislation would authorize the establishment of a
    National Advisory Board to advise the Secretary on the land sales and
    the use of their proceeds. State governments will be encouraged to
    participate in formulating recommendations to the National Advisory
    Board for habitat improvement projects and land acquisition needs. By
    selling lands that are inefficient, isolated, or of limited-value and
    purchasing critical, environmentally sensitive lands, the Forest
    Service will maintain the integrity of the National Forest System while
    funding payments formerly provided by SRS.
        This concludes my statement, I would be happy to answer any
    questions that you may have.

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Ms. Lago.

                            STATEMENT OF LENISE LAGO

        Ms. Lago. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'd like to present an
    abbreviated version of Chief Kimbell's testimony, and request
    that her full statement be entered into the record.
        Senator Feinstein. So ordered.
        [The statement follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Abigail Kimbell, Chief, Forest Service
        Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a great
    privilege to be here today to discuss the President's budget for the
    Forest Service in fiscal year 2008. Let me also say, having been Chief
    of the Forest Service for just over 3 months, I am deeply honored to
    have this opportunity.
        First, I want to express my gratitude to Secretary Johanns for his
    confidence in me, and to thank the dedicated, hard-working employees of
    the Forest Service for their support and encouragement. Let me also
    express my appreciation in advance to you Mr. Chairman and members of
    the subcommittee for working with the Forest Service and me during this
    transition.
        I will begin by saying a few words about myself and my long-time
    commitment to the Forest Service. I have worked in the Forest Service
    for more than 30 years. I started as a seasonal employee and went on to
    serve as Forester, Planner, District Ranger, Forest Supervisor,
    Regional Forester, and Associate Deputy Chief, among other positions. I
    have worked in Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Alaska, Wyoming, Montana,
    and Washington D.C. Equipped with these experiences, I am eager to lead
    the Forest Service into its second century of service, and am humbled
    by the duties entrusted in me as Chief.
        For those new members who may be unfamiliar with our agency, the
    U.S. Forest Service works to sustain the health, diversity, and
    productivity of the Nation's 193 million acres of national forests and
    grasslands. We not only steward the National Forest System, but also
    provide states, Tribes, and private forest landowners with technical
    and financial assistance. Moreover, we are the world's largest forestry
    research organization.
        In its second century of service, the Forest Service faces diverse
    challenges. These include restoring fire-adapted forests to more
    resilient conditions, providing natural resource raw materials to the
    American public, providing sustainable recreation opportunities,
    mitigating the loss of open space, addressing the spread of invasive
    species, restoring watershed health, and more--all during a period of
    rapid fragmentation, intensive development, and landscape-scale change.
    These challenges occur at a time when our nation is pursuing deficit
    reduction goals. The Forest Service is responding, adapting, and
    modernizing in response to the complex and evolving environment in
    which we operate.
        Before I begin my testimony on the 2008 Budget however, I would
    like to reflect on Chief Bosworth's leadership and some of his many
    achievements during these past six years.
                    the forest service under chief bosworth
        When Chief Bosworth took the helm of the Forest Service, the
    agency's finances were in disarray. The General Accountability Office
    had listed the Forest Service among agencies at high risk for waste,
    fraud, and abuse. Under Dale Bosworth's leadership, the agency
    progressed from being ``in receivership,'' to achieving five
    consecutive clean audit opinions from the USDA Office of the Inspector
    General. Chief Bosworth reduced overhead costs, reorganized the Deputy
    areas by eliminating two Deputy Chief positions and reducing staff, and
    guided the agency through the centralization and reengineering of its
    business processes--whose net cost reductions will approach $100
    million by fiscal year 2008. The Forest Service's improved business
    policies, processes, and organization have enhanced internal controls,
    eliminated duplication, and created accurate and complete financial
    data. Under the President's Healthy Forests Initiative, Chief Bosworth
    oversaw hazardous fuels reduction on more than 8.5 million acres.
    Further, the Chief responded with confidence and composure to such
    momentous challenges as September 11th; the Space Shuttle Columbia
    disaster; Hurricanes Katrina and Rita; and a period of wildland fire
    frequency and severity heretofore unprecedented in the modern era.
    Chief Bosworth skillfully ushered the Forest Service into the 21st
    Century's complex and demanding environment.
                     forest service fiscal year 2008 budget
        This budget request must be viewed in the larger context of the
    overall federal budget in which it is presented. Like other non-defense
    domestic discretionary programs, the Forest Service faces a constrained
    budget. And the results of the Administration's policies on economic
    growth and fiscal restraint include cutting the deficit in half, three
    years sooner than originally predicted. The fiscal year 2008
    President's Budget request for the Forest Service is $4.127 billion,
    which is approximately the same level of funding as fiscal year 2006
    and a modest reduction below fiscal year 2007. However, within that
    total are some important shifts: the budget makes important changes to
    the Wildland Fire account, maintains funding for Healthy Forests
    including the commitment to fully fund the Northwest Forest Plan to
    provide 800 million board feet of timber, and emphasizes public health
    and safety by proposing a significant increase in the Law Enforcement
    Operations budget. These increases are offset by reductions in other
    programs so that wider administration goals of supporting the Global
    War on Terror and sustaining the momentum of the economic recovery can
    continue. The President's Budget addresses reductions by continuing or
    implementing new cost saving measures and by enhancing efficiencies and
    streamlining management and organization.
        Wildland Fire.--During the 2006 fire season the United States
    experienced more than 95,000 wildfire ignitions, and more than 9.9
    million acres burned. Of those 9.9 million acres burned, approximately
    5 million acres were on Federal lands and the balance on non-Federal
    lands. The Forest Service continued its excellent track record in
    protecting lives, property, and the environment. However, as occurred
    in 4 of the last 7 years, in 2006 the Forest Service spent over $1
    billion for suppression activities--a record $1.5 billion. The
    increasing frequency of ``billion dollar'' fire-fighting years is
    driving up the 10 year average suppression cost figure, which is used
    to determine annual suppression funding levels.
        The 2008 Budget responds to escalating fire costs in three
    important ways. First, the budget provides funding for suppression at
    the 10 year average level, adjusted for inflation. The 2008 Budget
    funds Suppression at $911 million--a 23 percent increase over 2007
    levels of $741 million. Further, the 2008 Budget reflects refinement of
    the concept of ``appropriate management response'' toward a risk-
    informed fire suppression approach. Under the risk-informed approach,
    wildland fire will be managed on a priority basis as determined by
    considering private property, infrastructure, and human values most at-
    risk and resource benefits associated with the incident. In 2008 we
    will increase our decision support for this refined approach. New
    tools, including improved fire behavior monitoring and prediction, and
    costs and benefits of alternative suppression strategies will help
    managers decide how to respond to fires. In addition, the 2008 Budget
    pursues a more efficient and precise budget structure by establishing a
    separate account for ``firefighter'' expenditures. The 2008 Budget
    requests $220 million for this new appropriation, which will fund
    salary and training for 10,000 firefighters and 67 type I hot shot
    crews.
        Healthy Forests.--The Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI) was launched
    in 2002 to reduce administrative process delays to implementing
    projects, and Congress passed the Healthy Forests Restoration Act
    (HFRA) in 2003. The Act provides improved statutory processes for
    hazardous fuel reduction projects on certain types of at-risk National
    Forest System and Bureau of Land Management lands and also provides
    other authorities and direction to help reduce hazardous fuels and
    restore healthy forest and rangeland conditions on lands of all
    ownerships. The 2008 Budget maintains funding throughout the programs
    that support the Healthy Forests Initiative, including Hazardous Fuels,
    Forest Products, and applied Fire Science and Silvicultural Research.
    At least 40 percent of hazardous fuels funding will be used on projects
    that contribute to the goal of improving condition class on at least
    250,000 acres by the end of the fiscal year through the use of HFRA and
    HFI authorities. In addition, the Budget supports a hazardous fuels
    reduction target of 3 million acres, a timber sales target of 3.5
    billion board feet, and fully funds the Northwest Forest Plan,
    including an increase in Capital Improvement and Maintenance (Roads) to
    maintain the road infrastructure needed to support Northwest Forest
    Plan timber sales.
        Law Enforcement Operations.--The 2008 Budget proposes a $9 million
    increase from fiscal year 2007 in Law Enforcement Operations. Recent
    years have seen a significant increase in crime on National Forests,
    causing resource impacts and increasing risks to public and employee
    safety. Agency law enforcement officers are increasingly responding to
    violent crimes, including rape, homicide, domestic disputes, assault,
    robbery, drug manufacturing and trafficking, and other serious felony
    crimes. Law enforcement officers routinely respond to traffic
    accidents, search and rescue, medical or emergency assistance,
    hazardous materials spills, domestic terrorist activity, large group
    events and gang activity. In addition to reducing the impacts on
    natural resources and avoiding the associated costs of restoration, the
    requested funding increase will enable the Forest Service to maintain
    public and employee security and reduce illegal occupancy of National
    Forests.
        In order to fund these high priority programs, the Budget makes
    hard tradeoffs to other programs. Moreover, efficiencies gained through
    the centralization of Business Operations and renewed focus on
    collaborative management will help offset reductions under the fiscal
    year 2008 Budget request. In fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009, the
    agency will further its efforts to optimize organizational efficiency
    by restructuring leadership and program management functions at its
    National and Regional Offices. In order to provide additional funding
    for on-the-ground performance, many headquarters and regional
    activities will be consolidated on a centralized basis, and appropriate
    program management functions will be zoned across multiple regions. The
    Forest Service will realize personnel cost decreases of approximately
    25 percent in National and Regional Office operations by the end of
    fiscal year 2009. An executive Steering team, led by Eastern Regional
    Forester Randy Moore, has been appointed to oversee the reorganization
    effort.
        I will now discuss program changes of the Research, State and
    Private Forestry, National Forest System, Capital Improvement and
    Maintenance, and Land Acquisition accounts.
                         forest and rangeland research
        The Forest Service Research Program is a globally recognized leader
    at exploring the fundamental ecological, biological, social, and
    economic questions and issues challenging natural resource management
    and conservation in the modern era. Not only do Forest Service research
    efforts inform Forest Service management, conservation, education, and
    outreach activities; but importantly, our Research programs inform the
    conservation activities of the global community.
        The 2008 Budget funds Research at $263 million. This is a 7 percent
    decrease from the 2007 funding of $280 million. The budget eliminates
    funding for un-requested Congressional earmarks and employs investment
    criteria to ensure alignment between research projects and strategic
    priorities. Funding priorities within the request include continued
    research to improve large fire decision support, particularly with
    respect to improving managers' ability to predict probability of fire
    occurrence and spread related to values at risk, long-term integrated
    planning, successful collaboration with communities, and further
    development of improved tools for integrated risk analysis. The
    invasive species program area includes new funding for research on
    biological control of invasive weeds. To help meet the Nation's energy
    needs there is an increase of $1.3 million to enhance research on wood-
    based bio-fuels development and conversion processes, bio-refinery
    applications, energy efficient housing, and processing and
    manufacturing energy reduction, life cycle analysis of wood, and
    marketing analysis for energy and bio-based products. The 2008 Budget
    also retains support for Forest Inventory and Analysis, which is of
    great importance in the context of tracking today's dramatic ecological
    changes and their effects on forest resources.
        Forest Service Research and Development has focused on
    strengthening the conformance of its research program with the
    President's Management Agenda criteria for Federal research agencies:
    quality, relevance and performance. Research has identified 7 Strategic
    Program Areas (SPA), and developed strategic plans for each one.
    Further, Research plans to conduct national external panel reviews of
    each SPA, as well as reviews of each Research Station's alignment with
    the SPAs. These include periodic peer review and evaluation of all
    scientist positions through the Research Panel Process, peer review of
    proposed study plans and manuscripts for publication, and periodic
    updating of station quality assurance and quality control plans. During
    2006, a restructuring of the Research headquarters staff was initiated
    to improve responsiveness, quality, relevance, performance and
    efficiency.
                           state and private forestry
        The State and Private Forestry program is a critical component of
    the Forest Service's conservation mission in that it connects the
    agency's research and federal public lands-based programs to those of
    states and private individuals and entities. State and Private Forestry
    programs work across boundaries to conserve forested landscapes and
    open spaces, and protect the ecological services they provide. State
    and Private Forestry programs assist successful conservation of the
    nation's natural resources by enhancing cooperation between
    individuals, non-governmental organizations, states, and the federal
    government.
        The 2008 Budget funds State and Private Forestry at $202 million, a
    28 percent decrease from 2007 funding levels of $280 million. Funding
    will be focused on priority activities in the Forest Health and
    Cooperative Fire programs.
        The Forest Health program will receive more than $90 million and
    provide for treatments of invasive and native pests on more than
    600,000 acres of priority forest and rangelands. When combined with
    funds received under the National Fire Plan, the total acreage will
    increase by almost one-third and will yield close to 800,000 acres of
    treatments. Attention will be placed on priority pests such as the
    southern pine beetle, the western bark beetle and slowing the spread of
    gypsy moth. In fiscal year 2008, the Forest Health program will
    emphasize increased early survey and monitoring efforts against
    invasive species. These activities are important and integral to the
    overall program--increasing the agency's ability to prevent and detect
    problems early is a more cost-effective way to deal with invasives than
    treatments after wide spread infestations have occurred.
        The Cooperative Fire program will receive more than $42 million and
    will help more than 9,800 communities protect themselves from
    disastrous wildland fires. The majority of funds allow the Forest
    Service to provide financial assistance to state and local fire
    agencies, which in turn use the grant monies to develop and implement
    cooperative wildland fire preparedness programs and conduct hazardous
    fuel treatments around communities. A very successful program funded
    under the Cooperative Fire activity is Firewise, which emphasizes
    individual responsibility for fire hazard mitigation on community and
    private property. The program provides education and support to
    community leaders, and assistance with mitigating wildland fire hazards
    around structures. Moreover, the program leverages $4 in local matching
    funds for every federal dollar spent, allowing the program to assist
    more communities.
        Finally, more than $66 million in the State and Private Forestry
    program will fund priority Cooperative Forestry programs including the
    Forest Legacy Program, which will receive $29 million. These funds will
    be used on 14 projects, which are expected to conserve 97,000 acres of
    important forest resources. To date, more than 1.4 million acres of
    environmentally important private lands have been protected through the
    Forest Legacy Program and with more than 429 million acres of the
    Nation's forest held in private ownership this program continues to be
    important to prevent critical forest lands from being converted or
    fragmented.
        The balance of funding in the Cooperative Forestry program will
    fund Forest Stewardship and Urban and Community Forestry activities.
    All State and Private programs will focus on national goals to produce
    public benefit outcomes. State-developed resource plans will identify
    priority response to national goals. This approach is designed to
    connect with all ownerships in a collective effort to achieve healthy
    forest objectives and protect human communities from wildland fire.
                     national forest system appropriations
        The National Forest System account provides funds for the
    stewardship and management of National Forests and Grasslands. The 2008
    Budget requests $1.344 billion for this account, a 7 percent decrease
    from the fiscal year 2007. This decrease from prior year levels
    reflects greater efficiencies gained through organizational
    restructuring of leadership and program management functions at the
    National and Regional Offices. In order to provide additional funding
    for on-the-ground performance, many headquarters and regional
    activities will be consolidated on a centralized basis, and appropriate
    program management functions will be zoned across multiple regions.
    Moreover, efficiencies gained through the centralization of Business
    Operations, and renewed focus on collaborative management will help
    offset reductions under the fiscal year 2008 Budget.
        As discussed previously, the fiscal year 2008 Budget supports full
    funding for the Northwest Forest Plan and emphasizes pubic safety.
    Specifically, the National Forest System 2008 Budget proposes $319
    million for Forest Products. Funds allow for the continued full
    implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan and support an overall
    timber sales target of 3.5 billion board feet, including 800 million
    board feet from the Northwest Forest Plan. The Budget also proposes an
    increase of $9 million to Law Enforcement for a total of $124 million.
    The increased funding will be used to hire, train, and equip new law
    enforcement officers and special agents. Increased visibility of law
    enforcement will improve public and employee safety and address foreign
    drug trafficking organizations on the National Forests.
        The 2008 Budget proposes to hold funding in Grazing Management at
    prior year levels for a total of $47 million. Maintaining this level
    will enable the Agency to comply with the Rescissions Act of 1995 by
    completing the backlog of NEPA-based environmental analysis.
        Funds are available to other programs in the National Forest System
    account to address highest priority needs. The 2008 Budget proposes
    funding for Land Management Planning at $53 million, a decrease of 9
    percent. Funds will be used to support work to complete Land Management
    Plan revisions and continue work on other plan revisions. The fiscal
    year 2008 Budget also proposes $146 million for Inventory and
    Monitoring programs, a decrease of 12 percent. Funds will focus on
    forest plan monitoring and establishing Environmental Management
    Systems on 50 National Forest units. Environmental Management Systems
    are a comprehensive approach to improving the management of
    environmental issues and performance on individual units.
        The 2008 Budget proposes funding for Recreation, Heritage, and
    Wilderness at $231 million, a decrease of 10 percent. In fiscal year
    2008, the agency will continue to emphasize implementation of the
    travel management rule in order to address issues of unmanaged
    recreation, visitor safety and resource protection. By fiscal year end,
    the agency will have 48 percent of National Forest System lands covered
    by travel plans. Program funds will permit continued operation of
    recreation sites, although some reduction in seasons and hours for
    visitor information services may occur in some locations. National
    Forests are currently undertaking a process to analyze their recreation
    facilities and evaluate the future needs of the recreating public. The
    process, the Recreation Site Facility Master Planning, is an analysis
    tool, to encourage dialogue amongst a variety of interested communities
    on the changing demands for recreation facilities on national forests
    and what options may exist to respond to those changes.
        The recreation program will continue to strengthen relationships
    with private, volunteer-based, and nonprofit organizations to ensure
    some capacity levels are maintained and more particular to make
    programs and services relevant to youth in diverse and underserved
    populations.
        The fiscal year 2008 President's Budget requests $71 million for
    Minerals and Geology Management program, a decrease of 16 percent. The
    energy component of the program will focus on increasing opportunities
    for environmentally sensitive development and supply of oil and gas,
    coal, and geothermal resources from Federal lands in support of the
    Energy Policy Act of 2005. Funding levels to support environmental
    compliance and environmental restoration will continue at prior year
    levels to ensure required audits are continued and to focus on cleaning
    up publicly accessible abandoned mines and other contaminated sites in
    high priority watersheds.
        The budget also proposes funding for Wildlife and Fisheries
    Management at $118 million, a decrease of 11 percent, and for
    Vegetation and Watershed Management at $154 million, a program decrease
    of 14 percent. Focus in the wildlife and fisheries program will be on
    improving fish and aquatic passage, recovery of the Columbia basin
    salmon, and on-going recovery efforts of other species including the
    Bighorn Sheep.
        In addition to efficiencies garnered through organizational
    alignment, the Forest Service will continue to achieve efficiencies by
    centralizing Business Operations, utilizing email and video
    conferencing to lower travel costs, realigning the Agency, and will see
    these efficiencies and reduced costs continue over time. The net result
    is to maintain our foremost commitment to the land and focus funding on
    where the work gets done.
                      capital improvement and maintenance
        The Capital Improvement and Maintenance Program provides for, and
    maintains, the infrastructure for many Forest Service programs
    including; the transportation networks upon which many of our
    management operations, projects, and users depend; the recreational
    infrastructure, including trails that serve many diverse populations;
    and facilities that house Forest Service employees.
        The 2008 Budget funds Capital Improvement & Maintenance at $423
    million, a decrease of $14 million. To support the goal of selling 3.5
    billion board feet of timber, the 2008 Budget requests an additional $4
    million for Road Improvement and Maintenance. In addition to this
    request, the Forest Service will continue to receive revenues from
    sites conveyed under authorities provided by the Facility Realignment
    and Enhancement Act, which has to date provided $34 million in receipts
    to convey unneeded administrative sites and retain the proceeds for
    building maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction.
                                land acquisition
        Land covered by urban areas has more than doubled over the last 40
    years, and more than 44 million acres of private forests are at-risk of
    being developed by 2030. The Land Acquisition account enables the
    Forest Service to perennially stay abreast of, and act upon, the
    changing land-use patterns, demographic trends, and ecological changes.
    The Land Acquisition program allows us to pursue landscape
    connectivity, by purchasing in-holdings and keystone habitat parcels,
    and to manage the national forests as ecosystems rather than simply as
    real estate.
        The 2008 Budget funds Land Acquisitions at $16 million. This
    includes $8 million to purchase land and $8 million for acquisition
    management. The funding will allow us to move forward with 7 high
    priority acquisitions. The funding request continues a trend of
    declining budgets for land acquisition. However, the Budget also
    contains a legislative proposal that permits the Forest Service to
    retain upwards of $400 million in land sales for acquisition of
    national forest lands. The parcels to be sold have already been
    identified as suitable for sale or exchange because they are isolated
    or inefficient to manage. Lands with high environmental value will not
    be offered for sale, while acquisitions would focus on parcels that
    enhance the environmental integrity of our National Forests. Given the
    importance of maintaining assets already in federal ownership, the
    Budget strikes a good balance with the need to acquire and preserve
    special places.
                                   conclusion
        Priority forest management issues such as reducing hazardous fuels
    in the Wildland Urban Interface and prevention of property destruction
    by catastrophic wildfires will be increasingly integrated with other
    pressing policy issues, including sequestering carbon, preserving open
    space, improving watershed health, and other mission-driven goals. We
    are addressing the costs of wildland fire suppression to mitigate
    constraints on other Forest Service programs. Our risk-based
    suppression approach and Healthy Forests Initiative fuels reduction
    work--much like our Business Operations centralization and
    collaborative management efforts--will reap tremendous mid- and long-
    term efficiencies in the contexts of agency budgets and reducing risk
    to human communities posed by wildland fire. The 2008 Budget reflects
    the President's commitment to providing the critical resources needed
    for our Nation's highest priorities. The 2008 Budget also 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 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 2008
    program, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

        Ms. Lago. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of the
    subcommittee. For those of you who weren't here earlier, I'm
    Lenise Lago. I'm the Budget Director for the Forest Service.
        First of all, it's a very great privilege for me to be here
    representing the Chief. Thank you. As you noted, Madam
    Chairman, Chief Kimbell could not be here today because she's
    in California for the release of the report of the
    investigation into the deaths of five Forest Service employees
    who were killed in the Esperanza Fire on October 26.
        The report of the investigation, which was conducted by the
    State of California, along with the Forest Service, will be
    released to the public later today.
        Turning to the Forest Service budget, in our second century
    of service, the Forest Service faces diverse challenges, which
    many of you have noted.
        These include restoring fire-adapted forests to a more
    resilient condition; providing natural resource raw materials
    to the American public; and providing sustainable recreation
    opportunities, and more, during a period of rapid
    fragmentation, intensive development, and landscape scale
    change.
        These challenges occur at a time when our Nation is
    pursuing deficit reduction goals. The Forest Service is
    responding; we're adapting, we're modernizing in response to
    the complex and evolving environment in which we operate.
        This budget request must be viewed in the larger context of
    the overall Federal budget in which it is presented. Like other
    non-defense domestic discretionary programs, the Forest Service
    faces a constrained budget.
        The fiscal year 2008 President's budget request for the
    Forest Service is $4.1 billion. That's about 2 percent less
    than we had in 2006, and as you noted, about a 5 percent
    reduction below 2007.
        However, within that total are some important shifts. Since
    the Under Secretary's testimony focused on wildland fire and
    the proposal for secure rural schools, I'd like to briefly
    discuss three other emphasis areas. We can discuss other
    programs during the question and answer period.
        First of all, Healthy Forests. The 2008 budget maintains
    funding throughout the programs that support the Healthy
    Forests Initiative, including hazardous fuels, forest products,
    and applied fire science and silvicultural research.
        At least 40 percent of hazardous fuels funding will be used
    on projects that contribute to the goal of improving condition
    class, with a target of at least 250,000 acres treated by the
    end of the fiscal year through the use of the Healthy Forests
    Restoration Act and Healthy Forests Initiative authorities.
        This is part of a total hazardous fuels reduction target of
    3 million acres, and a timber sales target of 3.5 billion board
    feet. It fully funds the Northwest Forest Plan, including
    sufficient funds in Capital Improvement and Maintenance-Roads
    to maintain the road infrastructure needed to support the
    Northwest Forest Plan timber sales.
        Our second emphasis area, as you also noted, is law
    enforcement. This budget emphasizes public health and safety by
    proposing a $9 million increase in law enforcement operations.
    Recent years have seen a significant increase in crime on
    national forests, causing resource impacts and increasing risk
    to public and employee safety.
        The requested funding increase will enable the Forest
    Service to maintain public and employee security and reduce
    illegal occupancy on national forests.
        The third area I'd like to talk about are efficiencies. The
    need to fund high-priority programs is severely restricted by
    the requirement to fund the 10-year average for fire
    suppression. This budget begins to look at what we can do to
    attack fire differently to achieve cost savings.
        Throughout the non-fire programs, we're looking at ways to
    increase efficiency and add value. For example, in fiscal year
    2008 and fiscal year 2009, the agency will further its efforts
    to optimize organizational efficiency by restructuring
    leadership and program management functions at the national and
    regional office levels.
        In order to provide additional funding for on-the-ground
    performance, many headquarters and regional office activities
    will be consolidated on a centralized basis and appropriate
    program management functions will be zoned across multiple
    regions.
        The Forest Service will realize cost decreases of
    approximately 25 percent in national and regional office
    operations by the end of fiscal year 2009. The efficiencies
    gained through the continued centralization of business
    operations through Washington and regional office
    transformation, and renewed focus on collaborative management,
    will help offset reductions in the fiscal year 2008 request.
        The net result, and the reason that we're doing this, is to
    maintain our foremost commitment, which is to the land, and
    focus on funding work where it gets done.
        Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the President's
    budget. On behalf of Chief Kimbell, we stand ready to work with
    you to implement our fiscal year 2008 program. I'm happy to
    answer any questions that you have.

                                  FIREFIGHTING

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. As chairman of this
    subcommittee, for however long or short it might be, I
    essentially have three priorities with respect to the budget.
    The first is to see that we do everything we can to manage
    forests and fight fires, so that we make a consequential dent
    in what is happening.

                             MARIJUANA ERADICATION

        The second is that we are able to stop marijuana from being
    grown in our national forests. In my State, marijuana is
    currently being grown in every single national forest. That is
    unacceptable. Growers are armed, they shoot, they leave the
    ground as an eco-disaster. It's my understanding 19,000 acres
    have been essentially ruined.
        This is unacceptable. It would just seem to me that if INS,
    instead of going into the homes of innocent people, would go
    into some of these forests and rout these crews, and arrest
    them and send them away, it'd go a long, long way.

                              QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP

        The third is the Quincy Library Group. Quincy was something
    that I authored. I feel strongly about it. It is not working
    adequately now.

                   LAW ENFORCEMENT AND MARIJUANA ERADICATION

        So let me just ask a few questions on these points. Let me
    begin with the law enforcement and the marijuana. You're funded
    at $124 million. You've got a $12 million increase, if the
    money survives, in the supplemental. My question is, how many
    new personnel do you plan to hire, and how will you prioritize
    enforcement in areas like my State that have the highest
    concentration of drug activity in our forests?
        Mr. Rey. Our current plans, should our requested increase
    go forward, would be to hire an additional 60 agents, and they
    would be prioritized on the forests with the highest amount of
    marijuana cultivation.
        The reason that the cartels are on the national forests is
    that we have done a pretty good job of interdicting large
    volume shipments across the border, so they're adapting to our
    success.
        The reason they are disproportionately on the national
    forests, as compared to say Bureau of Land Management lands, is
    that we have water, and we have trees, which work as good
    visual barriers to help hide the cultivation work that's being
    done, as opposed to open range lands, where it's more easy to
    identify from the air.
        Senator Feinstein. Is there any relationship between your
    Department and the INS, or ICE now----
        Mr. Rey. Yes, we----
        Senator Feinstein [continuing]. To have those people help
    you going in? These are all Mexican nationals. They don't
    belong here.
        Mr. Rey. Right.
        Senator Feinstein. They've broken the law coming here, and
    they've broken it again by growing marijuana.
        Mr. Rey. We have cooperative agreements with both INS and
    the Border Patrol, as well as the Drug Enforcement
    Administration.
        Senator Feinstein. So they actually go into the national
    forests and pull people out?
        Mr. Rey. When we do a major operation, it's usually a joint
    operation with INS, local law enforcement, and our own agents.
        Senator Feinstein. Okay, good. I'd like to know a little
    bit more about that, if I can.
        [The information follows:]

        Clerk's Note.--Senator Feinstein asked for more information about
    joint operations between agencies to eradicate marijuana on Federal
    lands. A meeting to discuss this subject was scheduled for June 25,
    2007, between Senator Feinstein, Under Secretary Rey, Forest Service
    Director of Law Enforcement and Investigations John Twiss, and
    representative of the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation.

        Senator Feinstein. Let me speak for just a moment about the
    Quincy Library Group. If I understand it, the Sierraville
    District ranger position is the only one in Sierra County.

                              QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP

        That's 75 percent national forest land, and the county is
    very concerned that a consolidation will hurt the Forest
    Service's ability to the local community's issues and concerns.
        The local board of supervisors unanimously passed a
    resolution on May 15 opposing these plans. I strongly oppose
    these plans. I don't think you can leave this huge area without
    a ranger.
        So my question is, has a decision been made to consolidate
    these ranger districts, and what impact will this plan have on
    the community and the success of Quincy Library Group
    activities?
        Mr. Rey. I don't think it will have any measurable impact
    on the community, and it should have no impact on the
    implementation of the Quincy Library Group activities. While
    we're planning to manage the east side of the forest as one
    district, we're not proposing to close any offices, and we're
    not moving any employees.
        So we're simply extending the span of control of a district
    ranger to include a larger number of offices.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, if I may, I'd like to know more
    about that.
        Mr. Rey. Sure.
        Senator Feinstein. The Forest Service tells us no final
    decision has been made, and I just want to reemphasize the
    importance of this to the Quincy Library Group and to
    everything that we have passed and authorized and moved forward
    with.
        Mr. Rey. Madam Chairman, I think one of the things you may
    be hearing is that there's still a lot of unhappiness with some
    downsizing we did over two decades ago on the east side of the
    Sierras. We moved an office out of Downieville, and therefore,
    anytime we announce any changes, we send up a fair amount of
    flares.
        But we'd be happy to work with you on this one, because I
    don't think what we're doing is going to materially affect the
    communities there.
        Senator Feinstein. All right. The whole point of Quincy is
    to build firebreaks, to do small logging on these fire breaks
    so that you make the forest more secure, and you also create
    jobs for the people.
        The pilot legislation requires the Forest Service to treat
    between 40,000 and 60,000 acres, creating the strategic system
    of fuel breaks.
        My understanding is that you've only been able to reach the
    acreage goal outlined in the legislation once. What are the
    major obstacles to implementation of the goals, and what is the
    Forest Service doing to meet these challenges?
        I know some of it is litigation, but we need to get around
    that somehow, some way, and I thought that our Hazardous Fuels
    legislation created the opportunity to do that.
        Mr. Rey. Both the Quincy Library legislation and the
    Healthy Forests Restoration Act gave us new tools to do fuel
    reduction work. But you put your finger on the main impediment
    that exists today, and that's working through the litigation
    associated with many of the projects that we've proposed.
        The Quincy Library Group area has a somewhat larger
    frequency of litigation than the State as a whole. The State as
    a whole has a somewhat larger frequency of litigation than the
    country as a whole.
        I don't know that there's any easy answer, but to do the
    best job we can in both producing these projects using the
    authorities you've given us, and then do the best job we can
    defending them in court, is what we do.
        Senator Feinstein. Just one last question. In August, I
    hope to meet with the Quincy Library Group and go over this,
    and it would be very helpful if you or someone could be there
    from the Department that we might be able to find a way to
    ameliorate this and move this program forward. I'm very
    concerned about it.
        Mr. Rey. I'd be happy to join you there in August.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thank you very much. Senator
    Craig?
        Senator Craig. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Revisiting Quincy
    is fascinating to me. Obviously, I helped you legislate that--
    --
        Senator Feinstein. Yes, you did.
        Senator Craig [continuing]. As one of the early
    collaborative efforts on the part of community and stakeholders
    to try to resolve what had become, obviously, a point of
    tremendous conflict.
        I must say I'm always frustrated when local environmental
    groups and local stakeholders come together to agree to
    something, but the nationals say no, and then they start filing
    lawsuits--a right hand doth not know what left hand does. In
    this case, you're obviously concerned, as you should be, that
    not all has been carried forward.

                               WILDLAND FIRE RISK

        Mark, there are a variety of questions I want to ask both
    you and Ms. Lago, but let me take you to the Brookings study
    and the overview there.
        Talk to us about some of the key findings. I have tried to
    understand the idea of firefighting, as now envisioned by the
    Forest Service, where I see literally large communities and
    tens of thousands and millions of dollars established and spent
    in the course of a fire.
        But you used one word that worried me a great deal, because
    of the transformation of our public lands, and especially the
    fee lands within them, where large mega-homes are being built.
        I know that we have reason to be proud of the fact that
    we've lost fewer homes, and I'm glad you believe, and have
    justification to believe, that that's a result of thinning and
    cleaning. It certainly is in some areas of my State.
        But you used the word ``risk''. Am I to assume--and this is
    just an assumption--that where there are no big homes, there
    will be therefore less risk to human structures, therefore,
    less focus on fighting fire?
        We've got habitat out there, we've got watershed to worry
    about. We've seen the idea of simply letting it burn go,
    because now we have a cost factor involved.
        We know that in some of these heavily fuel-laden
    environments, the fires are mega-fires, in the sense of
    temperature and damage to the subsoil and subsoil surfaces or
    conditions, and therefore, the ability of the forest to
    regenerate itself is lessened.
        What does your use of the word ``risk'' mean--you used it
    in your testimony--as it relates to the selectivity or the
    decisionmaking as to where to fight and where to engage a fire?
        Mr. Rey. What we're talking about here is doing an analysis
    of the resources that are there against the proposition of
    whether the fire is going to pose a direct risk to those
    resources or a lower risk, or, alternatively, maybe even a
    beneficial effect.
        There are obvious cases where there is property involved
    where the risk is high. The less obvious cases are where
    there's no property involved. But that doesn't necessarily
    mean, even when there's no property involved, that we're
    viewing the fire as one that would be a low priority to
    suppress.
        It would depend on what the ecological values are, and what
    our level of certainty is that we can extinguish the fire if it
    burns beyond the parameters that we want.
        So we are doing fire management plans on all of our units
    to evaluate where there are areas where the risk to the loss of
    some value, whether it's an ecological value or an economic
    value, in the form of property or structures, is sufficiently
    low that we wouldn't----
        Senator Craig. So I was right in my assumption?
        Mr. Rey. You better repeat the assumption, so I can be
    sure.
        Senator Craig. All right. Structure versus non-structure
    decisionmaking.
        Mr. Rey. No, no. Where there are structures, the choice is
    fairly obvious. But where there are no structures, there are
    still instances where we're going to move to immediate
    suppression.
        The most common of those instances would be where the fuel
    loads are too high for the fire to burn safely, and the risk of
    a larger spread is too great, or where there are ecological
    values involved that we know a fire would diminish.
        Conversely, where there are no structures, there are areas
    where the risk of spreading beyond where we'd like to see the
    fire burn is fairly low, and where the resource values are also
    low, and the fire might have a beneficial effect.
        Senator Craig. Okay. Well, I've observed fire all of my
    life. I've observed a time when the slightest smoke put
    smokejumpers in, and the fire was put out. Now, I've watched
    knowledgeable people debate for days whether to engage, while
    the fire roars across the landscape.
        I hope whatever system you put in place allows rapid
    decision-making, instead of will it or won't it or should it or
    could it get into a certain watershed, and if it does, then we
    put it out. Oftentimes, the damage, as you know from your own
    experience, is excessive.
        I won't carry that forward. Let me ask this question of
    you, Mark. We've talked about what went on last year. We saw
    the worst fire season ever in total acreage burn. The chairman
    speaks of drought. Our runoff this year in Idaho is
    substantially less than we thought it would be.
        We hope this year's fire season, as bad as it may be, won't
    be as bad as last year. Your agency could be $750 million short
    of what it needs to fight fires and be forced to borrow massive
    amounts of money from other programs if we have a similar fire
    scenario.
        When GAO looked at firefighting borrowing problems
    recently, it concluded that the borrowing of funds caused
    numerous project delays and cancellations, strained
    relationships with State and local agency partners, and
    disrupted program management efforts.
        In some cases, these cancellations and delays increased
    costs and the time needed to complete the project.
        Can you then, from your own perspective now, and with the
    resources you have, give us some sense of how severe you expect
    this fire season to be, based on what you know now? That's one
    question.
        The supplemental appropriation bill that we have been
    considering has $400 million for Forest Service, for
    firefighting. I understand that some folks at the OMB think
    this funding is unnecessary.
        Is it your sense that these funds are needed by the agency
    to pay for firefighting and to avoid the massive borrowing that
    has occurred in recent years? So, I'd like to know about the
    issue of borrowing and the issue of fire perspective for this
    season.
        Mr. Rey. The answer to the first question is we predict
    this season will be less severe than last year, but still above
    the 10-year average, given the long-term drought indications.
    That's answer one.

                         BORROWING FUNDS TO FIGHT FIRES

        Question two is we believe that it's too early to be
    putting additional money in the account. The fire season is
    developing somewhat more slowly than last year, and if need be,
    we can adjust the 2008 bill and make that work for us.
        Third, the impact of borrowing is basically as GAO has
    stated it. It's not the most perfect way to fund firefighting,
    but it is the way we have. We did propose a governmentwide
    contingency account with our 2003 budget proposal, and that's
    something we'd be willing to pursue with you again.

                               WILDLAND FIRE RISK

        I did, however, so garble the answer to the previous
    question, I'd like to add to it, if I might, Madam Chairman,
    because I think I left you all feeling very uneasy about when
    we do and when we don't decide to suppress fires.
        Senator Feinstein. Please do.
        Mr. Rey. We don't spend time debating whether to suppress a
    fire after it's ignited. The fire management plans make those
    decisions ahead of time.
        Included in those decisions are not only physical
    limitations on where and where not, but other variables as
    well. Just looking at fuel loads and topography in an area, we
    might not move to immediate suppression, but if we're in high
    winds or extended drought, we will.
        So there are triggers within those plans that require
    immediate action in certain circumstances when, if those
    circumstances were not present, we would otherwise think that's
    a fire that might have a salutary effect if it burned.
        Last summer, we heard from a lot of places about the fact
    that we were letting more fires burn, and that it was somehow
    an indictment of this overall risk-based approach to
    firefighting.
        In a normal bad year, we'll have one or two broad-scale dry
    lightning events. Those are events where we get as many as two
    or three thousand ignitions in one 24 or 48-hour period.
        When that happens, we typically try to get all of those
    ignitions, but when you've got that many at once, you don't get
    them all.
        So you leave the ones that are the most remote to get to
    last, and you run the risk that one or more than one of those
    is going to grow into a larger fire. But it makes sense to go
    to the most close-in ones that are nearer property first.
        Last year, we had seven of those large dry lightning
    incidents, so there was a greater number of escapements because
    there was a greater number of large multi-ignition dry
    lightning events.
        Consequently, we heard, and I'm sure you all heard, that
    the Forest Service is letting some of these burn. Well, we
    weren't letting them burn. We were responding to them as
    quickly as possible, given the multiplicity of the ignitions
    that were occurring over a very short and compressed period of
    time.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Rey.
        Senator Craig. I'll come back for second round. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Very helpful. Senator Stevens?

                   LAW ENFORCEMENT AND MARIJUANA ERADICATION

        Senator Stevens. Well, I want to ask you a question, but I
    hope you won't take 5 minutes answering it, because I want to
    get to Alaska in my questions. But I am disturbed you're going
    to hire agents. We have other subcommittees where we deal with
    the problems of illegal growers.
        I don't know why Agriculture needs agents to deal with
    those illegals in the forest areas. It'll take a year to train
    them. Why don't you go out for a task force from DEA and the
    National Guard and Immigration, and go in and take them down?
        If you did one or two, took them down really seriously, you
    wouldn't have any more. But if you wait a year to train agents,
    it'll just get worse. This calls for action, in my opinion.
    Maybe I'm watching too many episodes of 24, but it's time
    someone did something about that.
        We had a little touch of that up North, you know, and our
    people did form a task force, and did go in and took them down.
    I haven't heard any more about it. So I do think you ought to
    really face this--face up to it now, and not just hire agents
    and make plans of how Agriculture's going to do it.
        This isn't your business. You don't know how to handle
    these guys at all. You're used to just normal trespassers in
    the national forest. Give it to people who are trained to do it
    now, and get it done.
        Otherwise, I would oppose that money. I think you should
    use the money we've got on other bills, and go get them now,
    not train more agents. Now, let me----
        Senator Feinstein. Can Mr. Rey respond?
        Senator Stevens. If you want to comment on that, we'll give
    you 5 seconds. Yes.
        Senator Feinstein. I'll give you more time if we let him
    respond.
        Senator Stevens. Yes.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Mr. Rey. All of the major takedowns are task force
    takedowns involving ourselves, local law enforcement, and DEA,
    or whatever----
        Senator Stevens. Why are you involved in it at all? DEA
    does it. That's their job. We have UAVs, we have the National
    Guard, we have immigration people already trained. You don't
    need to train people to do that, Mark.
        Mr. Rey. The knowledge of the land and that sort of stuff
    is----
        Senator Stevens. Ah, that's baloney.
        Mr. Rey [continuing]. Somewhat important.
        Senator Stevens. Baloney. You just don't want other people
    on your force. Now cut that out and get them in there and take
    them down. They can be down in 2 or 3 months, and you know it.
    But you should not take this on in Agriculture.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, don't be intimidated by him. Say
    what you think.
        Mr. Rey. If the Congress wants to fund another agency to do
    this, we're----
        Senator Stevens. Don't need to fund them. They've already
    got the money. They got more money than they need right now.
        Senator Feinstein. It's not getting done.
        Senator Stevens. It's not being done. You didn't ask him.
    You didn't tell them, ``It's your job. Come take them down
    now.'' You should do that. You ought to go to the
    administration to demand it.

                     TONGASS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT

        Let me go to Alaska, if I can. I was wrong. My staff tells
    me I was wrong. We didn't get 140 million board feet last year.
    We got 50 million board feet out of a forest that used to cut
    1.5 billion. At Chugach, they don't cut any timber now, as I
    understand it. The timber cutting is supposed to be, under the
    Tongass Timber Reform Act, cut out of the Tongass.
        We've had one law office that's kept you all busy now for
    10 years. Are we going to get the Tongass LMP amendment process
    completed this year?
        Mr. Rey. Yes.
        Senator Stevens. Would it allow some cutting of timber next
    year?
        Mr. Rey. It will call for cutting of timber next year. That
    will have to be defended in court, as will the individual----
        Senator Stevens. Will you support an amendment to say ``No
    more challenging this plan in court''? It's been planned. You
    spent $40 million now to defend this plan over 10 years. The
    same lawyers are going to take you to court again.
        Meanwhile, we've got 32 different communities. Is it 32?
    Yeah, 32 different communities in southeastern Alaska dependent
    upon timber harvest. They can't do it. They're just--all the
    timber companies are going to collapse and fail if this goes to
    court again.
        Isn't it time now to say no more appeal of this?
        Mr. Rey. We've been working on the Tongass plan since 1979.
    There are Forest Service employees who started their career and
    have retired before we completed the Tongass Land Management
    Plan.
        I will commit to you that we will produce a Tongass Land
    Management Plan this fall, which will be the best plan that the
    Forest Service can produce.
        Senator Stevens. Well, meanwhile, the second generation of
    lawyers is in that law firm, and they're rich, and all the
    timber people are going bankrupt. Now, we've got to stop that
    litigation over this plan somehow.
        Mr. Rey. I agree.
        Senator Stevens. Good. Thank you. I'm going to offer such
    an amendment. There ought not to be another challenge to this
    plan. We had a plan agreed to. Those people represented by
    these lawyers were involved in settling the Tongass Timber
    Reform Act.
        From the day it was signed, they challenged it, although
    they helped get it passed. It's now been challenged, what are
    you talking about, 27 years, 28 years?
        Mr. Rey. 28 years.
        Senator Craig. Ted, I was a freshman congressman. I was 35
    years of age. I'm near retirement age now. The issue is still
    the same.
        Senator Stevens. Don't use the word retirement. I don't
    believe in that.
        Thank you very much.

                                 FOREST LEGACY

        Senator Feinstein. You're very welcome. Senator Gregg?
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Rey, Ms.
    Lago. There are a number of things I want to talk about, but I
    do want to express my concerns about the funding for Forest
    Legacy in the administration's proposal. Forest Legacy has been
    an extremely successful program, especially in the East.
        In the East, we are still interested in purchasing land and
    protecting land in significant proportions, and especially in a
    place like New Hampshire, which is in the path of the
    megalopolis.
        In the West, or some of the States, I can understand,
    you're overwhelmed with the Federal ownership percentage of the
    State. They feel they've got enough ownership, and probably
    would like to sell some.
        But in the East, we still feel very strongly that we need
    the funds to help us, especially Forest Legacy, leverage
    purchases and easements that make a huge difference in our
    ability to protect land which is critical and in the path of
    the megalopolis.
        Forest Legacy's a big part of that. Unfortunately, the
    Forest Legacy funds have dropped 71 percent in the proposal;
    and not just this year, over the last 4 or 5 years, 3 or 4
    years, even though the administration initially supported
    Forest Legacy with some robustness.
        So I regret this, and this year's request is really
    piddling, and----
        Senator Feinstein. Senator?
        Senator Gregg. Yes?
        Senator Feinstein. If I could, I'm just looking at the
    numbers. 2008 was 29,311. Enacted----
        Senator Gregg. I'm talking about the budget request.
        Senator Feinstein. Twenty-seven--we're going to put some
    money back----
        Senator Gregg. Great.
        Senator Feinstein [continuing]. In the Forest Legacy----
        Senator Gregg. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein [continuing]. So we'll be happy to work
    with you.

                     WHITE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST FUNDING

        Senator Gregg. I appreciate that. On a specific issue, I
    wanted to ask you about the White Mountains. I believe the
    White Mountain Forest is the most visited national forest in
    the country. Is that correct?
        Mr. Rey. It's heavily visited, but it's not number one.
        Senator Gregg. Well, it's certainly got to be the most
    visited east of the Mississippi. I would presume it was the
    most visited--it was right up in the top two or three.
        Mr. Rey. It's probably in the top half dozen, I'd guess.
        Senator Gregg. We get hundreds of thousands of people using
    it because, of course, it's right there. I mean, it's 4 hours
    from New York, 1.5 hours from Boston, and it's a great and
    beautiful spot.
        Yet, I notice in the budget that the budget for the forest
    is being reduced by 10 percent, which will reduce the forestry
    programs there by 25 percent, reduce the recreational proposals
    by 15 percent, reduce the seasonal employees by 75 percent.
        It will eliminate the leverage programs we have relative to
    trail protection, and the permanent timber personnel are being
    reassigned to other resource areas. That, I presume, is a
    function of the need to spend money somewhere else.
        I guess my question is if you've got one of the more
    visited forests, no, the most visited forest east of the
    Mississippi, is it appropriate to target that as a place where
    you're reorienting your resources?
        Mr. Rey. I think I'd have to work with you to go over those
    numbers. I don't have forest by forest breakdowns with me
    today. I'm quite confident we wouldn't do anything to reduce
    the partnership dollars that we have coming in, because that's
    how we've boosted the support for some of our recreation
    programs.
        Senator Gregg. Well, actually, you are. They're going to be
    terminated, under the information I have, which I presume is
    accurate, because it's from the people who do the trail
    programs.
        Of course, a 75 percent reduction in temporary employees on
    the White Mountains is a seasonal event. It's used aggressively
    in the winter, but it's for skiing, and those are all private.
        But in the summer, of course, that's when most of the
    seasonal employees are hired. A 75 percent reduction is going
    to lead to problems. I mean, we've got some problems in that
    forest from people using it inappropriately anyway. We've had
    some serious issues with motorcycle gangs, for example.
        But generally, the experience of going to the White
    Mountains is a really good experience, and people pay for it.
    As you know, they pay a parking fee if they're going to hike
    there. I'm interested, what percentage of that parking fee
    stays with the White Mountains, and what percentage goes to a
    central office?
        Mr. Rey. Eighty-five percent stays with the White Mountain,
    under the legislation that Congress enacted in 2003.
        Senator Gregg. So 15 percent comes down here?
        Mr. Rey. Fifteen percent goes into the administration of
    the program, wherever that is required, but 85 percent stays on
    the ground.
        Senator Gregg. So if we were just to give them a 100
    percent--I'm not sure the numbers work out correctly--maybe the
    10 percent cut wouldn't impact them so much?
        Mr. Rey. It'd be a possibility.
        Senator Gregg. It's a $1 million reduction. In the context
    of this budget, obviously, not even an asterisk, even less than
    an asterisk, but it does have an impact.
        So I just wanted to raise the visibility of it to you. I
    recognize that there's tremendous pressure out West to fight
    fires, and that that's absorbing huge amounts of money. I
    recognize that we're our own worst enemies in the area of
    timber cutting, which was used to maintain the forests. We're
    basically at dramatically reduced revenues, as a result of what
    people represent--in many instances inaccurately--as
    environmental concerns.
        Some are correct, but 80 percent reduction in timber
    harvesting is not appropriate. In the context of those resource
    pressures, it does seem to me that when you've got a place like
    the White Mountains, which has a unique role in the forest
    system because it is really more of a visited forest and a
    recreational forest and a multi-use forest than most of your
    properties, certainly most of them east of the Mississippi,
    that we shouldn't be putting it on a path to failure.
        Mr. Rey. What I'd like to do is collect the data from the
    White Mountain and see if we can sit down and visit in greater
    detail.
        [The information follows:]

        Clerk's Note.--Under Secretary Rey offered to discuss funding for
    the White Mountain with Senator Gregg. Forest Service staff will
    schedule a meeting once the information has been collected.

        Senator Gregg. I appreciate your courtesy. Thank you.
        Mr. Rey. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator Gregg. Before turning
    to Senator Craig, I want to just make one comment.

                              PREPAREDNESS FUNDING

        The cut in your preparedness budget, 15 percent, is really
    unsustainable. In view of what we think is going to happen this
    fire season, despite what Ms. Lago said, there is no reason to
    believe that you can solve the problem with efficiency.
        I think we've got to add some money back here and find a
    way to do it, and I'd like to work with you in that. I am
    really concerned about this year, that we could have really
    catastrophic fire.
        The Esperanza Fire killed five people. I mean, what can
    happen this year is just dreadful. I think we have to be
    prepared. I can tell you this, that the California Governor,
    Governor Schwarzenegger, is moving with preparedness. We all
    know we expect a bad time, and once we know it, we have an
    obligation to do something about it.
        So I want to work with you on this particular number and
    try to change it. Senator Craig?
        Mr. Rey. We'd be happy to work with you.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Mr. Rey. Two quick clarifications. This budget is 2008. The
    fire season we're in is 2007, so the money that you've already
    appropriated is what we're spending this year.
        Senator Feinstein. I understand. That's a good point.
        Mr. Rey. Then the other is that we do have the authority to
    move dollars from suppression to preparedness, and will do that
    if circumstances necessitate. But I would still be happy to sit
    down and go through the budget lines.
        Senator Feinstein. Okay. Senator Craig?
        Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. A
    couple more questions of both of you, and I think I have one
    also for you, Ms. Lago.

                             GRAZING PERMIT BACKLOG

        There is a real problem with a backlog of expiring grazing
    permits that need to be renewed. Congress put a schedule in
    place for a renewal of these permits in the 1995 Rescissions
    Act. The schedule required NEPA to be completed on all
    allotments by 2010.
        Your budget justification says that accomplishments from
    1995 through 2003 were well below scheduled levels. It also
    indicates that significant amounts of work remain to be done to
    finish the NEPA reviews by the deadline.
        In the 2005 Interior Appropriations bill, the committee
    provided additional funds to address the backlog of allotments,
    also provided categorical exclusions from NEPA for grazing
    allotments that met certain conditions. There was a gap of 900
    allotments on this authority.
        How many allotment decisions have been made using this
    authority so far, Mark? Do you know? That'd be the one question
    of either of you. Is this authority helping to speed up the
    process? Does the authority need to be extended?
        We're fighting fire, but there are an awful lot of folks
    who are dependent upon the relationship they have with you for
    grazing in their livelihoods and in their businesses.
        Mr. Rey. To date, we've used the authority on 250 renewals.
    We have another 250 planned for fiscal year 2007. That would
    get us to 500. The cap was 900 renewals. So yes, it would be
    helpful to extend the authority 1 more year, and then we would
    use that time to try to do the other 400 renewals.
        The CE has been helpful in expediting this work. The CE is
    one of the reasons we think we'll still make the 2010 deadline,
    assuming we can use the CE beyond 2007.

                             CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS

        Senator Craig. Okay. Speaking of CEs, obviously, in October
    2005, a Federal District Court in the Earth Island Institute
    v., I think it's Ruthenbeck, was it----
        Mr. Rey. Ruthenbeck.
        Senator Craig [continuing]. Case held that the Forest
    Service had to provide notice, comment, and appeal on projects
    implemented through the use of the categorical exclusion. Of
    course, you know, Madam Chairman, this dealt with our Healthy
    Forests legislation.
        Last year, the chief testified before the subcommittee that
    this case delayed or cancelled 723 fuel reduction projects
    affecting over 1 million acres. Here we are, talking about
    worse fire scenarios, and we've got interest groups and courts
    shutting us down in some of those areas. What's the status of
    this litigation?
        How many projects are being affected by this ruling now,
    and 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?
        Mr. Rey. At this point, I do not believe that there is a
    judicial remedy in this case. We have asked for an en banc
    review by the 9th Circuit. It's been denied. It's highly
    unlikely that the case will be resolved judicially.
        So even though we believe that the court wrongly
    interpreted the 1990 Appeals Reform Act, in terms of
    obligations that it imposed on the Forest Service, that
    nevertheless is where the litigation will stand.
        The only remedy to put the Forest Service back on the same
    footing as every other agency in how it complies with the
    National Environmental Policy Act would be for a legislative
    clarification of the 1990 Appeals Reform Act.
        Senator Craig. Okay. It would be through the 1990 Appeals
    Reform Act?
        Mr. Rey. That was the legislation that the court based the
    decision that----
        Senator Craig. Okay.
        Mr. Rey [continuing]. Unlike every other agency in the
    Federal Government, the Forest Service is obliged to offer an
    opportunity for notice, comment, and administrative appeal
    anytime it uses a categorical exclusion from the National
    Environmental Policy Act.
        That was a reading of the court interpreting the 1990
    legislation, wrongly in our judgment, but there you have it.
        Senator Craig. Okay. Thank you very much, Mark, Ms. Lago.
    Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Rey. Thank you----
        Senator Craig. I have other questions I'll submit for the
    record.
        Senator Feinstein. All right. Excellent. Thank you, Ms.
    Lago.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        There will be some additional questions which will be
    submitted for your response in the record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Service for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
        Question. The California Department of Conservation Estimates that
    there are 47,000 abandoned mines in the State, including 7,000 on
    National Forest Lands. These sites create physical hazards, contaminate
    watersheds in my State and throughout the West, and create physical
    hazards to members of the public recreating on National Forest System
    lands. Your fiscal year 2008 budget reduced funding for the Minerals
    and Geology activities by 16 percent, from $84 million to $71 million.
    What impact will these budget cuts have on the number of sites targeted
    for cleanup in fiscal year 2008, both in California and nationwide?
        Answer. Cleanup of contaminants and mitigation of physical safety
    hazards are addressed in the ``Manage Environmental Restoration''
    (Restoration), and ``Mitigate Abandoned Mine Land Safety Risk Feature''
    (Safety) activities in the Minerals and Geology Management Budget Line
    Item.
        The Forest Service Budget Justification on page 9-56 displays the
    changes in budget and outputs in fiscal year 2008 as compared to fiscal
    year 2007 for these two activities. A decrease in budget does not
    easily translate into numbers of sites because of the wide variation in
    site cleanup costs, as well as the number of years it takes to complete
    a project. For that reason, the most accurate measure of the change in
    outputs for both California and the Nation would be the percentage
    decrease in budget for these two activities, which is 6 percent and 17
    percent, respectively, for Restoration and Safety.
        Question. How are you prioritizing which mine sites to clean up?
    Have you developed an estimate of how much funding you would need to
    remediate all abandoned mine sites on National Forest System lands?
        Answer. Hazardous and non-hazardous cleanup projects are submitted
    by each Forest Service regional office along with narratives describing
    the costs and benefits of each. Projects submitted are prioritized at
    the national level using criteria that includes; human health and
    safety, environment protection, public/private partnerships, and public
    interest.
        The Forest Service does not have a current estimate for remediation
    of all abandoned mine sites on National Forest System lands. However,
    it is important to note that previously unknown abandoned mines sites
    are continually being discovered, and that only a small percentage of
    known sites have clean-up designs and associated costs established.
        Question. I have been extremely concerned about the Forest
    Service's slow pace in using the Healthy Forest Restoration Act
    authorities provided by Congress to increase the efficiency of your
    hazardous fuels reduction program. I have also raised concerns that you
    are not using these authorities in California. How many acres in
    California will the agency treat using HFRA authorities in fiscal year
    2007 and fiscal year 2008? What percentage of total fuels treatments
    will be accomplished using HFRA in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year
    2008? What steps is the agency taking to ensure that these authorities
    are actually being used?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2008, not less than 40 percent of program
    funding will be used on projects that contribute to the goal of
    improving the condition class on at least 250,000 acres across the
    Nation by the end of fiscal year 2008 through the use of Healthy Forest
    Restoration Act and Healthy Forests Initiative authorities. The Forest
    Service is committed to using all available authorities to reduce the
    risk to communities and resources from wildland fire. Healthy Forest
    Restoration Act authorities are an important set of tools available to
    land managers.
        In fiscal year 2007 the Forest Service and Department of Interior
    anticipate treating hazardous fuels on over 4 million acres with
    Federal funding using all available authorities. The Forest Service is
    expanding use of HFI and HFRA authorities throughout the country with
    an 88 percent increase in acres treated under the authorities from
    fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006. To date, the Forest Service has
    treated over 115,000 acres in fiscal year 2007, more than 6,000 of
    which are in California. The Pacific Southwest Region has placed
    increased emphasis on HFRA projects, and continues to work with
    communities to develop the Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP)
    necessary to proceed with HFRA authorities. As more communities
    implement CWPPs, the Forest Service can expand use of HFRA authorities
    in California and throughout the country.
        In 2006, the Forest Service conducted a review of Healthy Forests
    and associated authorities including Stewardship Contracting. The
    review team found widespread agreement among both Forest Service and
    partners that while useful in many scenarios, HFI and HFRA authorities
    were not appropriate or feasible in many situations. The agency is
    proceeding with implementation of many of the recommendations made by
    the review team. A copy of the review report will be made available to
    Congress following Departmental approval.
        Question. Your budget calls for decisions on whether to mobilize a
    number of preparedness resources, including helicopters, hotshot crews
    and smokejumpers, to be made at the national rather than the regional
    level starting in fiscal year 2007?
        Who will be in charge of deciding to deploy these resources?
        Answer. An interagency delegation of authority is being finalized
    for members of the National Multi-Agency Coordinating Group (NMAC) to
    implement the national mobilization and prioritization of these
    resources. NMAC members include representatives from the four DOI
    bureaus, the Forest Service, and the National Association of State
    Foresters.
        These resources may be deployed locally by the host unit if no
    higher geographic area or national priority is pending. Deployment at
    the geographic area level will be determined by the geographic area
    multi-agency coordinating groups.
        Question. What is the proposed timeline for nationalizing these
    resources?
        Answer. Hotshot crews, smokejumpers, Type 1 helicopters, and a
    portion of the Agency's Type 2 helicopter fleet are currently managed
    as national resources. For 2007, our remaining Type 2 helicopters will
    be converted from local to national resources for the impending fire
    season. Additional analysis will be required before converting our
    local Type 3 helicopters to national resources, this analysis will
    occur prior to the 2008 western fire season.
        Question. How will you balance local concerns against national
    needs?
        Answer. Consistent with our policy of allocating resources on the
    basis of risk mitigation, control of these resources will transfer to
    higher levels as the national preparedness level escalates. Priorities
    for resource deployment will be based on anticipated initial attack
    requirements, Predictive Services analysis, and decision support tools.
        Question. The agency will spend $301 million on fuels treatments in
    fiscal year 2007--a significant investment in the face of other budget
    constraints. How does the Forest Service measure the amount of fire
    risk generated through these fuels treatments?
        Answer. We do not have a system designed to track fire risk
    generated, as our programs are aimed at mitigation of fire risk through
    the reduction of hazardous fuels. Often our restoration and fuel
    reduction objectives require multiple entries to achieve. There have
    been cases in which the first treatment puts fuel on the ground that
    temporarily increases fire risk. That risk is short lived and balanced
    by the long term benefit of the fuel reduction treatments. To enter a
    treatment in our accomplishment reporting system, it must meet the
    definition of hazardous fuel reduction. In 2006, the Forest Service
    reduced fire risk on approximately 2.5 million acres from management
    actions with a direct or indirect benefit of fuels reduction.
        Question. How much funding is proposed in your fiscal year 2008
    budget for fuels reduction related to the bark beetle infestation in
    the San Bernardino National Forest? How much funding is proposed to
    address infestation and fire risk on adjacent State or private lands?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2008 allocation to the San Bernardino will
    depend on the final allocation to Region 5 and reflect consideration of
    regional priorities. We anticipate that expected funding for the San
    Bernardino bark beetle infestation will be at or above historical
    levels.
        Question. I am concerned that California fuels treatments are at a
    disadvantage because the region has higher unit costs due to the
    abundance of wildland-urban interface and other factors. Has the Forest
    Service examined what factors contribute to higher unit costs in the
    State? Has the agency taken steps to try to reduce the unit costs for
    California fuels treatments?
        Answer. High unit costs within the region are a significant concern
    for the administration. The region has conducted several region wide
    assessments of unit costs and visited a forest to conduct a specific
    unit cost review and develop a strategy for reducing unit costs. A
    significant part of the cost of activities in the region is the general
    cost of doing business in California. A typical vegetation mastication
    contract is over $500/acre. Typically the California program is greater
    than 60 percent mechanical treatments. Some of the treatments on the
    San Bernardino have exceeded $2,500/acre. The only choice is whether or
    not to proceed with implementation of the treatment. We will continue
    to re-examine the program mix, choices of project areas, and
    opportunities for modification of objectives to reduce contract costs.
        Question. It is critical that the Forest Service has incentives in
    place for the agency to fund the highest priority fuels treatments,
    regardless of unit costs. What role do unit-cost measures play when you
    are allocating fuels dollars? How does the agency balance cost-
    effectiveness with other priorities?
        Answer. For fiscal year 2007, the Forest Service developed the
    Ecosystem Management Decision Support model, which will assist with
    establishing national priorities and allocation of funds. This model is
    under continuing development and enhancement for fiscal year 2008 to
    incorporate improved data on wildfire potential and consequences of
    problem fires, particularly the wildland-urban interface. The model
    will be used in fiscal year 2008 for national- to regional-scale
    strategic planning, broad ecological assessments, and resource
    allocation. The model emphasizes areas with the highest potential for
    problem wildfire, consequences, and greatest opportunity for efficient
    and effective treatments while meeting multiple objectives. Based upon
    this analysis, the Forest Service will identify national priorities
    within the fuels program and focus funding on those priorities,
    consider performance in risk reduction through systematic risk analysis
    tools for fire hazard analysis and fuels treatment implementation, and
    assess project criteria for WUI fuels treatments. Average Regional unit
    cost comes into effect in allocation of funding.
        The objective in the allocation is to distribute funding to the
    highest priority projects while optimizing accomplishments. In essence,
    the agency must provide optimal benefits at an efficient and effective
    level of cost as reflected in a risk-informed decision process.
    National program allocations and local project selections would attempt
    to optimize wildfire risk mitigation (i.e., net benefits) over time by
    choosing projects that provide cost-effective risk reduction. Having a
    risk-informed approach provides a path forward for both national and
    local decision-makers that is suitable in a variety of circumstances,
    including where there exist differing State and local government codes
    or where there are numerous fire protection alternatives. It also
    recognizes the ecological benefits associated with wildfires occurring
    within normal ranges of intensity.
        Question. How will you improve incentives for local decision-makers
    to choose higher priority treatments, even when they are more
    expensive?
        Answer. Both national and local decision makers seek cost-effective
    risk reduction. Local decision-makers focus on a balance between high
    priority, high cost work near communities and lower cost restoration
    and maintenance treatments that will restore sustainability in the long
    term. The selection of projects is accomplished in collaboration with
    local communities, partners and stakeholders and includes balancing
    values at risk with costs. Decision makers participate as partners in
    the formulation and execution of community wildfire protection plans
    (CWPPs) that help to prioritize fuel treatment and restoration
    activities. These plans describe the common vision between Federal land
    managers and adjacent communities on how we may work together to meet
    our objectives on both sides of the property line. Those projects
    determined with the use of the CWPP become eligible to use streamlined
    planning protocols made available under the Healthy Forest Restoration
    Act, with fewer action alternatives to analyze, reducing planning
    workloads.
        Question. How much funding does your fiscal year 2008 budget
    contain to support the activities of the California Fire Safe Councils,
    and how does this compare to fiscal year 2007 levels? How much funding
    in your budget will go toward community wildfire protection planning in
    California in fiscal year 2008?
        Answer. A portion of the funding to be allocated to the Pacific
    Southwest Region is available, as the California State Forester deems
    appropriate, to fund California Fire Safe Councils. In fiscal year 2007
    approximately $1.9 million was made available to the California Fire
    Safe Councils. There is no set amount established or programmed for
    community wildfire protection planning in any of the States. Our
    program direction will include community wildfire protection planning
    as a high priority for funding in 2008.
        Question. On March 10, 2007, the Riverside Press-Enterprise ran a
    story regarding increased illegal dumping in the San Bernardino
    National Forest. According to the story, there has been a dramatic
    increase in the amount of illegal dumping in the forest as fees at
    public dumps and recycling centers has increased. The story also notes
    that the problem is no longer limited to dumping household garbage, but
    rather ``trash by the trailer load. Truckloads of old tires. Fifty cans
    of paint at a time. Assortments of junked refrigerators and recliner
    chairs, mattresses and TV sets.'' The San Bernardino National Forest
    may be at risk for dumping more because of its large residential
    population and proximity to urban areas. Have you assessed the
    situation, and do you have an estimate of how much funding will be
    required to clean up the forest? How much funding with the Forest
    Service devote to these clean-up efforts in fiscal year 2007?
        Answer. The San Bernardino National Forest has not assessed the
    forest dumping situation. In fiscal year 2007, approximately $250,000
    will be spent on the San Bernardino to address unauthorized and illegal
    dumping in key areas located in the urban interface and watersheds.
    Increased funding levels requested in the President's fiscal year 2008
    budget justification for law enforcement will be used to prevent
    further and future dumping from occurring. Additional officers should
    help deter and eliminate future dumping. In addition, collaboration
    with local partners and volunteers will assist the Forest in cleanup
    efforts.
        Question. Are there other forests, especially in California, where
    you have seen significant increases in illegal dumping? What measures
    is the Forest Service taking to prevent dumping on national forests in
    California?
        Answer. This is strictly a reactionary/responsive enforcement
    action. In the rare cases that we have a ``pattern'' we have scheduled
    officers to try to catch the individuals in the act. But that is rare.
    Prevention requires a prolonged presence. Our limited presence is most
    often concentrated where people are. Illegal dumping does not usually
    take place in those locations--that's why it's successful. Our best
    prevention tool is patrol ``being in the right place at just the right
    time''. Officers will look through debris to see if we can find any
    evidence of ownership, etc, and every once in a great while we'll find
    some household mail with an address that allows officers to conduct
    follow-up contacts.
        Question. Public Law 109-154, the Public Lands Corps Act,
    authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into contracts and
    cooperative agreements with our Nation's Service and Conservation Corps
    for projects that reduce fire risk. What steps has the Forest Service
    taken to implement this act, and what steps does the agency plan to
    take in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008?
        Answer. The Forest Service has a long-standing and rich history of
    working with State and local Service and Conservation Corps throughout
    the Nation. Public Law 109-154 allows the agency to continue this rich
    tradition and to develop even greater Partnerships.
        The Public Land Corps Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2005
    amends the act governing the youth conservation corps laws to include
    provisions for ``priority projects'' that meet the purposes of HFRA.
    Essentially, it allows the FS and DOI to give preference to certain
    youth and conservation corps to carry out projects that meet the
    purposes of HFRA.
        The FS supports opportunities for qualified youth and conservation
    corps to further the goals of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act when
    the corps have the appropriate skills and capabilities to safely
    complete the projects under the provisions of the Public Land Corps
    Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig
                               fire preparedness
        Question. Your budget proposes to create a new appropriation called
    Wildland Firefighters. These funds were previously funded within the
    Preparedness line item of the overall fire budget. When I add what you
    are proposing for this new appropriation to what remains of the
    traditional preparedness budget it looks to me like a cut of about $95
    million for overall fire preparedness.
        What will be the impact on our fire readiness capability?
        Answer. The agency will have approximately 10,010 firefighters in
    fiscal year 2008 as compared to 9,550 firefighters in fiscal year 2006;
    however other resources will be reduced commensurate with the agency's
    transition to Appropriate Management Answer. The agency will focus and
    prioritize resources, such as engines, to the areas where the highest
    risk exists. The following displays planned resource changes:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal years
                                      --------------------------------------
                 Resource                  2006         2007         2008
                                          actual      planned     estimated
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Firefighters \1\.................        9,550       10,010       10,010
        Type I Interagency Hot Shot             67           67           67
         Crews (20 person)...........
    Other Firefighters:
        Smoke Jumpers................          277          277          190
        Prevention Technicians.......          419          399          277
    Engines..........................          940          950          726
    Water Tenders....................           57           63           48
    Dozers & Tractor Plow Units......          144          152          119
    Type I, II, and III helicopters             80           84           65
     for local mobilization..........
    Type II helicopters for national             7            7            5
     mobilization....................
        Airtankers...................           18           16           14
        Type 1 helitankers/                     15           15            8
         helicopters.................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Includes IHC crews.

        Question. Won't this lower the agency's initial attack success rate
    and lead to more catastrophic fires?
        Answer. The agency anticipates a 2-5 percent reduction in initial
    attack success and an increase in acres burned in fiscal year 2008,
    which will be consistent with our transition to a risk informed
    performance based fire suppression system.
        This strategy will minimize cost and recognize contributions of
    lower intensity wildfires to healthy forests. Initial attack capability
    will remain a priority for the agency and as fire activity and risks
    elevate, existing resources may be supplemented to enhance capability.
        Question. How does it make sense to cut money for firefighter
    training and equipment following the worst fire season we have ever had
    in terms of acres burned?
        Answer. The Wildland Firefighter Appropriation provides adequate
    funding to ensure continued firefighter training. In fiscal year 2006
    approximately $30 million was spent on wildland fire training, we
    anticipate a similar amount in fiscal year 2008. While some large
    firefighting equipment, such as engines, will be reduced, adequate
    funding will be provided to ensure field and safety equipment is
    available for firefighters. Compared to earlier years, the 9.9 million
    acres burned in 2006 was indeed a large amount but still significantly
    lower than the numbers of acres burned earlier in the 20th Century,
    including an average of 35 million acres per year in the 1920s and 38
    million acres per year in the 1930s.
                            forest planning process
        Question. Under the old forest planning rules, the time and expense
    to complete Forest Plans became incredibly expensive. Plans designed to
    last for 15 years were taking 6-8 years to complete and many millions
    of dollars. This Administration streamlined that process and I see that
    your budget reflects a reduction of $5 million or roughly 10 percent of
    the total budget for the program.
        Can you tell us what your experience is so far under the new
    planning rules? For example, how much less are individual plans costing
    now than before?
        Answer. The agency has not yet completed an approved plan under the
    2005 Planning Rule. In addition the agency's financial management
    system does not track actual expenditures to the activity level. Thus,
    even if we had an approved plan under the new rule, it would be
    difficult to estimate the costs of producing that plan and to compare
    those costs with those from revisions conducted under the 1982 planning
    rule. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the costs of revising a
    plan under the new rule are lower than those incurred under the 1982
    rule.
        In addition to having the option of using streamlined NEPA
    procedures, forest and grassland supervisors have found the 2005
    planning rule identifies and encourages the use of much more engaging
    procedures to involve the public in land management planning. Rather
    than relying on predominantly a ``notice and comment'' method for
    public involvement, the 2005 planning rule improved the planning
    process by collaboratively involving the public. The public is offered
    more opportunities to help with existing condition and trend
    evaluations, developing guidance for land management plans, and
    developing monitoring programs for the plan. While a ``notice and
    comment'' opportunity still exists with the required 90-day comment
    period and 30-day objection period, the public has many opportunities
    to be involved in the planning process prior to these comment/objection
    periods.
        Question. Quite a number of Forest Plans have gone beyond their 15
    year revision date. Are the new rules helping address this backlog?
        Answer. Although the 2005 planning rule is expected to reduce the
    time and cost associated with revising a forest plan, the rule has not
    been in place long enough to affect the backlog of Land and Resource
    Management Plan revisions. Implementing the new rule has taken longer
    than expected because of the need for many units to engage in lengthier
    transition tasks while changing over to the new rule.
        In addition, the new rule has been litigated. The United States
    District Court for the Northern District of California has enjoined the
    2005 planning rule. This will delay some plan revision approvals. The
    Forest Service has started the rulemaking process to approve a new
    planning rule.
                               recreation budget
        Question. I see that your budget for the recreation program is
    decreased by over $27 million--that's a 10 percent cut. In many of our
    Western States, recreation is helping to reduce some of the impacts
    from reduced harvesting on our national forests by providing another
    means to attract investment and dollars into rural communities. This
    seems like a large cut for this program.
        What impacts will there be on effectively managing recreation
    facilities, administering special use permits for various private
    operators, and providing interpretive services for visitors?
        Answer. The proposed reduction in funds will result in a number of
    program reductions, including shortened seasons at some developed and
    dispersed recreation sites; reduced hours for visitor information
    services with minimal staffing; processing new special use permit
    applications would be limited; restoration and adaptive reuse of
    heritage properties for interpretation, recreation, and tourism will
    occur at very low levels; and a limited number of wilderness rangers
    will be available to provide visitor information and education.
    However, recreation resources will continue to be directed towards
    efforts that maximize program delivery, including strengthening
    partnerships which are vital to accomplishing stewardship work on the
    ground. Additionally, the Recreation Site Facility Master Planning
    process is working to analyze our existing recreation site inventories
    to identify sites that are most used and most valued by the public,
    allowing the agency to determine where to prioritize recreation site
    investments in response to public needs.
                                grazing permits
        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. The
    schedule requires NEPA to be completed on all allotments by 2010. Your
    budget justification says that accomplishments from 1995 through 2003
    were well below scheduled levels. It also indicates that significant
    amounts of work remain to finish the NEPA reviews by the deadline.
        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 Rescissions Act schedule identifies 6,886 allotments
    that need NEPA based analysis and decisions by the end of CY 2010. At
    the end of fiscal year 2006, 4,616 allotments had NEPA completed and
    management decisions made. To date, approximately 250 allotment
    decisions have been completed using the Categorical Exclusion (CE)
    authority provided in the fiscal year 2005 Interior and Related
    Agencies Appropriations Act. Another 250 CEs are planned for fiscal
    year 2007.
        Question. Is this authority helping to speed up the process?
        Answer. Yes. The CE authority helped the Forest Service complete
    more allotments on the Rescissions Act schedule then without it. On
    those allotments that meet the established criteria, the Forest Service
    was able to reduce the time and effort necessary to complete the NEPA
    process. In addition, the CE authority has allowed the Forest Service
    to focus funding and staffing on those allotments with more complex
    management issues.
        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. The 900 allotment cap appears to be sufficient for the
    number of allotments that meet the established criteria. However, an
    extension of the authority to September 30, 2008, would be very useful
    so that the remaining 400 CEs would continue to be available should
    they be needed.
        Question. Will you be able to complete the NEPA on these allotments
    consistent with the Rescissions Act schedule?
        Answer. The Forest Service continues to place a strong emphasis on
    allotment NEPA in order to complete the Rescissions Act schedule. It is
    our intention to complete the NEPA by the scheduled time frame.
    However, from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2010 the agency will
    need to further accelerate the process to complete NEPA on an average
    of over 500 allotments per year in order to meet the Rescissions Act
    schedule.
                                 timber budget
        Question. For 2007, the timber budget was increased by roughly $33
    million. The increase was to fully fund the implementation of the
    timber sales piece of the Northwest Forest Plan. Your fiscal year 2008
    budget retains this level of funding for the Plan.
        I can acknowledge that promises were not kept to the timber
    industry in the Northwest Forest Plan, but I wonder whether such a
    large increase primarily aimed at 2 regions of the Forest Service
    covering Washington and Oregon is the most efficient use of timber
    dollars.
        Aren't there still major litigation problems with timber sales in
    Oregon and Washington?
        Answer. The agency does not expect that litigation will
    significantly affect the timber sale program under the Northwest Forest
    Plan, and the volume needed to meet the Settlement Agreement. In fact,
    there is a good deal of support for thinning in late successional
    reserves, where much of the treatments need to be conducted.
        Question. Could these funds be allocated in a fashion where more
    Regions could benefit and would have a better chance to maximize actual
    harvest volumes?
        Answer. The administration has made a commitment to fully fund the
    Northwest Forest Plan, and the proposed Forest Products allocations to
    Regions 5 and 6 are necessary to achieve that commitment. The unit
    costs to produce timber volume under the Northwest Forest Plan are some
    of the lowest in the agency, so shifting funds to other Regions would
    likely reduce our capability to produce timber.
                             categorical exclusion
        Question. In October of 2005, 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 CE's applies to no other agency in the Federal Government.
        Last year, the Chief testified before this subcommittee that this
    case delayed or canceled 723 fuels reduction projects affecting over 1
    million acres. What is the status of this litigation?
        Answer. Injunctions issued in Earth Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck
    (E.D. Cal.) and Wilderness Society v. Rey (D. Mont.) remain in effect,
    as do the Chief's instruction letters issued after each ruling.
      --Categorically excluded activities listed by the court (timber sales
            and 10 other types of activities) are subject to notice,
            comment and appeal; and
      --Eligibility to appeal is to be determined under the 1993 version of
            36 C.F.R. 215.11(a)--not 36 C.F.R. 215.13(a)(2005).
        A brief status report on the three nationwide challenges to the
    project appeal regulations follows:
    Earth Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck
        The District Court's injunctive order remains in effect. The Ninth
    Circuit declared eight claims were not ripe for judicial review, but
    affirmed the District Court's application of the Appeal Reform Act to
    certain categorical exclusions (CE). The agency petitioned for a
    rehearing with a suggestion for rehearing en banc seeking reversal of
    the adverse portion of the ruling. The petition was denied by the Ninth
    Circuit June 8, 2007.
    Wilderness Society v. Rey
        The District Court's injunctive order remains in effect. An appeal
    was filed, but briefing in this case was stayed pending action by the
    Ninth Circuit on the Forest Service's petition for rehearing in Earth
    Island v. Ruthenbeck. It is expected that briefing will now move
    forward.
    Wildlaw v. USDA
        No injunction was issued. All Appeal Reform Act issues were
    dismissed as unripe facial challenges. The Forest Service was affirmed
    on NEPA claims. The deadline for filing notice of appeal was March 27,
    2007.
        Question. How many projects are being affected by this ruling now?
        Answer. We do not have a current survey of projects being affected.
        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. The courts' rulings relate to the Appeal Reform Act and the
    types of activities subject to administrative appeal under the act. The
    agency clarified through its 2005 appeal regulations that CEs are not
    subject to appeal under the Act and thus do not require notice, comment
    and opportunity for appeal. However, the courts have rejected that
    interpretation. The courts' rulings require notice, comment and
    opportunity for appeal of several types of categorically excluded
    activities. This undermines the purpose of CEs established through the
    National Environmental Policy Act implementing regulations--to reduce
    documentation requirements for project analysis and decision-making for
    projects that typically have no significant effects.
        There is no further administrative action the agency can take to
    address the effects of these court rulings.
                      wildland fire outlook for this year
        Question. A number of fires have been in the news already this
    year, particularly in the chairman's home State. Drought is persisting
    in much of Interior West. I know that it is very early for predictions
    but it concerns me that if this year's fire season is as bad as last
    year's your agency could be $750 million short of what it needs to
    fight fires and will be forced to borrow massive amounts of money from
    other programs.
        When GAO looked at this fire borrowing problem recently, it
    concluded that ``the borrowing of funds caused numerous project delays
    and cancellations, strained relationships with State and local agency
    partners and disrupted program management efforts. In some cases, these
    cancellations and delays increased costs and the time needed to
    complete the projects.''
        Can you give us some sense of how severe you expect this fire
    season to be based on what you know now?
        Answer. Most of the eastern, central, and northwestern United
    States has a normal outlook for wildland fire potential. A portion of
    the Southwest is predicted to have a below-normal wildland fire season.
    This area includes northeastern New Mexico, and small parts of
    southeastern Colorado, western Oklahoma, and northern Texas, where it
    borders New Mexico. Wildland fire potential is expected to be higher
    than normal across much of the Southwest, California, portions of the
    Great Basin, the Northern Rockies, a small portion of the Northwest,
    Alaska, and the Southeast. The amount of precipitation many areas
    receive in the early summer will determine the severity of the fire
    season.
        Predictive Services' May through August outlook is available at:
    http://www.nifc.gov/nicc/predictive/outlooks/season_outlook.pdf
        Question. The supplemental appropriations bill that we are
    considering on the floor this week has $400 million for the Forest
    Service for firefighting. Is it your sense that these funds may very
    well be needed by the agency to pay for firefighting and avoid the
    massive borrowing that has occurred in recent years?
        Answer. Current funding is sufficient for foreseeable suppression
    needs.
                               personnel cutbacks
        Question. As I mentioned in my opening statement, if we accept this
    budget as proposed, there will be a cut of over 2,000 Forest Service
    employees. That's over 6 percent of the work force. I understand the
    need for belt tightening given the budget climate that we're in, but it
    strikes me as a little odd that at the Department of the Interior,
    other land management agencies like the BLM and the Fish and Wildlife
    Service will face virtually no cutbacks in personnel. The Park Service
    is slated to go up by over 2,000 employees.
        I believe the important role that the Forest Service plays in rural
    areas that rely on grazing, recreation, and timber could be harmed by
    such cutbacks. I'm also concerned about how we address the massive
    forest health problems that we are facing with fewer boots on the
    ground.
        Can you explain this difference in treatment between your budget
    and those of the land management agencies at the Department of the
    Interior?
        Answer. The priorities reflected in the requests for the Department
    of the Interior bureaus and the Forest Service with regard to proposed
    staffing levels for fiscal year 2008 are based on the President's
    Budget request.
        Question. How will these cutbacks affect the agency's mission?
        Answer. We know that our personnel costs are increasing. We are
    taking action to respond to this. We are focusing on reducing operating
    costs at the WO/RO/Northeastern Area, which may result in a reduction
    of personnel at these levels of the organization. Taking this action
    will enable us to invest more resources toward mission delivery through
    enhanced services to the public by agency field units.
        Question. Are there really that many efficiencies that can be
    achieved at the Forest Service that would warrant such a reduction of
    employees?
        Answer. In our best judgment, the answer is yes. It is critical to
    the Forest Service to reduce costs at the WO/RO/Northeastern Area so to
    provide opportunities to enhance program delivery and services on the
    ground to benefit the public.
                             wilderness management
        Question. I have a question regarding the agency's position on
    recommended wilderness management. It seems that different Regions
    treat recommended wilderness differently and as you know I have two
    forest service Regions in my State.
        NFS: Does the agency believe it is their job to designate
    wilderness?
        Answer. No, the agency studies areas to determine whether they have
    wilderness characteristics and then determines their eligibility and
    decides whether to recommend their designation to Congress. These
    analyses occur during the forest planning process and the forest plans
    may then contain a recommendation for wilderness designation. However,
    only Congress has the power to designate wilderness areas.
        Question. If not, would the agency attempt to restrict historical
    mechanized access to recommended wilderness areas even though it is
    congress' job to designate wilderness?
        Answer. Once an area has been recommended to Congress for
    wilderness designation, the agency has the responsibility to maintain
    its wilderness character until Congress has had the opportunity to
    decide whether to designate it. Maintaining its wilderness character
    while an area is being considered by Congress may, in some cases, mean
    limiting the types of use an area receives, including mechanized use.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
        Question. I believe that Forest Service staff on-the-ground in
    Colorado are working hard, and we appreciate the funding that was
    shuffled last month, but the final fiscal year 2007 timber and fuels
    program funding is still less than the national forests in Colorado
    need to address the bark beetle epidemics.
        Are you willing to work with me on some meaningful strategies to
    address the bark beetle epidemic and the risk of catastrophic fire to
    see if there isn't a way to get more funding to the national forests in
    Colorado this year, and in future years, until we've dealt with the
    problems to the best of our ability?
        Answer. Yes, we are interested in working with you Senator as we
    have in the past, on meaningful strategies to address bark beetles.
        Question. Is it true that ``fully funding the Northwest Forest
    Plan'', as proposed in the President's budget, will require reductions
    in timber and fuels funding to Colorado's national forests?
        Answer. To the extent possible we will try to maintain level timber
    and fuels funding from for the other regions in fiscal year 2008.
        Question. 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. The agency is continually looking to improve efficiency and
    effectiveness of program delivery. Based on preliminary results from
    the 2006 Healthy Forests Review, the agency feels that greater
    efficiency will be gained through increased use of Stewardship
    Contracting authorities and greater coordination with communities
    through the Community Wildfire Protection Plan process. The Forest
    Service anticipates that we will be in better position to address high
    priority projects in an efficient manner through the use of these two
    initiatives and other relevant authorities. The agency works to balance
    the high costs of some projects through lower cost maintenance
    treatments to both protect earlier investments and meet National
    resource and community protection goals.
        For fiscal year 2007, the Forest Service developed the Ecosystem
    Management Decision Support model to assist with establishing national
    priorities and allocation of funds. This model is under continuing
    development and enhancement for fiscal year 2008 to incorporate
    improved data on wildfire potential and consequences of problem fires,
    particularly the wildland-urban interface. The model will be used in
    fiscal year 2008 for national- to regional-scale strategic planning,
    broad ecological assessments, and resource allocation. The model
    emphasizes areas with the highest potential for problem wildfire,
    consequences, and greatest opportunity for efficient and effective
    treatments while meeting multiple objectives. Based upon this analysis,
    the Forest Service will identify national priorities within the fuels
    program and focus funding on those priorities, consider performance in
    risk reduction through systematic risk analysis tools for fire hazard
    analysis and fuels treatment implementation, and assess project
    criteria for WUI fuels treatments.
        The objective in the allocation is to distribute funding to the
    highest priority projects while optimizing accomplishments. In essence,
    the agency must provide optimal benefits at an efficient and effective
    level of cost as reflected in a risk-informed decision process.
    National program allocations and local project selections would attempt
    to optimize wildfire risk mitigation (i.e., net benefits) over time by
    choosing projects that provide cost-effective risk reduction. Having a
    risk``) informed approach provides a path forward for both national and
    local decision-makers that is suitable in a variety of circumstances,
    including where there exist differing State and local government codes
    or where there are numerous fire protection alternatives. It also
    recognizes the ecological benefits associated with wildfires occurring
    within normal ranges of intensity.
        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. Integration of budget line items is occurring at all levels
    in the organization. The Washington Office Directors of the vegetation
    treatment programs (Fire & Aviation Management, Forest Management,
    Range Management, Forest Health Protection, Wildlife Management, etc.)
    are working at the National level to enhance coordination across
    program areas and foster greater integration of allocations to the
    Regional level. For fiscal year 2008, the Directors developed new
    allocation methodologies that incorporate integrated objectives.
        Hazardous fuels, forest health, wildlife and forest management
    coordinate the budget line item allocations to each region. In
    addition, the construction and landline location line items are
    coordinated to support these vegetation treatments. This exercise
    delivers a total package of vegetation treatments for regions to build
    integrated programs.
        Integration of projects has been increasing every year. The ability
    to use multiple funding sources to achieve a total vegetation treatment
    has worked well with recent new authorities, such as stewardship
    contracting and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
        Examples of integrated projects at the forest level include
    restoration of native species, provisions for T&E habitat, catastrophic
    event recovery, and suppression of insect epidemics. As part of the
    long-term recovery efforts implemented after Hurricanes Katrina and
    Rita in 2005, the agency integrated and aligned a wide range of
    programs (hazardous fuels, forest management, wildlife, and forest
    health) and tools (salvage timber sales, mechanical fuels treatments,
    stewardship contracts, prescribed burns, and wildlife habitat
    treatments) to achieve restoration of the native longleaf pine
    ecosystem, restore habitat for threatened and endangered species such
    as the Red-cockaded Woodpecker and Gopher Tortoise, reduced insect and
    disease risks, and protected adjacent communities.
        Question. The Forest Service is in the process of considering
    forest plan amendments that would determine how Canadian Lynx habitat
    is managed. As I understand it, in order to manage the Lynx habitat,
    precommercial thinning in critical habitat areas will be greatly
    reduced. Is this the case? How will the proposed amendments affect
    long-term forest health and productivity?
        Answer. The following information is specific to the Northern
    Rockies Lynx Amendment (NRLA) area, which includes several National
    Forests in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, and one Forest in Utah. A final
    decision on these amendments was made on March 23, 2007. The vegetation
    management standards in the amendment do not apply to fuel treatments
    in the Wildland Urban Interface as defined by the Healthy Forest
    Restoration Act. Precommercial thinning within mapped lynx habitat
    (areas capable of supporting snowshoe hares) could occur on a total of
    about 135,000 acres over the next decade. There are an additional
    180,890 acres per decade available for precommercial thinning outside
    of lynx habitat in the NRLA area. A total of 314,870 acres are now
    available for thinning each decade. The historic average precommercial
    thinning within the NRLA area has been 193,530 acres per decade.
    Precommercial thinning may also be conducted for essential restoration
    activities for aspen, western white pine, and whitebark pine.
    Precommercial thinning may also be permitted elsewhere if new
    information indicates that long-term benefits exceed short-term adverse
    effects.
        The following information is specific to the Southern Rockies Lynx
    Amendment (SRLA) area, which includes several National Forests in
    Colorado and Wyoming. Public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
    Statement for these amendments are being reviewed and considered. A
    final decision on these amendments is expected this fall.
        Effects of the amendments on forest health are difficult to
    quantify as many factors and values are involved, including very
    diverse forest plan management goals and objectives. Forest health and
    productivity for Canada lynx will be increased. Much management
    flexibility remains during the design of individual projects for land
    managers to respond to insect and disease outbreaks with silvicultural
    treatments, should that be desirable and feasible.
        Question. I am concerned that the multiple-use philosophy may be
    falling by the way-side in our National Forests. I understand that the
    Boulder Ranger District is in the process of holding public input
    sessions on limiting campfires, overnight camping, and shooting on
    parts of the forest. The community believes that the District is
    essentially hoping to close the forest off in certain areas to these
    activities. Similar closures have taken place in other forests in
    Colorado. Can you tell me why the Forest Service has moved toward
    limiting multiple use?
        Answer. Operating and managing recreation opportunities on National
    Forest System lands is authorized under the Organic Act of 1897 and has
    been further defined under many subsequent acts, such as the Multiple
    Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. The Forest Service is currently
    working under these authorities to identify a variety of sustainable
    uses to determine conditions which indicate a potential purpose and
    need for future action. This charge is particularly challenging on
    highly fragmented lands with high levels of recreation uses, such as
    the Arapaho Roosevelt National Forest (one of the highest in the
    Nation). The Boulder Ranger District, in particular, is reviewing its
    past implementation of dispersed camping, campfires and recreational
    shooting as these are the uses that cause the most conflict between
    users and adjacent private homeowners, and between visitors expecting
    different settings and experiences. Involvement of the local public,
    surrounding communities and each national forest's recreation visitors
    will continue to remain a critical and essential component of this
    process to respond to public needs and ensure that a variety of
    multiple uses are available to the American people on our national
    forests, while ensuring sustainable management of the land, protection
    of private property and the safety of those visiting.
        Question. I ask this question in light of the fact that my office
    has received several phone calls from constituents who claim that they
    have had agreements for years--sometimes decades--and are abruptly
    being told that their access road is closing and they will not have
    access to their property. What process does the Forest Service use to
    close a road and is this process dictated by agency policy or statute?
        Answer. Current authorities provided through each year's
    appropriations act allows for the use of road maintenance funds for
    decommissioning roads, including unauthorized roads not part of the
    transportation system, and that no funds be expended to decommission
    any system road until notice and an opportunity for public comment has
    been provided on each decommissioning project. Changes to the existing
    use (open road to closed road or vice versa) on Forest Service system
    roads also require notice and an opportunity for public comment. In
    2001, the Forest Service implemented the Road Analysis Process (RAP) to
    utilize a science-based method of determining the minimum road system
    needed for managing lands under Forest Service jurisdiction.
    Implementation of this policy utilizes the input from interested
    citizens, other State and Federal agencies and tribal governments. The
    Forest Service is also implementing the Travel Management Rule which
    will determine the portion of the Forest Service road system that will
    be available for motorized use. Public involvement is being utilized
    for the implementation of this regulation.
        Question. After passage of the Ditch Bill the agency set a goal to
    have all Ditch Bill easements issued within four years. It is my
    understanding that, with the level of funding requested this year that
    goal might not be met. Can you please tell me if the agency is still on
    track to meet that goal? If not, what can be done to ensure that the
    goal is met?
        Answer. In June 2004, the Forest Service issued direction for the
    consistent and timely processing of the remaining 1,800 Ditch Bill
    applications by the end of fiscal year 2008. The agency expects to
    complete 1,200 (two-thirds) of these cases by October 2008. The
    processing of the remaining Ditch Bill applications is a high priority.
    Although completion of the remaining applications is very near, many of
    the remaining Ditch Bill cases are complex, involving Endangered
    Species Act consultations and the need for additional information from
    applicants. Often, these complex situations require more time and
    attention to resolve.
        Question. With regard to the aspen die-off happening around the
    State of Colorado. We have several sawmills in Colorado that depend
    heavily on aspen sales from the national forests; can you increase the
    volume of aspen sales to regenerate young, thrifty aspen stands? Please
    tell me what--if anything--the Forest Service is doing to determine the
    reasons for these die-offs and what can be done about it.
        Answer. The Region 2 Forest Health Management Staff has initiated a
    study, in cooperation with the San Juan and Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-
    Gunnison National Forests and the Rocky Mountain Research Station, to
    better understand the causes and extent of recent accelerated mortality
    of aspen. Results of the study will include management recommendations.
    In addition, the Region 2 Forest Health Management Staff and
    cooperators are assessing the expanse of the problem across Colorado,
    and in adjoining States. We know from the 2006 aerial survey data that
    over 140,000 acres of recent aspen mortality were documented in the
    State of Colorado alone.
        Our current plan for aspen treatments ranges from 500-1,000 acres
    each year. This generates 10,000-20,000 CCF (5-10 million board feet)
    of aspen sawlogs and other products.
        Question. Can anything be done to mitigate these losses? Do you
    need additional authorities to take action?
        Answer. Regeneration of aspen is key. Our observations indicate
    that some aspen stands are regenerating beneath a recently dead
    overstory, other aspen stands are not regenerating. One of the aspects
    of the study is to determine the condition of root systems. If the
    aspen root system is dead, no amount of prescribed burning or harvest
    will be successful in regenerating the aspen. The mortality trigger was
    likely drought. With recent years of increased moisture, it has been
    hypothesized that the stands/clones will recover. However, stands
    already seriously impacted by disease cankers, wood borers and aspen
    bark beetles will continue to decline.
        At this time we do not need additional authorities to take action.
        I believe that Forest Service staff on-the-ground in Colorado are
    working hard, and we appreciate the funding that was shuffled last
    month, but the final fiscal year 2007 timber and fuels program funding
    is still less than the national forests in Colorado need to address the
    bark beetle epidemics.
        Question. Please 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.
        Answer.
        Fire Preparedness.--The Forest Service has $665 million of
    Appropriated Fire Preparedness funds for fiscal year 2007. Sixty
    percent or $397 million will be available to fund firefighting
    capability and operations including temporary hires, permanent
    positions, purchase equipment, dispatchers, and contracting resources.
        Fire Suppression.--The Forest Service has $741 million of
    Appropriated Fire Suppression funds for fiscal year 2007. Seventy one
    percent or $523 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.
        Question. Please provide nation-wide information, as well as
    numbers specifically relating to my home State of Colorado.
        Answer.
        Fire Preparedness.--The Forest Service has $665 million of
    Appropriated Fire Preparedness funds for fiscal year 2007.
        Within the State of Colorado, the Forest Service will spend
    approximately $13.7 million on Preparedness capability and operations.
        Fire Suppression.--The Forest Service has $741 million of
    Appropriated Fire Suppression funds for fiscal year 2007.
        Through mid June 2007 the Forest Service has expended approximately
    $215,000 of Fire Suppression funds in Colorado.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you all very much. The
    subcommittee will stand in recess subject to the call of the
    Chair.
        [Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., Tuesday, May 22, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                                  ----------

                                           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 the Alabama Trails Association
        The Alabama Trails Association appreciates the opportunity to
    submit written testimony concerning the appropriation of funds for
    USDA, U.S. Forest Service land acquisition projects for the fiscal year
    that will begin October 1, 2007. The Association requests that Congress
    appropriate $1,650,000 which will leverage another $550,000 in private
    funds to buy a key 1,100 to 1,200-acre inholding along the Pinhoti
    Trail corridor on Rebecca Mountain in the Talladega National Forest.
        The Alabama Trails Association is a membership organization that
    was founded in 1985. The major reason behind the founding of the group
    was to work toward linking the Pinhoti Trail in the Talladega Mountains
    of east Alabama to the Appalachian Trail and to expand the Pinhoti
    Trail to cover the full 140- to 145-mile length of the Talladega
    Mountains. The link to the Appalachian Trail will complete the vision
    of Benton MacKaye, the founder of the Appalachian Trail, whose plan for
    the famed ``AT'' was adopted at the first meeting of the Appalachian
    Trail conference in 1925 and included an ``extension trail'' running
    into Alabama from the Appalachian Trail in north Georgia.
        Working with the Georgia Pinhoti Trail Association and other trail
    organizations, the Alabama Trail Association is on the verge of
    completing the link to the Appalachian Trail. Since the late 1980s, the
    Pinhoti Trail effort has received considerable support from Congress in
    both funds appropriated to acquire land for the trail corridor and
    funds appropriated to construct trail. Those appropriations have led to
    the protection of over 6,000 acres and over 20 miles of mountain ridge
    crest in Alabama and to the construction of over 100 miles of trail in
    both Alabama and Georgia. The first acquisitions in this long-term
    project took place in the 1989-1990 time. The two most recent
    acquisitions are closing this spring, and the U.S. Forest Service in
    Alabama is acquiring two tracts that lie along the crest of Rebecca
    Mountain a few miles east of the 1,100 to 1,200-acre tract involved
    here.
        With those two closings, only the 1,100 to 1,200-acre tract
    involved in this request for funds is needed to complete the
    acquisition of land for the Pinhoti in the Talladega National Forest of
    Alabama. This tract includes around two and a quarter miles of the 8-
    mile long ridge crest of the portion of Rebecca Mountain that lies
    south and west of Bull Gap and Alabama State Highway 148. If this tract
    is acquired, the Pinhoti Trail can be completed along the crest of
    Rebecca Mountain which is the southernmost mountain in the Talladega
    National Forest range and one of the southernmost mountains in the
    entire Appalachian Range. Acquisition of this tract will complete U.S.
    Forest Service ownership of all but two quite small portions of the 8-
    mile long Rebecca Mountain. Further, the tract involved is native
    habitat for a rare mountain-top long-leaf pine community and is bounded
    on three sides by U.S. Forest Service lands which the U.S. Forest
    Service plans to manage and restore the long-leaf pine community.
        Based on an early 2007 purchase of a 700 to 800-acre tract that
    lies within 2 miles of this 1,100 to 1,200-acre Rebecca Mountain tract,
    $2,200,000 will be needed to buy this property. A private donor has
    committed to provide $550,000 of the purchase price if Congress will
    provide the other $1,650,000. Thus, the Congress has a rare opportunity
    to protect a beautiful inholding in the Talladega National Forest and
    pay only 75 cents for each dollar of land value.
        In light of the above considerations, this 1,100 to 1,200-acre
    Rebecca Mountain project in the Talladega National Forest is an
    excellent project in that it will (1) ``fill in'' one of the major
    inholdings in the Talladega National Forest, (2) complete U.S. Forest
    Service ownership of the 8-mile crest of Rebecca Mountain, (3) allow
    the construction of the southernmost portion of the Pinhoti Trail in
    the Talladega National Forest, (4) allow the U.S. Forest Service to
    restore a rare mountain-top long-leaf pine community, and (5) leverage
    $550,000 in private funds and allow the public and U.S. Forest Service
    to protect a significant mountain ridge tract by paying only 75 percent
    of the cost.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Alliance to Save Energy
             environmental protection agency's energy star program
                                  introduction
        The Alliance to Save Energy, a bipartisan, nonprofit coalition of
    more than 120 business, government, environmental, and consumer
    leaders, appreciates this opportunity to submit testimony in support of
    a $20 million increase in funding for the Environmental Protection
    Agency's (EPA's) Energy Star Program in fiscal year 2008 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; Duke Energy President
    and CEO James E. Rogers as Co-Chairman; and Representatives Hall,
    Markey, and Wamp, and Senators Bingaman, Collins, Craig, and Dorgan, 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 the brightest light in the galaxy of
    voluntary climate change programs, and is the single most effective
    Federal consumer information program on energy efficiency. Indeed it is
    one of the most successful efforts anywhere 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 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 2006 alone, Energy Star helped Americans save 35,000 megawatts
    of peak power, avoiding the need for about 70 new power plants. The
    electricity savings--170 billion kilowatt-hours--represent 5 percent of
    total 2006 electricity use. Working together with Energy Star,
    Americans prevented the emission of 37 million metric tons of
    greenhouse gas emissions, which is equivalent to removing 25 million
    cars from the road. And Americans, with the help of Energy Star, saved
    $14 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 and cost 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'' for energy efficiency. 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 9,000 partners who are
    committed to improving the energy efficiency of our homes, businesses
    and products. Among those partners are over 1,700 manufacturing
    partners who make and market over 44,000 different models of Energy
    Star qualifying products, and more than 900 retail partners
    representing thousands of storefronts, as well as building owners and
    operators, utilities, State and local governments, and nonprofit
    organizations. Energy Star counts more than 3,500 builder partners and
    partners who supply products and services for energy-efficient home
    construction. More than 725,000 families now live in Energy Star
    Homes--locking in financial savings for homeowners of more than $170
    million annually. In the past 2 years, the total number of Energy Star
    qualified homes has doubled.
        As you may know, 2007 marks the seventh 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 has been
    remarkable. Joining us in our request this year are 464 companies and
    Energy Star partners. I ask that this letter be included in the hearing
    record.
        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. 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 2008
    proposed budget for Energy Star, $43.9 million, is down 12 percent from
    fiscal year 2006 and, after inflation, is down more than one-quarter
    from fiscal year 2002. In addition, internal funding cuts at EPA have
    plagued the program over the past several years. In the fiscal year
    2007 operating plan, EPA cut the Energy Star budget $4 million below
    the fiscal year 2006 level on which the continuing resolution was
    based.
        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, natural gas supplies, air
    pollution, and global warming, the Alliance believes that funding for
    the Energy Star program should be increased by at least $20 million
    over the fiscal year 2006 appropriated level in fiscal year 2008, and
    should be doubled over the next 5 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 26,000 homes have been
    improved through this program. While this is a good start, much more
    needs to be done to expand this program across the country. With
    additional funding, the Energy Star program could develop a supportive
    infrastructure for contractors around the country, partner with
    interested State organizations, and develop marketing efforts in up to
    10 metropolitan areas per year.
                                recommendations
        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 recommend that Congress increase funding of the Energy
            Star program by $20 million over the fiscal year 2006
            appropriated level, to $69.8 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 5 years.
            In particular, the added funds will allow expansion of the new
            Energy Star ``Home Performance'' program nationwide.
      --Second, 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.
                                   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 2008 will return a significant and cost-
    effective yield in pollution reduction, economic stimulation, energy
    security, and consumer savings.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the American Arts Alliance
        Madam Chairwoman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I
    am grateful for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
    American Arts Alliance and its member organizations. The American Arts
    Alliance is a national network of more than 4,100 members comprising
    the professional, nonprofit performing arts and presenting fields. For
    more than 30 years, the American Arts Alliance has advocated for
    national policies that recognize, enhance, and foster the contributions
    the performing arts make to America.
        We urge the committee to designate a total of $176 million to the
    National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). This testimony is intended to
    highlight the importance of the Federal investment in the arts to
    sustaining a vibrant cultural community.
     the nea increases opportunities for the american public to enjoy and
                        benefit from the performing arts
        Since the establishment of the NEA in 1965, access to the
    performing arts has improved in communities large and small across the
    country. The NEA has helped to foster the development of the many
    regional theatres, opera companies, dance companies, orchestras, and
    performing arts centers that Americans now enjoy. Despite diminished
    resources, the NEA awards more than 1,700 grants annually to nonprofit
    arts organizations for projects that encourage artistic creativity,
    provide lifelong learning opportunities, and engage audiences in the
    best the arts have to offer. This modest public investment in the
    Nation's cultural life has resulted in both new and classic works of
    art reaching all 50 States.
     the nea supports the creation and presentation of the performing arts
                               in your community
        Last year, performing arts organizations received grants to support
    a wealth of performing arts productions in communities large and small.
    The NEA supported a symphony tour to rural communities, an Asian arts
    festival, a deaf theatre company, a program to provide hands-on music
    training to African American and Latino students in the 3rd and 4th
    grade, the 14th annual International Women's Playwriting Festival, the
    world premiere of an opera based on Nebraska history, a 34-year-old
    chamber music festival and more. These productions happened not only in
    major metropolitan areas but in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, Lebanon,
    New Hampshire, Chico, California and Moscow, Idaho. Few other Federal
    investments realize economic benefits, not to mention the intangible,
    intrinsic benefits that only the arts make possible.
                    with more funding, the nea could do more
        The NEA has never recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in fiscal
    year 1996 and all of its programs are seriously underfunded. Any
    additional monies over the NEA's current budget of $124.4 million will
    ensure that the NEA continues to support arts organizations in all 50
    States. Additional funds would allow the size of individual grants to
    increase and provide support for the many high-quality grants
    applications that go unfunded each year.
                    the nonprofit performing arts community
        The following profiles of the current State of the arts presenting,
    orchestra, dance, musical theatre, opera and theatre fields exemplify
    the economic, educational and quality of life benefits that performing
    arts organizations bring to American communities.
                                arts presenters
        Performing arts presenters bring professional performing artists
    from all over the world into the communities they serve. They include
    organizations such as performing arts centers, academic institutions,
    local arts agencies, festivals and fairs. In coordinating all the
    necessary steps to bring the arts to a local community, presenters
    facilitate the interaction between artists and audiences, support the
    creation and touring of new works and are civically engaged in their
    communities. The number of nonprofit presenting organizations in the
    United States has grown from fewer than 400 in 1965 to more than 7,000.
    Collectively, presenters in the United States serve 6 million audience-
    goers each week and constitute more than a $5 billion industry. This is
    in large part due to support from the NEA. Presenters not only bring
    the arts into communities, but value arts education and give back to
    the communities they serve. The Association of Performing Arts
    Presenters, a national service and advocacy organization with more than
    2,100 members worldwide, commissioned an Urban Institute survey
    revealing that:
      --77 percent of presenting organizations develop programs and offer
            performances for students K-12.
      --75 percent of presenting organizations offer free tickets through
            programs serving the poor, elderly and youth groups.
      --50 percent of presenting organizations facilitate programs for
            adult education and outreach.
      --54 percent of presenting organizations offer special services for
            persons with hearing, sight or mobility impairments.
                                     dance
        In 1965, there were approximately 35 nonprofit professional dance
    companies. Today, there are more than 600. America's dance companies
    perform a wide range of styles and genres. These include both classical
    and contemporary ballet, both classical and contemporary modern, as
    well as jazz, tap, cross-disciplinary fusions and traditional to modern
    work rooted in other cultures. When the NEA instituted its Dance on
    Tour program in the 1970's, great dance became accessible to every
    community in America. NEA programs today, like the National College
    Choreography Initiative, continue to ensure that the best of American
    dance is for all of America, and a showpiece for the rest of the world
    as well.
        Based on a 2005 survey, Dance/USA estimates that the 79 largest and
    most visible non-profit dance companies in the United States do the
    following:
      --Employ over 7,000 people;
      --Perform for total home audiences of nearly 3.3 million people. This
            does not include touring audiences, nor does it count the
            millions who attend performances given by the hundreds of dance
            companies with budgets under $1 million;
      --Utilize 26,500 volunteers, including 3,100 members of boards of
            trustees;
      --Pay nearly $227.9 million in wages and benefits;
      --Receive 3 percent of their income from government sources.
                                musical theatre
        Located in 35 States and 7 countries, the 148 member organizations
    of the National Alliance for Musical Theatre include not-for-profit and
    commercial theatres, presenting houses, universities and independent
    producers. Founded in 1985 and based in New York City, the National
    Alliance for Musical Theatre (NAMT) is the national service
    organization dedicated exclusively to musical theatre and serving some
    of the leading musical theatre producers in the world. Last season,
    NAMT members cumulatively staged over 27,000 performances attended by
    16 million people, and had revenues totaling over $500 million. NAMT
    has presented its Festival of New Musicals annually since 1989,
    bringing together theatre producers and writers, with the goal of
    furthering the development and production of new musicals. NAMT's
    Festival has showcased over 300 writers and 200 new musicals, which
    have had thousands of subsequent productions worldwide. Past Festival
    shows include Children of Eden (over 1,000 productions), The Drowsy
    Chaperone (five Tony Awards in 2006 and named ``Best Musical'' by the
    Drama Desk Awards, New York Drama Critics Circle, and L.A. Ovation
    awards), I Love You Because (Off-Broadway in 2006), Meet John Doe
    (world premiere at Ford's Theatre in 2007), Songs for a New World (over
    400 productions), and Thoroughly Modern Millie (2002 Tony Award for
    Best Musical).
                                     opera
        OPERA America members are found in communities all across the
    country--a total of 116 companies in 44 States. American opera
    companies are well known for their innovative and exemplary education
    and outreach programs, many of which are funded in part with NEA
    grants. Virtually all U.S. opera companies run such programs in their
    communities. Opera companies help fill the void left by discontinued
    arts education in many public school systems and can help young people
    communicate the realities of their lives via disciplined artistic
    expression. The audience for education and community programs served by
    US and Canadian companies during the 2004-2005 season totaled over 2
    million people.
        All together, the opera companies of America contribute more than
    one half billion dollars to the U.S. economy each year and provide more
    than 20,000 jobs each year (paying almost $473 million in taxable
    salaries and fees).
                                   orchestras
        In its 40-year history, the NEA has provided invaluable leadership
    and support for musicians, orchestras, and the communities they serve
    through direct grants, support to State arts agencies, and national
    leadership initiatives. Supported by a network of musicians,
    volunteers, administrators, and community leaders, America's adult,
    youth, and college orchestras total more than 1,800 and 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.
        In 2004-2005, orchestras perform more than 37,000 concerts to total
    audiences nearing 28 million. In addition to concerts, orchestras offer
    more than 40 different kinds of programs for their communities,
    including:
      --in-depth, multi-year residencies
      --long-term partnerships with schools
      --after-school and summer camps
      --programs in hospitals and libraries
      --instrumental education
      --educational classes for seniors
        The NEA's fiscal year 2006 grants to organizations included 111
    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.
                                    theatre
        In 1961, nonprofit theatre in America consisted of only 16 theatre
    companies. Today, thanks in large part to the pivotal role played by
    the NEA, the number of theatre companies is estimated to be greater
    than 1,400. Nearly every Pulitzer Prize winning play since 1976 has
    originated at a NEA-funded theatre.
        Theatre Communications Group (TCG), the national organization for
    the American non-profit theatre, reports that the estimated 1,490
    theatres in the U.S. employ more than 110,000 workers--actors,
    directors, playwrights, designers, administrators and technicians--and
    constitute a more than $1.5 billion industry. Collectively, these
    theatres are estimated to have offered 169,000 performances that
    attracted over 32 million patrons.
        Based on recent surveys of 202 non-profit theatres, TCG reports the
    following:
      --Over 1,283 outreach and educational programs are in existence
            today.
      --Over 3.5 million people--including a large number of at-risk
            children--are served by these programs. This network of
            educational and outreach programs all across the country,
            ensures access to all Americans and helps develop new
            generations of audiences.
      --These programs include touring productions, artists-in-the-schools,
            teacher training, workshops and lectures in local community
            centers and libraries, programs for at-risk youth, and lifelong
            learning opportunities.
                                   conclusion
        Performing arts organizations are a vital component of community
    life, allowing citizens to appreciate our Nation's culture and heritage
    through excellent artistic programming. The arts illuminate the human
    condition, our history, contemporary issues and our future. The NEA is
    an investment that realizes significant returns on the Federal dollars
    invested, both measurable and intangible. We urge you to designate no
    less than $176 million to the NEA. Thank you for your consideration of
    our request.
                                     ______

                  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, Environment,
    and Related Agencies, supporting fiscal year 2008 funding for the
    National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at a restored level of $176
    million. Through this statement, we hope to provide you with a snapshot
    of some national trends in the arts community.
        A month ago, Americans for the Arts hosted Arts Advocacy Day, an
    event that was cosponsored by 93 national organizations representing
    dance, theatre, music, literature, visual and media arts--the full
    gamut of American culture. Collectively these groups represent tens of
    thousands of nonprofit and governmental cultural organizations at the
    State and local levels across the country. On that day, we came
    together on a common agenda, and the above request--for $176 million
    for the NEA in fiscal year 2008--is the result of the collaborative
    work of these passionate groups.
        Our Nation's leaders recognize that creativity and innovation are
    the key to remaining competitive in the 21 century. Too often, however,
    the role of the arts in fostering these attributes is overlooked or
    minimized. The fact is that creativity and innovation do not fit into
    the simple silos of ``arts'' or ``science'' or ``mathematics'' or
    ``technology.'' Any scientist will tell you that science is not merely
    a matter of logic but also one of creativity. It's no accident that
    Donna Shirley, who managed the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Mars Rover
    project, said that 70 percent of her top scientific staff had an arts
    background. Any artist can testify to the discipline needed to excel.
    Many of our cultural and educational institutions, such as MIT, have
    educational programs, performances, and exhibitions that reveal and
    celebrate the complex relationships among art, science, and technology.
    The mathematical and scientific elements in music are obvious, from
    rhythm to acoustics. The physical and chemical properties of light,
    paint, and canvas are well known to visual artists--not to mention to
    those who are charged with the conservation of such works. But the arts
    also stand on their own as powerful stimulants of creativity. They
    demand intense concentration and keen observation; they facilitate
    comparison, judgment, and critical thinking; just as surely as does a
    complex math problem or a feat of engineering.
        Leading voices in this field such as Daniel Pink, Sir Ken Robinson,
    and Richard Florida are speaking about the interdependent nature of
    arts, sciences, creativity, innovation, technology, education, and the
    economy, and the importance of developing multi-faceted policies that
    take advantage of their rich connections to each other. Congressional
    Arts Caucus Co-Chair Louise Slaughter has called attention to ``the
    stunning gifts American artists make to our daily lives. Their creative
    force not only helps our children learn but also makes them smarter. It
    brightens the life of each one of us, bringing us joy and comfort,
    enlightenment and understanding, in ways impossible to find otherwise.
    The arts and artists of America are our national treasure, which this
    great Nation needs, deserves, and must support as other nations do.''
                     economic impact and reach of the arts
        For some policy makers, the human enrichment factor of the arts is
    not always enough to motivate spending taxpayers' money. To that point,
    I say that the arts also mean business. In 2002, Americans for the Arts
    released a groundbreaking national report, ``Arts & Economic Prosperity
    II: The Economic Impact of Nonprofit Arts Organizations and Their
    Audiences,'' documenting the economic return for communities that
    support the arts. It revealed that the nonprofit arts industry
    generates $134 billion in economic activity annually, supporting 4.85
    million full-time equivalent jobs and generating $24.4 billion of tax
    revenue back to Federal, State, and local governments. The best news is
    that the nonprofit arts industry is a growing industry that is a full
    partner of America's new ``information economy'' and is inextricably
    rooted in creating home-grown American jobs that cannot be later
    outsourced abroad.
        On May 22, we will release our largest-ever national report on the
    economic impact of the arts. More than 6,000 nonprofit arts
    organizations and 90,000 arts audience attendees in 157 communities in
    every State, including the District of Columbia, participated in this
    updated study.
        According to data that we collect from Dun & Bradstreet, an
    astounding 547,000 companies in this country directly or indirectly
    center their business on the arts. We have mapped each of these
    companies by congressional district. The economic importance of the
    arts does not stop there. The arts fuel creativity and innovation in
    hundreds of other industries, ranging from product and software design
    to breakthroughs in science and medical research. It is no wonder
    Daniel Pink's best selling book A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers
    Will Rule the Future has taken the business community by storm with his
    assessment that ``the MFA is the new MBA.''
     status of public and private support for nonprofit arts organizations
        Despite the economic and societal potential of the arts, the
    Federal Government has not kept pace with its government partners at
    the State and local level. Except for declines in funding after 9/11,
    local and State government budgets for the arts have collectively and
    steadily increased, respectively representing a 32 percent and 45
    percent increase since 1994. On the other hand, Federal support for the
    National Endowment for the Arts took a deep 40 percent cut in 1995 and
    has had only modest increases in the subsequent years, representing a
    27 percent decrease.
        During the mid-90s when Congress decided to cut funding for the
    arts, one rationale was that private sector charitable giving would
    easily make up for the funding gap. Unfortunately, the problem became
    worse. The matching requirement that is prerequisite in NEA grants acts
    as a powerful funding magnet for the arts. Despite record increases in
    total philanthropy for charities over the last decade, the market share
    of private giving to the arts has rapidly decreased, perhaps not so
    coincidentally around the same time as the cuts in Federal funding for
    the arts.
        Last October, the Wall Street Journal ran a major article on this
    topic, ``Hunger vs. the Arts,'' which described the challenges that
    arts organizations are facing as this market share of private sector
    support for the arts declines. Expressed in real dollars, if the
    nonprofit arts had merely maintained the 8.4 percent market share of
    total philanthropic giving that it enjoyed back in 1992, instead of the
    5.2 percent market share it has today, there would have been an
    additional infusion of $8.4 billion for the arts this year alone. The
    Federal Government can help reverse this trend by bringing back
    national attention and incentives for giving to the arts in America.
                              local arts agencies
        Since its inception, the NEA has had great influence on growing the
    local arts agency field, providing powerful incentives for local
    governments to step up their own government funding programs for the
    arts. The local arts agency field of community-based arts service and
    organizational capacity builders has expanded to include united arts
    funds, arts and business councils, statewide arts service
    organizations, and other community-based arts organizations. In 1967,
    shortly after President Johnson signed the act that created the NEA,
    there were 500 local arts agencies. That number has grown to about
    4,000 today, an 800 percent increase.
        Local arts agencies, along with State arts agencies, are the only
    organizations that are Federally designated to re-grant NEA funds to
    help serve the unique needs of local arts organizations and individual
    artists. Also, in many cases, they are Federal grantees themselves.
    Local arts agencies use NEA grants to create diverse public programs
    that include developing cultural plans; creating economic zones for
    cultural districts; distributing emergency relief funds; partnering
    with school districts to create arts education plans; and even
    coordinating local business groups with `central ticketing' marketing
    projects. Perhaps most importantly, local arts agencies facilitate
    public and private charitable giving to the arts through united arts
    funds. Examples of recent NEA grants to local arts agencies include:
    Los Angeles County Arts Commission, Los Angeles, CA
        To support leadership development opportunities for municipal arts
    staff and commissioners. Project activities will include an internship
    program and the provision of grants for cultural planning or
    assessments that will culminate in a written plan with implementation
    strategies.
    Mimbres Region Arts Council, Silver City, NM
        To support the Youth Mural Project. Students will be paired with
    professional artists, local historians, and community elders to produce
    murals that express aspects of the cultural history of the Grant County
    Region.
    Salt Lake Arts Council Foundation, Salt Lake City, UT
        To support Living Traditions: A Celebration of Salt Lake's Folk and
    Ethnic Arts. Nationally recognized artists and local artists, including
    craftspeople, dancers, and musicians identified with the assistance of
    the staff folklorist of the Utah Arts Council, will share contemporary
    customs founded on local heritage.
    City Cultural Commission, Portsmouth, NH
        To support an arts district planning process. This arts district
    planning study will build on priorities articulated in the current
    citywide cultural and master plans and will lead to the development of
    the Islington Street Arts District.
        The NEA has also provided grants to local arts agencies to help
    administer emergency relief funds to communities affected by disaster,
    including grants to the New Orleans Arts Council after Hurricane
    Katrina and to the Lower Manhattan Arts Council after 9/11. However,
    because the NEA has no dedicated relief funds for the arts, it has been
    sometimes difficult to identify and disburse the funds as quickly as
    needed. For that reason, Americans for the Arts established its own
    permanent Emergency Relief Fund that disbursed over $100,000 to Gulf
    Coast arts organizations within the first two weeks of Katrina hitting.
                        national endowment for the arts
        Federal support carries increased value because it sends a signal
    to other funders. As NEA Chairman Gioia recently noted, ``In case after
    case, the NEA learned that its grants had a powerful multiplying
    effect. Every dollar that the NEA gave in grants typically generated
    seven to eight times more money in terms of matching grants, further
    donations and earned revenue.'' The NEA should be a national leader in
    responding to the organizational capacity of arts organizations to help
    meet the growing needs of a growing population. Currently, however, the
    NEA budget of $124 million is woefully inadequate to carry out this
    role. In 1992, the NEA's all-time-high budget was $176 million and we
    ask the subcommittee to return the agency's budget to this level. Thank
    you very much for the opportunity to submit formal testimony on these
    issues.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the American Forest & Paper Association
        The American Forest & Paper Association \1\ (AF&PA) supports the
    sustainable management of our Nation's public and private forests. The
    recommendations outlined in this testimony concern fiscal year 2008
    appropriations for the U.S. Forest Service and related agencies.
    Restoring the health of our national forests through active management,
    while maintaining a strong forest products infrastructure, is AF&PA's
    number one priority for the fiscal year 2008 budget.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ AF&PA is the national trade association of the forest, paper
    and wood products industry. AF&PA represents more than 200 companies
    and related associations that engage in or represent the manufacture of
    pulp, paper, paperboard and wood products. The U.S. forest products
    industry accounts for approximately 6 percent of the total U.S.
    manufacturing output, employs more than a million people, and ranks
    among the top 10 manufacturing employers in 42 States with an estimated
    payroll exceeding $50 billion.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    active management to restore forest health and keep america competitive
        Increased funding for the Forest Service and Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM) to implement the President's Healthy Forests
    Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act is critical.
    Government researchers estimate that almost 200 million acres of
    Federal lands are at increased risk for catastrophic wildfire due to
    the buildup of hazardous fuels. This poses serious threats to adjacent
    private forestlands, communities, air and water quality, and wildlife
    habitat. Insect epidemics in both the west and east now cover millions
    of acres, creating additional risks to private forestlands and also
    increasing the risk of catastrophic wildfire. A further risk posed by
    catastrophic wildfires is the immediate release of carbon dioxide into
    the atmosphere.
        The Forest Service wildfire suppression budget over the last 16
    years has increased from 13 percent of the total agency's budget to 45
    percent, and it is predicted to continue to increase. As a result of
    the rising suppression costs and a relatively flat overall budget, the
    National Forest System budget as a proportion of the total Forest
    Service budget has shrunk significantly over this period, limiting the
    resources that can be used to proactively reduce fuel loads and improve
    forest health. It is critical that the Forest Service focus on active
    management strategies in order to ``get ahead'' of fires and insect
    epidemics. We also encourage consideration of alternative strategies to
    budget for large wildfires to avoid the impact on vegetation management
    and other programs, as well as greater emphasis on suppression cost
    containment measures.
        Specific tools available to the Forest Service to help address
    these problems include:
        Forest Products.--AF&PA supports an increase to the Forest Products
    program, for a funding level of $318.5 million, and the proposed
    increase in program outputs to 3.5 billion board feet. Timber sales and
    stewardship projects are important tools to achieve forest health and
    hazardous fuels reduction objectives. Furthermore, these activities are
    crucial to retaining forest industry infrastructure, which is vital for
    meeting national forest objectives. Lost industry capacity cannot be
    replaced easily, especially in rural communities where sawmills have
    traditionally relied on timber supplies from the national forests. The
    resulting lost capacity diminishes the Forest Service's ability to
    economically manage the national forests and address forest health.
        A reliable and increased supply of national forest timber is
    critical to the stability of industry infrastructure. The volume sold
    through timber sales has increased slightly over the last several
    years, but currently is still less than three billion board feet. This
    level is well below sustainable harvest levels, and is insufficient to
    develop and maintain the industry capacity needed to meet ecological,
    economic, and social needs. Forest Service data indicate that annual
    growth of trees on the national forests is five times greater than
    annual harvest, further exacerbating the risk of catastrophic fires and
    insect epidemics.
        An increase to the forest products program is a necessary and
    important step towards implementation of all national forest plans.
    Current funding levels compromise the ability of the agency to
    implement these forest plans, including forest health activities and
    timber sales. We are pleased to note, however, that the agency is
    proposing a substantial reduction in unit costs, which we applaud.
        Timber sales provide important revenue to the Treasury and an
    opportunity to offset significant restoration costs on our Nation's
    public lands. Timber sales and mechanical thinning represent
    economically worthwhile strategies, and funding can be leveraged to
    provide additional acres of hazardous fuels reduction activities.
        We support measures to reduce costs and increase efficiencies. We
    urge Congress to monitor the cost effectiveness of Forest Service
    management and provide direction that will allow the Forest Service to
    reduce costs of doing business. The Forest Service has proposed a $63
    million savings through indirect cost pool reductions, and further
    savings through a 25 percent reduction in the Washington office and
    regional offices. We support these goals and strongly urge Congress to
    require a fiscal year 2008 mid-year report on the agency's progress in
    achieving them. Further, those savings should be directed to active
    management to improve forest health.
        Hazardous Fuels Reduction.--AF&PA supports an increase to the
    Hazardous Fuels Reduction program. Treating hazardous fuels within the
    wildland-urban interface and across the landscape is essential to
    preventing catastrophic wildfires and insect and disease outbreaks and
    protecting resource values and species habitat. In order to reduce
    costs, we urge emphasis of these activities in areas with existing
    forest industry infrastructure. We further support a greater emphasis
    on mechanical thinning to reduce hazardous fuels and greenhouse gas
    emissions, from prescribed and wildland use fires, with particular
    priority on Condition Class 3 acres (acres representing the greatest
    departure from the natural regime). Mechanical thinning provides
    ecological benefits, economic benefits through the value of fiber
    removed, and climate change benefits, since wood products help prevent
    the use of other products that have larger carbon impacts, such as
    aluminum, steel, concrete, and plastic.
        We are concerned about the lack of accountability within the
    agency's forest health strategy. The agency currently measures its
    accomplishments through acres treated, which is too simplistic a metric
    to capture the landscape needs. The metrics need to focus on improving
    conditions on the landscape, in order to fully ensure that appropriated
    funds achieve the desired land stewardship goals. We recommend separate
    accounting for maintenance of acres and improvement of acres relative
    to the fire regime condition class. Furthermore, we urge that each
    National Forest improve at least 5 percent of Condition Class 3 acres
    annually over 20 years.
        We also continue to be concerned about the lack of integration
    between the hazardous fuels program and other vegetation management
    programs. In particular, we are concerned that the Forest Service has
    not moved the hazardous fuels program and funding into the National
    Forest System, even though Congress has provided this authority. In our
    view, this shift would increase the agency's ability to fully integrate
    fuels reduction and other vegetation management programs, thereby
    achieving greater efficiencies on the ground, and we urge Congress to
    require this shift.
         research to restore forest health and keep america competitive
        Targeted research is needed to support forest health, restoration,
    and economic utilization of fiber. Research helps find innovative ways
    to promote and enhance forest sustainability and provides
    scientifically sound data that benefits both public and private
    forests. Forest Service research investments in enhancing forest
    productivity, addressing the threats of insect and disease, quantifying
    carbon sequestration, and understanding forest management decisions on
    wildlife, water quality, biodiversity, landscapes and habitats, all
    contribute to efforts to achieve healthy forests.
        Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA).--AF&PA recommends full funding
    of the program, an $11 million increase over the President's fiscal
    year 2008 request. The FIA program is the Nation's most comprehensive
    forest data collection and analysis program. It is a critical program
    that allows us to assess the sustainability and health of the Nation's
    forest resources. Full funding is needed to allow the Forest Service to
    achieve its stated goals to cover 100 percent of U.S. forest lands,
    fully implement the annual inventory, expedite data availability and
    analysis, improve working relationships with the States, and modernize
    FIA management systems.
        Forest Products and Utilization Research.--AF&PA supports the
    research on forest products and utilization at the Forest Products Lab
    and other Research Stations. Innovative wood and fiber utilization
    research contributes to conservation and productivity of the forest
    resource. The development of new forest products and important research
    on the efficient use of wood fiber directly address the forest health
    problem through exploration of small diameter wood use and bioenergy
    production.
        Agenda 2020 Research.--AF&PA recommends increased funding within
    the Forest Service R&D program in support of the Agenda 2020
    Sustainable Forest Productivity roadmap. The forest product industry's
    Agenda 2020 program has a proven track record for pre-competitive R&D.
    Working in partnership with universities and the private sector, Forest
    Service R&D funding for the Agenda 2020 program supports research to
    develop and deploy wood production systems that are ecologically
    sustainable, socially acceptable, and economically viable in order to
    enhance forest conservation and the global competitiveness of forest
    product manufacturing and biorefinery operations in the United States.
    There are significant benefits for industry and the Nation, including
    an improved regulatory and business climate for domestic timber
    production in managed forests, increased investment in new
    technologies, and the production of lower cost, higher quality wood on
    fewer acres of forestland.
                                   conclusion
        AF&PA appreciates the opportunity to provide the subcommittee with
    testimony regarding the fiscal year 2008 budget. If implemented,
    increased funding for key programs will help promote sustainable
    management and forest health on our Nation's public and private lands.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the American Geological Institute
        Thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geological
    Institute's perspective on fiscal year 2008 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
    $975 million, a 0.3 percent decrease compared to last year's funding,
    while the Mineral Resources Program would receive a more than $24
    million cut, leaving the program with less than $30 million in fiscal
    year 2008 and the Water Resources Program would be cut by about $7
    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 growing.
    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 70
    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 2008 would decimate the program. It would cost
    about 210 of 380 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
    2008 request is for $26 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 fiscal 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 2008. ANSS was authorized to receive $36 million in
    fiscal 2008 and the President's request is only for about $8 million.
    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 2008
    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 increased funding for Smithsonian research in fiscal year
    2008.
                             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
        American Hiking Society fiscal year 2008 trail and recreation
    funding recommendations:
        National Park Service (NPS):
      --Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program: $12 million
      --National Trails System: $11.915 million, plus $1.25 million for GIS
            Network
        Bureau of Land Management (BLM):
      --National Landscape Conservation System: $69 million
      --Recreation and Wilderness Management: $70 million
        U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
      --National Wildlife Refuge System: $451 million
        USDA Forest Service (FS):
      --Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness: $271 million
      --Capital Improvement and Maintenance--Trails: $78 million
        Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF):
      --Stateside LWCF (NPS): $125 million
      --Federal LWCF: $220 million, including $47.265 million for National
            Scenic and Historic Trails, as follows: Appalachian NST: $9.32
            million (FS); Continental Divide NST: $200,000 (BLM); Ice Age
            NST: $4.75 million (NPS); Florida NST: $5 million (FS); North
            Country NST: $4 million (FS); Pacific Crest NST: $23.8 million
            (FS); Overmountain Victory NHT: $195,000 (FS).
        Madam Chairwoman 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. American Hiking Society, our members and member
    organizations, and the 75 million Americans who hike have a strong
    interest and stake in the future of trails and our parks, forests, and
    other public lands. We appreciate the subcommittee's past support for
    trails and recreation and urge you to support strong funding in fiscal
    year 2008 that will keep our trails open, safe, and enjoyable today and
    for future generations.
        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. Hiking in particular offers a healthy, enjoyable and
    relatively simple way to deepen one's connections to nature, people,
    and place. Whether it is for fitness, recreation, or learning about
    nature, hiking is inspirational, fun, and an activity for a lifetime.
    Hiking can also motivate people to protect the places they love and
    preserve them for future generations.
        Recreation and conservation have increased greatly 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.
    In order for Americans to enjoy the outdoors, experience our rich
    natural heritage, and find healthy places to recreate, we need
    protected open spaces and well-maintained trails and other recreation
    facilities. We recommend the following investments in trails and
    recreation to protect resources and recreational experiences for future
    generations, benefit local communities and the economy, and enhance
    public health and quality of life.
        National Park Service.--Under the administration's proposed fiscal
    year 2008 budget, the NPS would receive a $258 million increase for
    operations, including the funding of 3,000 new seasonal employees,
    increases for park maintenance and operations, and modest increases for
    the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program and national
    scenic and historic trails administered by the Park Service. American
    Hiking supports these increases and urges the following improvements to
    the proposed NPS budget.
    NPS, Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance program (RTCA)--$12
            million
        RTCA is a technical assistance program that 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. RTCA is a very successful and efficient 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 $3.8
    million increase--a total $12 million appropriation--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--$11.915 million
        We request $11.915 million for the National Trails System for
    resource protection, trail maintenance, interpretation and volunteer
    coordination, plus $1.25 million to further develop mapping through a
    Geographic Information System network for the National Trails System.
    We request $4.5 million for the NPS Challenge Cost-Share Program, with
    one-third of it earmarked for the National Trails System, or the
    establishment of a separate Challenge Cost Share Program for the
    National Trails System at $1.5 million. American Hiking Society is a
    member of the Partnership for the National Trails System (PNTS) and
    endorses the specific funding requests for administration and
    construction for the individual national scenic and historic trails
    submitted by the PNTS.
                        bureau of land management (blm)
    National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS)--$69 million
        The National Landscape Conservation System represents the crown
    jewels of western public land managed by the BLM, yet it faces a $10
    million cut. The fiscal year 2008 administration budget request would
    cut funding for the trails and special places in the BLM's Conservation
    System to less than $2 per acre. American Hiking urges the following:
      --Fund the Conservation System at $69 million in fiscal year 2008.
            This funding level will enable the BLM to retain volunteers,
            protect visitor safety, survey cultural resources and engage in
            sound science to manage resources for future generations to
            enjoy. We support the specific funding requests for national
            scenic and historic trails submitted by the PNTS totaling
            $4.652 million.
      --Support any Member requests for additional funding, including LWCF
            requests, for Conservation System units in their districts.
      --To promote greater management transparency and accountability for
            the System, we urge the committee to request expenditure and
            accomplishment reports for each of the System's Monuments and
            Conservation Areas for fiscal year 2007 and to ask BLM to
            include unit-level allocations by major sub-activities for all
            System units (including Monuments, National Conservation Areas,
            and National Scenic and Historic Trails) but Wilderness and
            Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). These unit-level allocations are
            to be combined with Wilderness and WSAs under a new activity
            account for the entire 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. 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.
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS)--
            $451 million
        With refuges in all 50 States and U.S. Territories, the NWRS
    protects countless species of wildlife, fish, plants, and critical
    habitat and provides recreational opportunities for nearly 40 million
    visitors annually, yet it continues to face significant budget
    shortfalls. The operations and maintenance backlog for the system
    totals about $2.75 billion. Approximately 200 refuges do not have any
    staff. The Refuge System needs an additional $15.1 million annually
    just to keep pace with inflation and to keep refuges from cutting
    conservation and 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.
    Without adequate and appropriate staff, refuges will suffer from
    deteriorating conditions and disrepair. Important management activities
    such as law enforcement, trail maintenance, biological programs,
    facilities maintenance, wildlife management, habitat restoration,
    recreational activities, and educational programs will be diminished or
    eliminated. At least $8 million is needed for Visitor Facility
    Enhancements in the NWRS construction budget.
    USDA Forest Service, Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness--
            $271 million
        Although recreation accounts for the greatest use of National
    Forest System lands, recreation remains woefully underfunded and
    understaffed. We are deeply concerned about the administration's fiscal
    year 2008 proposed funding level for recreation. The proposed cuts,
    combined with years of inadequate funding, would result in devastating
    reductions to programs and staff, adversely impact trails and
    recreation opportunities throughout the country, exacerbate maintenance
    backlogs, and result in degraded trails and recreation resources,
    negative impacts to resources, and diminished hiking experiences. 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. We ask for your continued strong support of the world class
    recreation heritage of our National Forest System.
    Forest Service, Capital Improvement and Maintenance--Trails--$78
            million
        The Forest Service manages 133,000 miles of trails and requires
    increased funding to restore and maintain these thousands of trail
    miles, improve trail infrastructure, prevent and mitigate resource
    impacts, and provide safe, high-quality recreational experiences for
    millions of hikers and other trail enthusiasts. Deferred maintenance
    costs for trails currently exceed $240 million. We support the
    individual requests for national scenic and historic trails submitted
    by the Partnership for the National Trails System totaling $10.24
    million.
    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)--$125 million Stateside; $220
            million Federal
        The LWCF provides and protects hiking opportunities nationwide
    through Federal land acquisition and State recreation grants. The
    program 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. Through the LCWF, more than
    40,000 local and State park, recreation, and conservation projects have
    been completed in virtually every county across America. Authorized at
    $900 million annually, LWCF is one of the most important conservation
    tools ever designed and is critical to the future protection of our
    public lands and national trails. We strongly oppose the
    administration's recommendation to zero out the stateside LWCF program.
                                   conclusion
        Federal policy encouraging partnerships, healthy lifestyles, and
    promoting volunteerism to protect and maintain our public lands
    warrants increased funding for trail and recreation programs across the
    Federal agencies. Volunteer contributions are also essential to trails
    and recreation programs, and American Hiking and its members and
    partners contribute hundreds of thousands of hours each year, 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
    nearly 100 week-long Volunteer Vacation trail maintenance trips in 2007
    on national parks, forests, and other public lands. On June 2, 2007,
    American Hiking will coordinate the fifteenth National Trails Day to
    raise public awareness and appreciation for trails, with more than one
    thousand events nationwide to maintain and celebrate trails. We work
    tirelessly to build, maintain and protect hiking trails and their
    natural corridors so that current and future generations can experience
    the many joys and benefits of hiking and are inspired to protect this
    legacy. American Hiking members and outdoorspeople nationwide
    appreciate the subcommittee's past support for trail and recreation and
    look forward to continued strong support. Thank you for the opportunity
    to testify and for considering our requests.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
        The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) encourages
    Congress to provide the United States Geological Survey (USGS) with at
    least $1.2 billion for fiscal year 2008, and at least $200 million for
    programs of the Biological Resources Discipline.
        The USGS provides independent research, data, and assessments
    needed by public and private sector decision-makers. A unique
    combination of biological, geographical, geological, and hydrological
    research programs enables USGS scientists to utilize innovative
    interdisciplinary research techniques to answer important questions.
    For instance, USGS data are essential to improving our understanding of
    climate change, including how biological and environmental systems may
    respond. Moreover, the USGS collects data that other Federal agencies
    and nongovernmental scientists do not collect. We cannot afford to
    sacrifice this information; rather, we should increase our investments
    in this work.
        USGS scientists work collaboratively and are vital members of the
    research community. Through offices and science centers 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 at universities. This proximity to academic researchers
    heightens the intellectual and technical resources devoted to answering
    biological and natural resource questions. Moreover, Cooperative
    Research Units are a vital component of our Nation's education and
    training infrastructure, helping to develop the skills that graduate
    students need to become the natural resource professionals that
    government agencies require.
        Natural resource managers demand 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 that the resource
    management and research communities have identified as priorities. For
    instance, new nodes could be added to the National Biological
    Information Infrastructure program, allowing scientists and managers to
    better access and unlock the power of existing data.
        Biological science programs within the USGS gather long-term data
    not available from other sources. This data has contributed
    fundamentally to our understanding of bird migratory patterns and the
    status and dynamics of biological populations, and it has improved our
    understanding of how ecosystems function. This array of research
    expertise not only serves the core missions of the Department of the
    Interior, but also contributes to management decisions made by other
    agencies and private sector organizations. In short, we need to
    increase our investments in these important research activities.
        Funding for the USGS has remained flat for nearly a decade. The
    situation is even worse when the budget is adjusted for inflation.
    Despite inadequate budget requests from the present and prior
    administrations, Congress has demonstrated its recognition of the
    importance of USGS science by restoring proposed cuts. In response, the
    USGS has made every effort to be responsible stewards of public funds
    and has sought to leverage its limited human and financial resources to
    the greatest extent possible.
        There is growing concern from within the government and outside
    that funding for the USGS must improve if it is to continue to serve
    its mission. Without an increased investment in USGS science, core
    missions and national priorities will suffer. Thus, any effort that
    Congress can make to fundamentally improve funding for the USGS will be
    appreciated.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request. If you
    require additional information, please contact me at 202-628-1500 or
    publicpolicy@aibs.org.
                                     ______

          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 1 of every 7 electric consumers (approximately 44
    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 $44 million
    for fiscal year 2008 for EPA's Energy Star Programs as it represents a
    $1.7 million reduction in their request of approximately $45.7 million
    from fiscal year 2007 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 2007 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 2008 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 1 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 2008 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 American Rivers
        American Rivers, on behalf of our 65,000 supporters nationwide
    urges the subcommittee to provide $3,562,562,000 for the following
    programs in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008. I request that this testimony
    be included in the official record.
                        environmental protection agency
        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 $1.35 billion for the Clean Water SRF and
    $850 million for the Drinking Water SRF in fiscal year 2008.
    Additionally, within the funds appropriated for the Clean Water SRF at
    least $75 million should be dedicated to Low Impact Development or non-
    structural green infrastructure to deal with stormwater run-off and
    combined sewer overflows.
        WaterSense.--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 $3.3
    million for the WaterSense program in fiscal year 2008.
        The establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) allows
    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 2008.
        Non-point Source Management Program (Clean Water Act Section 319)
    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 2008.
        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 2008.
        The National Estuary Program protects and restores the Nation's
    estuaries by creating partnerships with local communities. The program
    focuses not just on improving water quality in an estuary, but also on
    maintaining the integrity of the whole system--its chemical, physical,
    and biological properties, as well as its economic, recreational, and
    aesthetic values. Since its inception, the program has grown to include
    28 programs across the country, but funding levels have stagnated.
    American Rivers urges the committee to appropriate $35 million for the
    National Estuary Program in fiscal year 2008.
                             wild and scenic rivers
        The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System protects free-flowing
    rivers with outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic,
    fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. The
    Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park
    Service, and Forest Service share responsibility for conducting studies
    to determine if rivers qualify for designation, and administering and
    developing river management plans for designated rivers. Unfortunately,
    none of these agencies receive sufficient funding to adequately protect
    the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, as Congress intended. Although
    84,500 stream miles are potentially eligible for designation, only 165
    rivers covering almost 11,500 miles are currently designated. The
    condition of many Wild and Scenic Rivers is unknown as Federal agencies
    have been forced to turn a blind eye to their protection and management
    requirements for these jewels. Streams are becoming degraded and
    restoration is needed in many locations. Increased funding, will allow
    these agencies to better manage and protect designated rivers and
    promote their values to the public. American Rivers urges the committee
    to appropriate a total of $38.862 million for the management of the
    Wild and Scenic River System. These funds should be split as follows:
    U.S. Forest Service--$9 million for wild and scenic river management,
    $6 million for the completion of river studies and the creation of
    river management plans; BLM's National Landscape Conservation System--
    $7 million for WSR management and $5 million for completion of WSR
    studies; U.S. FWS--$1,787,000 for wild and scenic river management,
    restoration and studies; NPS Rivers and Trails Studies--$1 million for
    wild and scenic rivers studies and $16 million for wild and scenic
    river management; NPS Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers--$2.1 million
    for management of the wild and scenic rivers.
                         u.s fish and wildlife service
        The National Fish Passage Program has opened more than 3,750 miles
    of river and restored 69,000 acres of wetlands for fish spawning and
    rearing habitat. Restoring fish migration enhances entire watersheds
    and benefits birds and mammals, such as eagles, ospreys, herons,
    kingfishers, brown bears, otters, and mink. Since its inception in
    1999, working with local, State, tribal, and Federal partners, the Fish
    Passage Program has leveraged Federal dollars nearly three-to-one. The
    Fish Passage Program is also one half (with NOAA) of the $12 million
    Open Rivers Initiative which will provide grants to communities and
    local dam owners to remove their dams that no longer make sense. Many
    others are either dilapidated, having outlived their 50-year life
    expectancy, or are no longer providing the benefits for which they were
    built. These dams are unnecessarily degrading the riverine ecosystem
    and holding up economic development. These restoration projects provide
    significant environmental improvements and offer noteworthy economic
    and societal benefits. They create new opportunities for recreational
    fishing, river rafting, and kayaking; provide cost savings by
    eliminating the need for dam repairs; and remove safety and liability
    risks associated with outdated structures. American Rivers urges the
    committee to appropriate the National Fish Passage Program $11 million
    in fiscal year 2008, of which $6 million should be dedicated to the
    implementation of the Open Rivers Initiative.
        The National Fish Habitat Initiative will harness the expertise of
    existing efforts to create a coordinated approach to improving fishery
    habitat. The combined force of Federal agencies, State, and local
    governments, and conservation groups will leverage Federal dollars with
    both private and non-profit resources in order to maximize funding for
    fish habitat conservation projects across the Nation. The initiative
    partners have created an ``action plan'' in 2006 that will foster
    geographically focused, locally driven, and scientifically based
    partnerships to protect, restore, and enhance aquatic habitats. The
    plan is non-regulatory and will succeed only through its collaborative
    nature. American Rivers urges the committee to appropriate the National
    Fish Habitat Initiative $3 million in fiscal year 2008.
        The 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 2008.
        The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has worked with more
    than 28,700 landowners to restore 639,550 acres of wetlands; 1,069,660
    acres of native prairie, grassland, and other upland habitats; and
    4,740 miles of riparian and in-stream aquatic habitat. American Rivers
    urges the committee to appropriate $52 million for the Partners for
    Fish and Wildlife program in fiscal year 2008.
        The Coastal Program has worked through partnerships to reopen 3,450
    miles of coastal streams for anadromous fish passage; restore 130,325
    acres of coastal wetlands, 27,746 acres of coastal upland habitat, and
    1,275 miles of riparian habitat; and protect 1,639,232 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 2008.
                             national park service
        The Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA) 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 2008.
        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 $25 million to complete the restoration of the
    Elwha River ecosystem and its fisheries in fiscal year 2008.
        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 2008.
                             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 2008:
      --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 2008.
                        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 2.6 million acres of land and advanced river restoration through
    acquisition of riverside lands to serve as buffer zones. In particular,
    the following river protection projects deserve funding this fiscal
    year. Within the BLM there are Oregon's Rogue Wild & Scenic River-
    Winkle Bar project that needs $1.5 million, the Sandy River/Oregon
    National Historic Trail that needs $500,000, Idaho's Upper Snake/South
    Fork Snake River project that needs $2 million and Colorado's Gunnison
    Gorge National Conservation Area that needs $856,000. Within the U.S.
    Forest Service Michigan's Ottawa National Forest- Sturgeon River Gorge
    Wilderness project for $4 million. And within the NPS $5.6 million is
    needed to purchase the Riverstone tract for the Congaree National Park
    and $5.2 million is needed to protect riparian land in New Jersey and
    Pennsylvania as part of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation
    Area. American Rivers urges the committee to appropriate at least $220
    million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2008.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
        The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit
    the following testimony on the fiscal year 2008 appropriation for the
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) research and education
    programs. The ASM is the largest single life science organization with
    more than 42,000 members. The ASM 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 relies on sound science to safeguard both human health and
    the environment. The EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD)
    sponsors leading-edge research that provides the solid underpinning of
    science and technology for EPA regulatory and public outreach
    activities. ORD conducts research on ways to prevent pollution, protect
    human health, and reduce risk. The work at ORD laboratories, research
    centers, and offices across the country helps improve the quality of
    air, water, soil, and the way we use resources. Optimal EPA oversight
    clearly depends upon the Agency's access to scientific expertise and
    its ability to respond quickly to our changing environment.
        The ASM is very concerned with the diminishing budget for EPA's
    research and development programs. The fiscal year 2008 budget request
    for the ORD is $540 million, a 9 percent, or a $55 million, decrease
    from fiscal year 2006. This cut will further erode the scientific
    foundation, which is critical to EPA's abilities to make science-based
    decisions on regulations designed to protect human health and the
    environment. The ASM urges Congress to provide at least $595 million
    for the ORD in fiscal year 2008, the same as the funding level provided
    in fiscal year 2006.
                          star grants and fellowships
        The proposed budget decreases for ORD include a reduced level of
    spending for the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program. The ORD
    budget proposes only $62 million for STAR, a 4.6 percent reduction from
    fiscal year 2007, cutting the program for the sixth consecutive year.
    The ASM urges Congress to increase funding for the STAR grants program
    to at least the fiscal year 2002 level of $102 million. Reductions in
    the STAR program will severely limit the ability of EPA to draw upon
    critically needed scientific expertise from the academic community, a
    valuable source of research insights and personnel for EPA programs.
    For the third straight year, EPA's research campus in Research Triangle
    Park, NC, is ranked among the top three institutions in the United
    States for postdoctoral fellows to work, yet the ability of EPA to
    support these important young scientists is diminishing.
        Limited funding for STAR will diminish U.S. competitiveness in
    environmental research, training, and development of new technologies
    for solving environmental problems. The STAR program revitalizes all
    areas of EPA research and fosters workforce development in
    environmental science and technology through fellowships. In December
    2006, EPA reported results from several STAR-funded studies on
    biomarkers--substances or processes that can be measured in biological
    samples like blood and that indicate toxic exposure or predict disease.
    Extramural researchers confirmed that easy-to-collect saliva can be
    used to assay pesticide exposure in children and adults; other grantees
    used biomarkers to demonstrate that specific insect management
    techniques effectively reduce prenatal pesticide exposure. Other high-
    priority strategies within the STAR program include funding climate
    change studies with grants administered through EPA's Global Climate
    Research Program in two principal areas: assessments of consequences of
    global climate change and human dimensions research.
                               indoor air quality
        One impact of cuts to ORD over the last several years includes the
    loss of capacity for research on indoor air quality. This is an
    important issue because we spend 80 percent or more of our time indoors
    and climate changes will likely affect indoor air quality in yet
    unpredictable ways. Funding needs to be restored for this important
    program.
                                 climate change
        Climate change affects all of earth's biota, including microbes
    that often dominate the living mass of many ecosystems. The potential
    effects of climate change include sea level rise, shrinking glaciers,
    changes in the range and distribution of plants and animals, changes in
    plant and animal life cycles, changes in the water (or hydrologic)
    cycle and thawing of permafrost. The impact of these changes on
    microbial activities is often unpredictable, but the central role of
    microbes in the mobilization and toxicity of selenium, arsenic and
    mercury provides apt examples of the potential for deleterious outcomes
    if microbial activity is altered by climate change. Because microbes
    play major roles in water quality, environmental integrity and human
    health, it is essential that the EPA retain and expand its ability to
    support research on climate change and subsequent impact on both
    beneficial and pathogenic microorganisms.
        The ASM is concerned with the proposed 9 percent cut to the Global
    Change research program at ORD because it is clear that certain
    diseases and pathogens are sensitive to climate changes. Since 1995,
    Lake Erie has experienced a microcystis algal outbreak every summer;
    scientists have concluded that the warmer the water temperature, the
    more extensive the outbreak. Although the toxic algae can be filtered
    out of drinking water, microcystis can kill fish and birds, and coastal
    communities often ban swimming and water skiing when the algae bloom.
    Heavy rainfall has been associated with waterborne disease outbreaks
    throughout the United States, while outbreaks of vector-borne diseases
    like encephalitis have been linked to a pattern of warm winters and hot
    dry summers. As global temperatures rise, the incidence of malaria and
    other serious diseases, some of which are currently limited to tropical
    latitudes, could expand significantly in incidence and geographic
    distribution. Public health officials elsewhere are reporting unusually
    high incidences or new geographic locations of diseases like ciguatera
    poisoning (toxic algae in marine fish), Lyme disease, and hemorrhagic
    dengue fever, which officials suspect might be linked to climate
    changes. Global climate experts predict even more striking changes in
    infectious diseases as global temperatures rise and regional climate
    patterns change.
        The climate research programs at ORD can provide valuable
    information necessary for prevention of, response to, and recovery from
    changing patterns of pathogens and disease. Last December, the EPA
    released a draft document on its review of the impact of climate
    variability and changes in aeroallergens in the United States (pollens,
    molds and indoor allergens), concluding that climate changes likely
    will increase allergy-related issues. In 2006, the Agency completed a
    study of publicly owned water treatment systems in the Great Lakes
    Region, finding that climate change could have significant effect on
    pollutant discharge.
                              clean and safe water
        Congress has mandated that the EPA ensure the safety of our
    drinking and recreational waters, an enormous regulatory and assessment
    task that relies on sufficient EPA funding and personnel resources. The
    ASM supports the proposed 7 percent and 10 percent increases for the
    Drinking Water and Water Quality programs at ORD, respectively. It is
    imperative that the EPA continue to: develop analytical methods for
    accurately measuring contaminant levels in drinking water and surface
    water; ensure proper certification and assessment of laboratories that
    analyze drinking-water samples; conduct research that strengthens the
    scientific basis for standards that limit public exposure to
    contaminants; and assess, restore and protect aquatic systems. Topics
    of growing concern include, among others, the dissemination into the
    environment through water and wastewater treatment systems of diverse
    anthropogenic compounds, such as pharmaceuticals and estrogens or
    estrogen-like compounds. These compounds are now ubiquitous, but their
    fates in the environment and impacts on humans and other organisms are
    inadequately known.
        EPA researchers have aggressively sought improved techniques for
    water quality assessment, building ``toolkits'' of assays and
    computational models that can be used by local and State public health
    officials. Recent examples include a new rapid DNA analysis to quantify
    enterococci and bacterioides bacteria in water, reducing the time for
    detecting these sewage contaminants from 24 hours to just two and
    making possible same-day decisions on beach warnings or closings--some
    of the first research findings from a multi-year water study being
    conducted jointly by the EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention. Other current ORD research efforts include developing
    laboratory cell lines and assays to measure chemical interactions with
    human hormone receptors and using new genomics technologies to assess
    risks from widely used conazole fungicides. Last year, the Agency, in
    collaboration with other Federal agencies, launched the Harmful Algal
    Blooms Observing System in South Florida, the first component of a
    planned surveillance network to rapidly identify and track red tide
    outbreaks in ocean waters.
                      water and wastewater infrastructure
        In order to provide safe and secure drinking water for its
    citizens, the Nation must improve the sustainability and energy
    efficiency of its water distribution systems from sources to ``sinks''.
    Energy efficiency is an important but often overlooked consideration.
    At present, the Nation's water distribution infrastructure consumes
    approximately 5 percent of total electricity use. The development of
    non-fossil fuel energy sources for water distribution can not only
    contribute to a more secure water supply, but can also contribute to
    the Nation's energy security. Coupling microbial activity during
    wastewater treatment to electricity generation provides one example for
    increasing energy efficiency.
        Researchers, supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and
    the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), have made great strides in
    advancing the technology of microbial fuel cells to benefit wastewater
    treatment plants. Microbial fuel cells work through the action of
    bacteria, which can produce electricity in fuel cells. In the process,
    the bacteria consume organic matter in the wastewater and thus, improve
    water quality. This approach uses the bacteria that naturally occur in
    wastewater, requiring no special bacterial strains or unusual
    environmental demands. The benefit of microbial fuel cell applications
    is that while they generate electricity, they purify wastewater, a goal
    of wastewater treatment facilities that usually requires the
    consumption of energy.
        The ASM urges Congress to support a collaborative relationship
    between the EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE), the NSF, and the
    USDA to explore energy production from waste treatment, and to develop
    mechanisms for improving energy efficiency in water distribution.
                                   conclusion
        Sound science is necessary for the protection of human health and
    the environment. The ORD is an integral component for conducting
    research needed to answer many of the challenges we face, such as
    climate change, and clean and safe water. The ASM urges Congress to
    provide at least $595 million for the ORD and $102 million for the STAR
    program in fiscal year 2008.
        The ASM appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony
    and would be pleased to assist the subcommittee as it considers the
    fiscal year 2008 appropriation for the EPA.
                                     ______

          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 2008 funding for
    the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at a level of $176 million.
    Bipartisan 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 2007 level of funding for the
    NEA--$124.4 million--is well below the 1992 appropriation of $176
    million.
        The arts are essential to life in American communities nationwide.
    From small towns to urban centers, communities look to the arts to
    generate economic activity and educate our Nation's citizenry. Most
    significantly, as a Nation we also turn to the arts for their unique
    capacity to offer comfort in times of stress, provide meaning amidst
    uncertainty, spark unity during conflict, and to mark many of our most
    historically significant moments. More than 40 years of support from
    the National Endowment for the Arts has fostered the development of
    many orchestras and has increased the capacity of the arts to serve and
    strengthen communities across our country.
        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 $70 million. Together with the NEA, we share a
    common goal of strengthening orchestras as organizations and promoting
    the value of the music they perform.
        A significant increase in funding will 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.
          nea grants uniquely support the creation, presentation, and
                            preservation of the arts
        The NEA awarded more than 1,700 grants last year to nonprofit arts
    organizations for projects that encourage artistic creativity and that
    bring the arts to millions of Americans. The NEA's fiscal year 2007
    Grants to Organizations included 127 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.
        Orchestras across the country 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 in a wide array of performances and programs.
      --Funding from the NEA has been a key source of support for The
            Phoenix Symphony's One Nation program, a partnership between
            the Symphony and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.
            Through the One Nation program, the Symphony enhances the
            fundamental music education programs of the community's
            elementary and secondary schools while simultaneously
            interacting with new audiences in the Native American
            community. The community-to-community connection forged by this
            partnership will facilitate good relations between the
            reservation and the community as a whole. This project
            exemplifies how NEA funding can help local arts organizations
            respond to the emerging needs and priorities of their
            communities.
        This project is just one of the many community-based programs
    supported by the NEA's competitive grant-making process and for
    hundreds of other community-based arts programs across the country.
      nea funding uniquely increases the creative capacity of the united
                                     states
        NEA funding is a critical component in the network of public,
    private, corporate, and philanthropic support that makes the work of
    America's orchestras possible. Orchestras exist in all 50 States, in
    virtually every community, with annual budgets ranging from less than
    $50,000 to more than $70 million. Nationwide, concert income accounts
    for only 37 percent of orchestra revenue. Further funds are provided
    through the generosity and vision of thousands of individuals,
    corporations, and foundations. This delicate balance of public and
    private support is key to supporting the nearly 1,800 orchestras across
    the United States.
        The grants awarded directly to local 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. NEA funding also makes good
    economic sense. In this Federal/State partnership, 40 percent of the
    NEA's program dollars are granted to State arts agencies, conditional
    on each State devoting its own appropriated funds. NEA funds produce a
    similar leveraging effect at the local level. For many communities, the
    benefit of an NEA grant goes far beyond the dollar-value of the award,
    multiplying private support by attracting additional sponsorship and
    recognition.
      --The New West Symphony received an NEA grant for the commission and
            performance of a new work by composer-in-residence Bright
            Sheng. The project also included collaborations with local
            Chinese cultural groups, public discussions and visits to a
            local Chinese school. Support from the NEA helped attract a
            $25,000 grant from a private foundation. Donors and other
            members of the community view the support provided by the NEA
            as a significant endorsement of this project, generating
            additional financial support and press coverage, and increasing
            public participation and concert attendance.
         nea funding connects the arts and artists to their communities
        The NEA identifies and supports projects that connect the arts--and
    artists--to their broader communities, encouraging creative
    collaboration and building artistic strength. Orchestral music is the
    product of a vast network of hundreds of thousands of local musicians,
    volunteers, administrators, and community leaders--all dedicated to
    adding value and meaning to life by fostering creativity and engaging
    the public in the extraordinary experience of orchestral performances.
      --The Nashville Symphony received an NEA grant to support outreach
            concerts in rural areas of Tennessee and Alabama. In
            partnership with local community organizations, the orchestra
            performed eleven concerts in six counties outside of Nashville,
            Tennessee's Davidson County. The Symphony reached 9,800
            children and adults through outdoor concerts, participation in
            community-wide events, and at indoor concert venues in the
            community. These concerts are offered free of charge to the
            public, or are offered for a minimal fee that the communities
            themselves charge, so that funds go the communities' own local
            arts programs and initiatives. This program has strengthened
            communities by promoting the local arts, and showcasing talent
            inherent in each community.
        Thank you for this opportunity to illustrate the value of NEA
    support for orchestras and communities across the Nation. 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 urge you to
    support creativity and access to the arts by approving a substantial
    increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy
        In behalf of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy (formerly the
    Appalachian Trail Conference), I am requesting an fiscal year 2008
    appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the amount
    of $9.32 million for the USDA Forest Service for the acquisition of
    lands bordering the Appalachian National Scenic Trail in the States of
    Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina.
                                   background
        The Appalachian Trail (A.T.) is America's premier long-distance
    footpath. Initially established between 1923 and 1937 as a continuous
    footpath extending from western Maine to northern Georgia, the trail
    gained Federal recognition in 1968 with the passage of the National
    Trails System Act. Later 1978 amendments to that act expanded the
    authorization for Federal and State land acquisition to establish a
    permanent, publicly owned right-of-way as well as a protective corridor
    or greenway along the trail. Since 1978, the Appalachian National
    Scenic Trail land-acquisition program of the National Park Service and
    USDA Forest Service has become one of the most successful land-
    conservation efforts in the Nation's history with the acquisition of
    more than 187,000 acres, more than 3,360 parcels, in 14 States. Today,
    only approximately 7 miles of the 2,175-mile Appalachian Trail remain
    to be protected through public ownership.
                            resource characteristics
        The Appalachian Trail is a 2,175-mile footpath extending generally
    along the crests and valleys of the Appalachian Mountain chain through
    14 States from Maine to Georgia. Often characterized as a ``string of
    pearls,'' the trail, which is considered a unit of the National Park
    System, connects eight National Forests, six other units of the
    National Park System, and approximately 75 State parks, forests, and
    game-management units. With an estimated 3 to 4 million visitors per
    year, the trail ranks among the most heavily visited units of the
    National Park System and also ranks among the top 10 units from the
    standpoint of natural and cultural resource diversity. For example,
    based on natural-diversity inventories conducted in the 1990s, more
    than 2,000 occurrences of rare, threatened, and endangered Federally
    and State-listed flora and fauna have been identified at more than 500
    discrete sites within the trail corridor. More recent cultural-resource
    inventories in selected States suggest that the Appalachian Trail
    greenway is equally diverse from the standpoint of historic and
    cultural resources.
        The Appalachian Trail is equally well known as a remarkable public/
    private partnership. For more than 80 years, the Appalachian Trail
    project has been recognized as one of America's most successful
    examples of private-citizen action in the public interest. Since the
    initial construction of the trail in the 1920s and 30s, volunteers
    affiliated with the Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC) have
    constructed, reconstructed, and maintained the footpath as well as a
    system of more than 250 shelters and associated facilities such as
    privies, improved campsites, bridges, signs, and parking lots. More
    recently, as a result of a 1984 agreement between the National Park
    Service and ATC that is unique in scope if not in concept, the
    Conservancy has accepted management responsibility for more than
    110,000 acres acquired by that agency along the trail. ATC, through its
    network of 30 club affiliates and many thousands of volunteers, is now
    responsible for virtually all phases of ``park'' operations, ranging
    from trail and facility maintenance and construction to land and
    resources management to visitor education and services. Through other
    agreements with the USDA Forest Service and most of the 14 trail
    States, ATC also provides ongoing, volunteer-based stewardship for
    other trail lands, totaling more than 250,000 acres. In 2006, for
    example, more than 5,000 volunteers contributed more 200,000 hours of
    labor along the trail.
                            need for appropriations
        As noted previously, while the Appalachian National Scenic Trail
    protection program represents perhaps the most successful Federal,
    State, and private land-acquisition program in the history of the
    conservation movement in the United States, that program is not yet
    complete. Although our hope had been to complete the program by the
    year 2000, escalating land values coupled with diminished
    administrative capacity in the affected agencies have conspired to
    delay full program completion. Nowhere are those trends more apparent
    than in the southeastern region of the trail, in the National Forests
    of Virginia (George Washington/Jefferson), Tennessee (Cherokee), and
    North Carolina (Pisgah/Nantahala). Nevertheless, five key parcels are
    now ``ripe'' for land acquisition and we are seeking fiscal year 2008
    LWCF appropriations to secure those properties. The following narrative
    provides a brief description of each of those critical parcels. More
    detailed descriptions, along with maps and photographs of each of the
    referenced properties, have been provided to subcommittee staff.
                 new river, virginia/jefferson national forest
        For more than 30 years ATC and the USDA Forest Service have sought
    to establish a final alignment for the Appalachian Trail adjacent to
    the New River in Giles County, Virginia. The current route crosses a
    private property owned by Celanese LLC immediately adjacent to a busy
    highway (U.S. 460) directly across from a large Celanese industrial
    facility offering no real scenic or recreational value. After many
    years of negotiations, Celanese representatives have expressed an
    interest in selling--potentially at a bargain-sale price--a 400-acre
    parcel in fee and an additional 25-acre scenic easement that will
    permit a relocation of the footpath to a much improved location along a
    more remote and scenic portion of the property. Additional scenic-
    easement interests also are being sought along the back portions of
    approximately a dozen private lots bordering the eastern edge of the
    property. Total project costs are estimated at $1.6 million. However,
    ATC has been successful in attracting a private donation and also is
    seeking additional funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia. In
    addition, due to limited administrative capabilities in the affected
    National Forest, ATC also is providing pre-acquisition assistance for
    appraisal and environmental-clearance work. While total project costs
    are estimated to be $1.6 million, our request for fiscal year 2008 LWCF
    appropriations is $1.25 million.
                tilson farm, virginia/jefferson national forest
        This 170-acre property is situated near the northern boundary of
    Smyth County on the Smyth/Bland county line near the town of Ceres,
    Virginia. The property is adjacent to a narrow Appalachian Trail
    corridor that was acquired some years ago. Acquisition of the property
    will provide an important scenic buffer along the A.T., conserve the
    headwaters of the North Fork of the Holston River, provide an
    opportunity to develop a 5-mile loop trail, conserve the site of an
    early settler cemetery on the property, and consolidate Forest
    ownership. The current property owner has expressed an interest in the
    selling the tract at a favorable or bargain-sale price and ATC is
    contributing toward pre-acquisition costs including appraisal and
    environmental clearance work. Total project costs are estimated at
    $400,000. ATC is requesting an fiscal year 2008 LWCF appropriation of
    $300,000.
                 rocky fork, tennessee/cherokee national forest
        The Rocky Fork property is a 10,000-acre property in eastern
    Tennessee situated midway between Johnson City and Asheville, North
    Carolina. It represents the largest privately owned in-holding within
    the southern National Forest System. Named for the cool waters of one
    of several prominent watersheds and high-quality trout streams that
    pass through the property, it is adjacent to 22,000 acres of designated
    wilderness or potential wilderness lands including the 8,000-acre
    Sampson Mountain Wilderness, the 3,000-acre Sampson Mountain Addition
    Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), and the 11,700-acre Bald Mountain IRA.
    For many years, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency has leased the
    property for its game and non-game wildlife values, including 16 miles
    of ``blue-ribbon'' trout streams and outstanding black bear, white-
    tailed deer, and wild turkey habitat. The property also contains a
    number of Federal species of concern or State-listed species in need of
    management including the peregrine falcon, the eastern hellbender, the
    woodland jumping mouse, smoky shrew and star-nosed mole, and a
    potential new species of salamander, the Yonahlossee salamander. The
    property also includes 1.2 miles of the Appalachian National Scenic
    Trail with no protected right-of-way.
        The Rocky Fork property presently is owned by New Forestry, LLC and
    is being managed by Timbervest. It is currently being marketed for
    primary and second-home development and is readily accessible from
    Interstate 26. However, the owners have expressed a willingness to sell
    the property for conservation purposes and negotiations are underway
    now to secure a purchase and sales agreement. ATC is working closely
    with The Conservation Fund, the Southern Appalachian Highlands
    Conservancy, and a number of other local conservation and sportsmen
    organizations to secure the property. Total estimated costs are
    approximately $43 million. However, ATC and its partners already have
    secured financial support from the State of Tennessee and through a
    number of private-sector donations. We are requesting an fiscal year
    2008 LWCF appropriation of $7 million and an additional fiscal year
    2009 LWCF appropriation for another $7 million. Those contributions are
    likely to be matched 2:1 by State and private funds.
                shook branch, tennessee/cherokee national forest
        This 20-acre property is situated in eastern Tennessee in the
    Cherokee National Forest. Since at least 1983, ATC, together with the
    Tennessee Eastman Hiking Club and the USDA Forest Service, have sought
    a safe passage for the Appalachian Trail between the Pond Mountain
    Wilderness and the shoreline of Watauga Lake. The A.T. currently
    follows a dangerous road-walk and crosses U.S. 321 at a location with
    limited site distances to on-coming traffic. A proposed new route has
    been identified and a number of parcels have been acquired by the
    Forest Service to establish the route. The Shook Branch property is
    necessary in order to complete the proposed relocation. The current
    property owner has expressed a willingness to sell the property. Total
    project costs, including construction of the trail relocation, is
    estimated at $550,000. ATC is requesting an fiscal year 2008 LWCF
    appropriation of $500,000.
             wesser bald, north carolina/nantahala national forest
        This 90-acre property is situated in western North Carolina in the
    Nantahala National Forest. The Appalachian National Scenic Trail passes
    within 200 feet of the property and affords a number of outstanding
    scenic views at several locations along the northern portion of the
    property and from a viewing platform atop the Wesser Bald fire tower
    which is maintained for visitor use. The platform provides 360-degree
    views encompassing the Great Smoky Mountains skyline, Cheoah Bald, the
    Nantahala Mountains, and Brasstown Bald in northern Georgia. The
    current property owners are working with The Conservation Fund and the
    USDA Forest Service to conserve the property. TCF, with the aid of a
    private donation, is seeking to acquire conservation easements
    affecting 65 to 80 percent of the property. The remainder of the
    property--approximately 20 acres--is proposed for fee-simple
    acquisition by the Forest Service. Total project costs are estimated at
    $450,000. ATC is requesting an fiscal year 2008 LWCF appropriation in
    the amount of $270,000.
        With the acquisition of the above-described properties, ATC hopes
    to complete a substantial portion of the remaining land-acquisition
    needs in the Appalachian National Scenic Trail program in the southern
    National Forest System. Again, we respectfully request an fiscal year
    2008 Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriation of $9.32 million
    for the USDA Forest Service.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony and for your
    consideration of our request.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the APS-Four Corners Power Plant
        I am requesting your support for appropriations in fiscal year 2008
    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, consistent with the President's recommended
    budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds to the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS to continue its essential
    participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program.
        2. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    within the $45,147,000 item entitled ``National Fish Hatchery
    Operations'' to support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray
    National Fish Hatchery in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $200,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet FWS's Region 2
    expenses in managing the San Juan Program's diverse recovery actions.
        We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request
    your assistance for fiscal year 2008 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Archery Trade Association; Association of
        Fish and Wildlife Agencies; Bear Trust International; Boone and
        Crockett Club; Bowhunting Preservation Alliance; Congressional
    Sportsmen's Foundation; Ducks Unlimited; Foundation for North American
        Wild Sheep; National Trappers Association; North American Bear
    Foundation; North American Grouse Partnership; Pheasants Forever; Pope
      and Young Club; Quail Forever; Quality Deer Management Association;
    Safari Club International; Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership;
       Wildlife Forever; Wildlife Management Institute; and the Wildlife
                                    Society
        We write to ask for your assistance in meeting this Nation's
    pressing natural resource challenges by providing sufficient fiscal
    year 2008 funding to make greater use of the U.S. Geological Survey's
    Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CFWRU). This important
    research and training partnership already brings together State fish
    and wildlife agencies, State universities, and Federal agencies around
    applied research agendas.
        The CFWRUs are crucial to successfully addressing the natural
    resource management challenges posed by climate change, energy
    development needs, invasive species, infectious diseases, wildfire, and
    increased demand for limited water resources. These challenges also
    include replacing the unprecedented number of natural resource
    professionals who will be retiring over the next 10 years.
        As you know, each of the CFWRUs in 38 States is a true Federal-
    State-university-private partnership among the U.S. Geological Survey,
    a State natural resource agency, a host university, and the Wildlife
    Management Institute. The CFWRUs build on these partner contributions
    to leverage more than $3 for every $1 appropriated to the program by
    Congress.
        Finding workable solutions to our natural resource challenges
    requires the CFWRU's management-oriented, community-based approach to
    research, which relies on interdisciplinary efforts and fosters
    collaboration and accountability. The CFWRUs also are well positioned
    to help replace our retiring workforce. They have an established record
    of educating new natural resource professionals who are management-
    oriented, well-versed in science, grounded in State and Federal agency
    experience, and able to assist private landowners and other members of
    the public.
        To begin meeting these high priority research and training needs in
    fiscal year 2008, we ask that you request establishment of a
    competitive, matching fund program within existing CFWRU legislative
    authority that would make available $20 million annually in new funds
    beyond base operational costs. These new funds would support future
    cooperative, high priority research efforts and essential training of
    new natural resource professionals to replace the large number who will
    retire within the next decade.
        To begin meeting these high priority research and training needs in
    fiscal year 2008, we ask that you establish a competitive, matching
    fund program within existing CFWRU legislative authority that would
    make available up to $20 million annually in new funds beyond base
    operational costs. These new funds would support future cooperative
    research efforts in key areas and essential training of new natural
    resource professionals to replace the large number who will retire
    within the next 10 years.
        In order to fill current scientist vacancies, restore seriously
    eroded operational funds for each CFWRU, and enhance national program
    coordination, the fiscal year 2008 Interior Department budget request
    for the CFWRUs must increase approximately $5 million more than the
    fiscal year 2007 funding level. This funding would restore necessary
    capacity in the CFWRU program for it to meet the Nation's research and
    training needs, and it would ensure that the Interior Department
    provides the Federal scientist staffing agreed to with partners so that
    the return on their continuing investment in the CFWRUs is realized and
    fully leveraged. Without an infusion of funds, one quarter of all CFWRU
    scientist positions (29) will need to be vacant by the end of fiscal
    year 2008.
        We thank you for consideration of our request. With your
    assistance, the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units can become
    even more effective in using science and collaboration to address the
    natural resources challenges facing the Interior Department and other
    Federal, State, and local agencies.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Association of American Universities
        On behalf of the Association of American Universities (AAU), an
    organization of 60 leading U.S. public and private research
    universities, I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony on the
    fiscal year 2008 budget of the National Endowment for the Humanities
    (NEH). The Endowment is the single most important source of Federal
    support for the humanities. We believe that the Nation would benefit
    from a significant funding increase for NEH, in part as a complement to
    the Federal investment in science and engineering research. It is
    through the humanities that we can better understand and address the
    human encounter with social, economic, and political change. It is
    through the humanities that we can come to understand who we are as a
    people and our place in the global community. We also believe that as
    teachers and supporters of the humanities, we have an obligation and an
    opportunity to educate through history, literature, and language the
    framework of a culture of tolerance and civility that is so needed
    today. The NEH serves to strengthen and benefit the Nation, as a whole,
    by promoting excellence in the humanities and conveying the lessons of
    history to all Americans.
        Now is the time to make a significant investment in the humanities,
    and so we ask Congress to fund NEH at the level of $177 million in
    fiscal year 2008, an increase of $37 million, or 26 percent, above
    fiscal year 2007 funding.
                     the history of aau and the humanities
        AAU universities are devoted to maintaining a system of high-
    quality academic research and education in a wide range of fields at
    the undergraduate, graduate and professional levels. Our member
    universities perform about 60 percent of Federally funded university-
    based scientific and engineering research. But our schools also are
    leaders in humanities through their support of academic departments,
    public performance and lecture facilities, museums, and centers. For
    our institutions, the humanities are both subjects of research and a
    critical element of undergraduate and graduate education. AAU
    institutions use NEH grants for research and scholarship, preserving
    the Nation's diverse heritage, educating the next generation of
    Americans, and bringing the humanities to the wider public through
    libraries, museums, centers, and public programs.
        Faculty at a large number of universities, including Stanford
    University and the University of Southern California, are engaged in
    productive NEH-funded grants. For example, the King Papers Project at
    Stanford University is a major research effort to assemble and
    disseminate historical information concerning Martin Luther King, Jr.
    and the social movements in which he participated. The King Papers
    Project's principal mission is to publish a definitive fourteen-volume
    edition of King's most significant correspondence, sermons, speeches,
    published writings, and unpublished manuscripts. The published volumes
    of The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr., have already influenced
    scholarship and become essential reference works. Building upon this
    research foundation, the Project also engages in other related
    educational activities. Using multimedia and computer technology to
    reach diverse audiences, it has greatly increased the documentary
    information about King's ideas and achievements that is available to
    popular as well as scholarly audiences. The Project also offers unique
    opportunities for students to become involved in its research through
    the King Fellowship Program. The University of Southern California has
    an NEH-funded grant called the Virtual Italian Experience. The grant is
    a virtual learning environment created by the university faculty to
    teach foreign language and culture to undergraduate students. The goal
    is to engage students with every type of learning style and enrich
    their knowledge of the language and culture and is linked to the goals
    of the NEH's Digital Humanities initiative. It is important to remember
    that universities supplement Federal funds with their own funds to
    support researchers and scholars. NEH-funded challenge grants, which
    require universities to provide a 4-to-1 match, leverage significant
    resources from universities and other institutions to achieve the goals
    of the Endowment.
        AAU led an effort to identify ways in which academic institutions
    and the Federal Government can partner in increasing the visibility and
    public support of the humanities. AAU's 2004 report, Reinvigorating the
    Humanities: Enhancing Research and Education on Campus and Beyond, not
    only called for university presidents and chancellors to give increased
    attention to the humanities but also provided an inventory of exciting
    campus projects and programs around the country. Indeed, AAU
    institutions are engaged in a wide range of activities that focus
    attention on the benefits of a humanities education. As a follow-up to
    the 2004 report, AAU encouraged its members to convene roundtable
    discussions on emerging trends and best practices in the humanities.
    While many institutions had been actively engaged in these discussions
    for some time, the AAU report provided a focal point for the
    deliberations among campus constituencies. These campus efforts
    culminated in a national convocation with the American Council of
    Learned Societies in 2006, which brought together university,
    association, Federal agency and congressional leaders to discuss the
    appropriate role for the humanities in meeting today's challenges and
    to begin building an action agenda for the humanities in academic and
    national life. AAU more recently assembled a small group of provosts
    and graduate deans to discuss how academic institutions and the
    Endowment might better support the current needs of humanities graduate
    students and faculty. These discussions have helped to shape our
    funding priorities, including a preliminary program proposal to
    facilitate greater interaction among humanities graduate students and
    faculty, I am about to describe.
                       aau funding priorities for the neh
        In nominal dollars, NEH was funded at $177.5 million in fiscal year
    1994 ($231.4 million in constant dollars based on the 2005 annual
    Consumer Price Index). In the following years, the agency sustained
    some of the most severe reductions of any Federal agency. Over time,
    the combined impact of budget cuts and inflation has reduced the
    number, diversity, and buying power of grants provided by the NEH. The
    President's fiscal year 2008 request would further undermine the grant
    programs: it is estimated that the President's request would cut
    competitive grant funds by approximately $1 million within each of the
    following NEH core programs: education, preservation and access, public
    programs, research and challenge grants. While some universities have
    tried to close the funding gap themselves, it is getting increasingly
    difficult to do so and misleading to assume that higher education can
    compensate for a lack of growth in Federal funds. In addition,
    foundation support for the humanities has slipped during the past
    decade, according to the first comprehensive study on the topic
    completed by the Foundation Center. The humanities community is not
    only concerned over the reduction in foundation support, but also the
    fact that there has been a long-term shift away from funding for
    scholarship and core disciplines and toward funding for public
    programming. These funding trends are of particular concern to AAU
    because of the unmet need and rising debt assumed by humanities
    students.
        The community's fiscal year 2008 request of $177 million for the
    NEH represents an important step in restoring the Endowment to its
    historic funding levels. Within our overall request, AAU has two
    funding priorities for the Endowment that I would like to share with
    you today. The first collective priority shared by the National
    Humanities Alliance, is to provide proportional increases to all NEH
    grant programs, including research, education, preservation and access,
    public programs, and State councils, giving preference to the core
    divisions that have sustained the deepest cuts since fiscal year 1994.
    When funding for the Endowment was cut in the mid-1990s, 60 percent of
    the cuts were made to the education and research core programs, which
    are both of particular importance to AAU members. In fiscal year 2006,
    these programs were funded at approximately $12 million, or less than
    10 percent of total Endowment funding.
        Within the education division, AAU is particularly focused on the
    Summer Seminars and Institutes, which support national faculty
    development programs in the humanities. These programs provide a
    critical forum for leading scholars and faculty to deepen their
    knowledge of current scholarship in the key fields of the humanities.
    Similarly, Faculty Humanities Workshops support local and regional
    professional development programs that allow faculty and scholars to
    engage in collaborative study. Within the research division, several
    programs, including Summer Stipends and Fellowships, support
    individuals or teams of two or more scholars (not including graduate
    students) pursuing advanced research that will contribute to scholarly
    knowledge or to the public's understanding of the humanities. Increased
    funding for competitive peer-reviewed grants in the education and
    research divisions, and all the core divisions, is essential to
    addressing many of today's social, cultural, economic and international
    relations challenges.
        The second priority for AAU is a new pilot program that would
    simultaneously expand scholarship in key areas of inquiry, support the
    critical education of graduate students in the conduct of research, and
    bring faculty and graduate students in the humanities together in
    collaborative arrangements that have long characterized the sciences.
    In the sciences, such collaborations foster rich and creative
    interactions of faculty and graduate students defining new areas of
    inquiry in seminars and carrying them out jointly in the lab, combining
    the knowledge and experience of faculty with the energy and creativity
    of graduate students. The ancillary benefits of faculty mentorship, the
    early and in-depth engagement of graduate students in research, and the
    enrichment of the scholarly endeavors by the close interaction of
    faculty and graduate students has been all too lacking in the
    humanities.
        We propose a national competitive program in which proposals from
    universities would be judged on the scholarly inquiry to be conducted,
    the manner in which the central organizing research topic would be
    expanded by faculty-supervised graduate student research, the
    intellectual, social or cultural significance of the research, the
    contribution of the research to interdisciplinary research, and the
    plans to communicate the research within and beyond the academic
    community. We believe that the first step should be internal
    competitions within institutions, with the university selecting which
    proposals should be submitted to the national competition to be
    conducted by NEH. The institutional proposals might involve a team of
    one faculty member and one graduate student, or they might involve two
    or more faculty working with several graduate students on an
    interdisciplinary research topic.
        The NEH does not currently support graduate research in the
    humanities. While the National Institutes of Health, National Science
    Foundation, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and the
    National Aeronautics and Science Administration, among others, each
    have a graduate education component that complements the agencies'
    research, the NEH stands as one of the few Federal agencies that does
    not support or train the next generation of researchers or support
    collaboration between students and faculty. While the Endowment funded
    a small dissertation fellowship program, the program was de-funded when
    the agency was cut significantly in the mid-1990s. We believe that NEH
    is uniquely positioned to promote a higher level of collaboration
    between faculty and graduate students in a manner that helps to supply
    our Nation with the talented and knowledgeable individuals who will
    contribute to a culturally competent workforce.
        Many details of course remain to be worked out, but we strongly
    believe that such a collaborative, interactive faculty/graduate student
    research and education program at the NEH will enrich humanities
    scholarship and improve humanities graduate education, essentially
    gaining two for one in a single program. We hope that we can further
    discuss this proposal as you move forward in crafting your Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
        AAU encourages you to take seriously the importance of the
    humanities in our society today. NEH helps our universities--and other
    colleges and universities around the country--ensure that the
    humanities remain central to their missions and to the cultural life of
    the Nation. The NEH, as the largest Federal supporter of the
    humanities, broadens public awareness of and participation in the
    humanities through teaching, scholarship and research. We, in coalition
    with the larger humanities advocacy community, support a significant
    increase in the Endowment to help restore historic cuts to all grant
    programs, with a focus on the core research and education programs. In
    addition, we believe that the 110th Congress provides a unique
    opportunity to develop a new program that facilitates more interaction
    between students and faculty in the humanities.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I welcome
    any questions.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
        State fish and wildlife agencies enjoy a long history of working in
    partnership with the Federal Government to conserve our Nation's fish
    and wildlife resources. Working together, we are able to ensure robust
    fish and wildlife populations living in healthy lands and waters,
    providing critical recreational opportunities and economic benefits to
    local communities and preventing fish and wildlife from declining to
    the point of becoming endangered.
        As the subcommittee moves forward with the fiscal year 2008
    Interior and Environment Appropriations bill, we urge you to put the
    greatest emphasis on programs that:
      --take a preventive rather than reactive approach to conservation
            problems, saving money by making an investment now to get a
            larger return.
      --advance landscape-level conservation efforts that are targeted at
            addressing the needs of many species and habitats across large
            regions, rather than individual projects.
      --facilitate & catalyze partnerships that leverage additional
            resources, magnifying the impact of every Federal dollar.
        The Association has provided the subcommittee with a full report
    that outlines the fiscal year 2008 Budget Recommendations of State fish
    and wildlife agencies. We offer the following highlighted priorities:
                         u.s. fish and wildlife service
        State Wildlife Grants.--The Association appreciates the
    subcommittee's strong support for the State Wildlife Grants program.
    This program has become the core Federal program to advance the
    national interest in preventing fish and wildlife from becoming
    endangered. Over the last 6 years, States have made great strides in
    developing strong programs to take action on the ground to rebuild
    populations of imperiled fish and wildlife, conserve and restore
    important lands and waters, and gather data to support sound management
    decisions.
        We recommend that Congress provide at least $85 million in fiscal
    year 2008 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. As you know,
    every State has completed a comprehensive wildlife conservation
    strategy, or wildlife action plan, as mandated by Congress. These
    action plans detail each State's species of greatest conservation need,
    their habitats, the problems and data gaps that confront them, and the
    conservation actions that are needed in order to prevent them from
    becoming endangered. A funding level of $85 million would reflect the
    Congress's commitment to following through on providing the Federal
    support needed to implement the wildlife action plans. At the same
    time, the need is much greater.
        The State Wildlife Grants program is supported by the Teaming with
    Wildlife coalition, a coalition of more than 5,000 organizations,
    agencies, and businesses in every State. The diverse support for this
    program is reflected in strong support that this program receives among
    your colleagues. This year, 60 Senators, representing both parties and
    nearly every State have signed on to a letter of support for at least
    $85 million.
        Fisheries Programs.--The Association urges Congress to increase
    funding for the Fisheries Program to $124.75 million in fiscal year
    2008. The Association, in partnership with the Service, developed a
    draft strategic plan for the Fisheries Program that outlined goals and
    performance targets for the next decade. Increased funding will allow
    the Service to address several priority issues identified in the
    strategic plan. In addition, the Association urges an expansion of
    funding for implementation of the National Fish Habitat Action Plan to
    a level of at least $6 million in fiscal year 2008. This national
    aquatic conservation effort will complement the highly successful North
    American Waterfowl Management Plan implemented in the 1980s. The Fish
    Habitat Action Plan has the support of State fish and wildlife agencies
    as well as the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior. To date more than
    500 organizations have signed on as partners to this effort.
        Refuges.--The Association supports increased funding in fiscal year
    2008 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 Service's Refuge System mission
    of conserving fish and wildlife. Several years ago, the Association,
    along with 16 other organizations, created the Cooperative Alliance for
    Refuge Enhancement (CARE) specifically to address this growing backlog.
    The Association 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 Association supports the increase to the visitor services
    portion of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
        North American Wetlands Conservation Act.--The North American
    Wetlands Conservation Act is authorized at $75 million. With every
    Federal dollar being matched by almost three non-Federal dollars, the
    program has more than 2,000 partners from communities, governments
    (including of Canada and Mexico), nonprofit organizations, States, and
    academia. The program has put thousands of projects on the ground in
    North America, including a total of more than of 16 million acres of
    wetlands and associated uplands in the United States, Canada, and
    Mexico. The Association supports the President's request at $42.64
    million and urges Congress to make progress towards the fully
    authorized funding level by appropriating $50 million.
        Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund.--The Association
    supports the $80 million requested by the President for fiscal year
    2008. Cooperative efforts between the FWS and the State fish and
    wildlife agencies are the surest way to meet objectives for species
    recovery and conservation under the act. The Association recommends
    that funds be made available to the States through a mechanism that
    maximizes spending discretion to the States, such as a State fish and
    wildlife agency ESA Conservation and Recovery Block Grant Program, with
    the individual States deciding the best mix of information, incentives,
    and acquisitions to achieve habitat conservation and protection and
    recovery objectives. Much of the Section 6 grant funds are already
    earmarked for program needs such as HCPs and CCAs. While these
    certainly represent useful purposes, the Association's first priority
    for Section 6 grants to the States remains those dollars that allow the
    States the greatest discretion in satisfying priority needs.
        Landowner Incentive Program.--The Association strongly urges
    Congress to fund the Landowner Incentive Program at the $21.6 million
    level in fiscal year 2008. The administration has not provided funding
    for this program in fiscal year 2008, which would discard the hard work
    that States have undertaken to develop this program. LIP has forged
    unique partnerships between public agencies and private landowners,
    including water rights holders, and is being used to emphasize the
    opportunity and importance of proactive conservation of at-risk species
    in private watersheds and landscapes. LIP is perhaps the best working
    model for how to work collaboratively with private landowners to
    proactively addressing the life needs and habitat requirements of
    threatened and endangered species.
                             u.s. geological survey
        The U.S. Geological Survey's Biological Resources Division provides
    critical information for wildlife and habitat management and
    conservation. The Association is concerned that uncontrollables such as
    mandated cost of living increases are not fully funded in the budget
    request. The Association strongly recommends that Congress increase the
    fiscal year 2008 budget for the Biological Resources Division to a
    level that fully funds uncontrollables in order to prevent further
    erosion to essential programs and services.
        Cooperative Research Units.--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,
    budgetary shortfalls have caused an erosion of available fiscal
    resources, resulting in a current staffing vacancy of 22 positions and
    a corresponding decrease in productivity. Applied research efforts and
    dissemination of research information to States and other cooperators
    has suffered due to the lack of funding for critical research and
    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.
    Accordingly, the Association strongly recommends that Congress increase
    the fiscal year 2008 budget for the Cooperative Research Unit by $25
    million to fill the vacancies of 22 essential staff necessary to
    achieve full function including a proposed matching fund program, as
    detailed in the Association's Budget Recommendations.
                           bureau of land management
        The Association appreciates the emphasis given to fish and wildlife
    within the Bureau of Land Management's fiscal year 2008 request, but
    recommends increased funding for multi-state conservation strategies to
    benefit at-risk species in Western Grasslands, Shrub-steppe, Hawaiian
    Islands, and Sierra Nevada Foothills. Proposed funding levels will
    continue to present a significant challenge to the BLM to address the
    current levels of activity on public land, without providing the agency
    any capability to enhance its management presence and programs.
    Congress needs to bring BLM's operational budget into parity with the
    other Federal land management agencies.
        The Association supports the Secretary of the Interior's $22
    million Healthy Lands Initiative, $15 million of which would be
    allocated to the BLM which would carry out habitat enhancement projects
    in six regions across the West.
        We also encourage the committee to continue to support the BLM in
    working to integrate collaborative wildlife conservation planning
    efforts into their own activities. As outlined above, every State has
    produced a wildlife action plan. These were developed in concert with
    Federal agency partners, and the Association recommends that Congress
    support the efforts of the BLM to integrate the wildlife action plans
    into their own activities and urge the agency to consult with the
    respective State wildlife agencies to identify collaborative
    opportunities to advance shared wildlife action plan priorities.
    Similarly, the BLM is a participant in the National Fish Habitat Action
    Plan, and we respectfully urge Congress to support the agency in
    adopting those priorities as well.
                              u.s. forest service
        Wildland Fire Management.--We are concerned that management of
    forest fires is consuming an increasing portion of the Forest Service's
    budget, impairing the agency's ability to manage national forest lands,
    fund critical research, and deliver the services to citizens and
    taxpayers. While the Forest Service is working hard to manage fire
    costs within their control, their current ``constrained'' budget
    structure forces increases in the fire program to come at the expense
    of all other Forest Service work. When adjusted for inflation, non-fire
    programs in the Forest Service's budget have dropped by 35 percent from
    2001-2008. We recommend that fire suppression activities be removed
    from Forest Service ``base'' funding, so that the Forest Service is not
    forced to cut other programs in the annual request process in order to
    finance the ever increasing costs of fighting wildfires. In particular,
    we urge that you consider developing a Reserve Fund or Emergency Fund
    funding process.
        Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management Program.--The Association
    is deeply concerned that the President's budget for this program
    proposes an approximate 11 percent reduction over the 2006 enacted
    budget. The Association urges Congress to provide $135 million in
    fiscal year 2008. The Association requests that the USFS closely
    coordinate use of these funds with State fish and wildlife agencies to
    recognize and fully utilize the States' authorities for fish and
    wildlife management.
        As with the BLM, the Association recommends that Congress support
    the efforts of the U.S. Forest Service to integrate the National Fish
    Habitat Action Plan and the State wildlife action plans into their own
    activities, and we urge you to encourage the agency to consult with the
    respective State wildlife agencies to identify collaborative
    opportunities to advance shared fish and wildlife priorities.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Association to Preserve Cape Cod
        Madame Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $4 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    for the Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts. I also want to
    take this opportunity to thank the chairman and committee for their
    leadership in supporting land acquisition programs such as the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund, which are so critical to preserving our
    treasured public lands.
        The Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC) is the largest and most
    prestigious environmental advocacy organization on Cape Cod, with more
    than 5,000 families comprising its membership. APCC's mission is to
    promote programs and policies that protect the natural resources of
    Cape Cod. As such, APCC has been in the forefront of all of the most
    important efforts to protect Cape Cod's rich natural heritage for
    almost four decades.
        APCC is particularly interested in the Cape Cod National Seashore,
    which we consider to be the shining star of Cape Cod and emblematic of
    all that our organization seeks to safeguard. Cape Cod has a simple
    geography--it is a land of sand and of water. Nowhere is this
    simplicity and grace more apparent than at the Cape Cod National
    Seashore. Thus, when APCC learned that the National Park Service (NPS),
    which manages the Seashore, has the opportunity to acquire the 57-acre
    North of Highland Campground, a family-run private campground within
    the Seashore's congressionally authorized boundary in Truro, we began
    working with The Trust for Public Lands and our U.S. congressional
    delegation, Senators Kerry and Kennedy and Congressman Delahunt, to
    advocate for purchase of this land by the NPS.
        The Cape Cod National Seashore, designated by Congress in 1961 to
    preserve its precious resources for future generations, includes 40
    miles of coastline and boasts some of the world's most beautiful white
    sand beaches. With over 4 million visitors a year, the Cape Cod
    National Seashore is one of the most heavily visited places in the
    National Park system, with peak visitation occurring during the summer
    months.
        There are many recreational opportunities at the Seashore,
    including six swimming beaches--including the popular Head of the
    Meadow Beach that provides some of the most exciting body-surfing
    available in the area. The Seashore has more than 11 miles of self-
    guided nature trails, a variety of picnic areas, scenic overlooks,
    historic building tours and many fishing opportunities. The Seashore
    also maintains three bicycle trails that wind through forests and past
    sand dunes, marshes and kettle ponds.
        Nestled in the pines with trail access to the nearby Head of the
    Meadow Beach, the 57-acre North of Highland Campground, is a Seashore
    in-holding completely surrounded by National Park Service lands. It has
    been owned and managed since 1954 as a family-oriented campground. The
    campground operates from mid-May through mid-September and includes
    four bathhouses, a camp store, two dwellings and 237 sites for camping.
    The property also contains seven acres of wetland habitat. Preferring
    not to sell the land to a developer who would likely build houses, the
    owners of the campground have been working with the NPS to place the
    campground in NPS ownership to ensure that it is not developed and
    remains open to the public.
        In fiscal year 2008, an appropriation of $4 million from the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund will protect the final 57 acres of this
    property, helping to ensure that the campground remains open to the
    public, thereby maintaining affordable recreational opportunities for
    the public in one of most heavily visited national parks in the
    country. An initial allocation of $2 in fiscal year 2007 is allowing
    the National Park Service to begin this critical public acquisition.
        Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, for the opportunity to provide this
    testimony in support of the appropriation of $4 million for Cape Cod
    National Seashore.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Association of State Drinking Water
                                 Administrators
        James D. Taft, Executive Director, on behalf of the Association of
    State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), is pleased to provide
    testimony to the Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee on fiscal
    year 2008 Appropriations for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
        ASDWA represents the State drinking water programs in each of the
    50 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).
                               summary of request
        ASDWA respectfully requests that, for fiscal year 2008, 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; 1
    billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF)
    program; and $6 million for State drinking water program security
    initiatives. A more complete explanation of the needs represented by
    these requested amounts and a further explanation of these particular
    requested levels follows.
                          how states use federal funds
        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 (PWSS) and the Drinking Water
    State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) 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.
        The PWSS Program.--To meet the requirements of the SDWA, States
    have accepted primary enforcement authority for oversight of 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 well beyond simply ensuring
    compliance at the tap.
        The DWSRF Program.--In a little over 10 years, States have
    leveraged funding for the DWSRF program into more than $11 billion in
    loans to thousands of communities as a means to help them improve the
    quality and 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 the event of
    September 2001, as well as since the recent experiences 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 responded to the
    significant number of requests for assistance, training, information,
    and financial support from the systems under their purview as well as
    support utility-based mutual aid networks. 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. Decreases in available Federal dollars increase
    the likelihood of a contamination event that puts public health at
    risk.
        Although the 1996 SDWA Amendments authorized the PWSS Program at
    $100 million per year, appropriated amounts have only recently reached
    or come close to that originally-authorized level. ($98.2 million was
    appropriated for the PWSS program in fiscal year 2007.) Of the $1.2
    billion in PWSS grants that States could have received since 1996,
    actual appropriations have only been $949 million through fiscal year
    2006. This level of funding, 11 years after enactment, is now woefully
    inadequate for the enormity of the task faced by State drinking water
    programs. In fiscal year 2006, State drinking water program
    administrators identified an annual shortfall nationally of
    approximately $360 million between available funds and those needed to
    administer their programs. That gap continues to grow and 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 situation has been illustrated, over the
    past year, in several States being unable to undertake all or part of
    the initial phases of the most recent microbial contaminant/
    disinfection by-products rules (known as LT 2/Stage 2). This situation
    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 2008 request levels and sdwa program obligations
        The PWSS Program.--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 and the enacted
    budget high point of $101.9 million appropriated just 3 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 critical phases of implementation of the LT
    2/Stage 2 Rule cluster--two very sophisticated and complex initiatives
    as well as prepare to implement the recently promulgated Ground Water
    Rule and soon-to-be promulgated changes to the Lead and Copper Rule.
    States want to offer the flexibilities allowed under these and other
    rules; however, fewer dollars mean less opportunities to work one-on-
    one with water systems to meet their needs. Looking ahead, States
    expect that new rules for contaminants on EPA's Contaminant Candidate
    List will be forthcoming. Revisions to the Total Coliform Rule and
    possibly, a new distribution system rule are planned over the next few
    years. 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 2008
    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 2.5 percent increase over the past
    three fiscal years and into fiscal year 2008 to adjust for inflation.
    (Note: ASDWA also calls the committee's attention to an alternative
    States' Budget for fiscal year 2008 developed by the Environmental
    Council of the States (ECOS). The level recommended in that budget for
    the PWSS program, $104,170,000, would represent a welcome increase in
    the appropriated amount of recent years. The PWSS appropriation should
    be at least that amount; however, as noted above, we believe a
    significantly greater appropriation is warranted.)
        The DWSRF Program.--The fiscal year 2008 DWSRF program request in
    the President's budget is ``flat-lined'' at $842 million and reflects
    no change from the fiscal year 2007 request and continues the downward
    funding trend of the 3 previous years--an $8 million decrease. 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. 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. Without reasonable
    increases, 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 2008
    funding for the DWSRF program be appropriated at authorized level of $1
    billion.
        Security Responsibilities.--The administration's fiscal year 2008
    budget request includes $4.9 million for State drinking water programs
    to continue to expand their security activities, particularly for small
    and medium systems and support utility-based mutual aid networks for
    all drinking water 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
    ongoing Homeland Security initiatives, the anticipation of metrics
    under the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, and the lessons
    learned from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, 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. Beyond the mandates of the Bioterrorism Act of
    2002, States are being directed to expand their efforts to reflect an
    ``all hazards'' approach to water security and 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 2008
    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 2008 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 2008 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 the afore-mentioned alternative State-
    recommended fiscal year 2008 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 2007, ASDWA asks that the promise of that
    support be realized.
        ASDWA appreciates the opportunity to provide this testimony to the
    subcommittee for its consideration and stands ready to work with the
    subcommittee to ensure the continued protection of public health
    through provision of safe drinking water. Should questions or the need
    for additional information arise, please contact James D. Taft, ASDWA's
    Executive Director, at 703-812-9507.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Biomass Energy Research Association
        This testimony pertains to the Biomass Energy Research
    Association's (BERA) recommendations for fiscal year 2008 in support of
    appropriations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that are
    related to bioenergy. This includes support for the USDA Forest Service
    (USDAFS) for 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. This testimony also supports
    the conduct of bioenergy-related research by the Agricultural Research
    Service (ARS) and the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
    Extension Service (CSREES) under Research, Education and Economics
    programs of the U.S.D.A. In total, BERA recommends that $106,500,000 be
    appropriated for these efforts in fiscal year 2008. 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 are as follows:
      --$40,000,000 under the President's Healthy Forest Initiative for the
            reduction of hazardous fuels via removal of forest thinnings,
            waste and underbrush, including infrastructure development.
      --$10,000,000 to continue the Biobased Products and Bioenergy
            Research (BPBR) program of the USDAFS Forest Products
            Laboratory.
      --$30,000,000 to support renewable energy research by the
            Agricultural Research Service (ARS) to maximize production,
            harvesting and storage of plants for bioenergy purposes,
            including $10 million for collaborative efforts with the U.S.
            Department of Energy on harvesting and other production
            equipment research.
      --$25,000,000 to support research under the National Research
            Initiative on energy crops and crop residues with the specific
            purpose of creating viable energy resources.
      --$1,000,000 to support interagency coordination on planning and
            infrastructure development.
      --$500,000 to help re-establish the Biomass Conference of the
            Americas (co-sponsored with DOE).
                                   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, as well as the administration's target for
    supplanting 20 percent of our gasoline consumption in 10 years (by
    2017) through biofuels and efficiency gains.
        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. Wood also 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.
        Other cellulosic feedstocks, such as agricultural residues and
    dedicated energy crops (short rotation poplar, switchgrass) are
    expected to be a primary resource for bioenergy in the future. However,
    research will be needed to overcome issues of recalcitrance, low
    yields, cost effective harvesting and storage, and other challenges to
    ensure these resources are viable as future bioenergy feedstocks. Some
    of this research is ongoing at the U.S. Department of Energy; however,
    there is a role for R&D in this area at USDA as well. Without
    additional targeted research with significant Federal investment, the
    ambitious goals set by this administration will not likely be met, nor
    will the real promise of a domestic bioindustry be realized.
                  bera recommendations for usda bioenergy r&d
        BERA's recommendations support key areas that will contribute to
    sustainable forestry as well as the creation of viable renewable
    resources as part of a diversified energy supply. Specific
    recommendations are:
        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. Potential R&D
    and technology development issues related to infrastructure should be
    explored in cooperation with DOE.
        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. 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. 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.
        Support and Expand Renewable Energy Research by the Agricultural
    Research Service (ARS).--This important research is needed to maximize
    production, harvesting and storage of plants for bioenergy purposes.
    While the focus is on R&D to effectively use energy crops and residues
    and maximize their conversion to biofuels and bioenergy, there is also
    the need to develop the production equipment and practices needed to
    ensure a viable supply infrastructure at the large volumes necessary
    for an expanded bioindustry. In addition to existing program, we are
    recommending research be initiated, in collaboration with programs at
    the U.S. Department of Energy, on harvesting and other production
    equipment as well as storage and transportation. This research should
    include demonstration and validation of systems at the appropriate
    scale.
        Support Bioenergy Research Under the National Research
    Initiative.--This includes considerable expansion of R&D to enhance the
    use of energy crops and crop residues as viable energy resources. In
    addition to current activities that cover genomics, crop yields, and
    other areas, we recommend activities with a specific focus on the
    ecological and environmental sustainability of using energy crops and
    residues for bioenergy, including impacts to water, soil and the carbon
    balance. Definitive and long term research is needed, and should be
    initiated now, to understand the true impacts of removing agricultural
    residues from the soil, increased burdens on the water use and
    aquifers, and the potential environmental issues of increasing use of
    fertilizers, pesticides and other agricultural chemicals that may
    result from residue removal. This research should go beyond models and
    simulations to real world testing and monitoring of soil and water
    conditions under residue removal scenarios.
        Interagency Coordination Activities.--BERA strongly urges close
    interagency coordination between USAD and DOE, EPA, DOT, DOC, NSF, DOD,
    and others in the areas of Basic Science, Feedstock Infrastructure and
    Distribution Infrastructure (pipelines, blending terminals, rail and
    other transport). This should include collaboration on RD&D as
    appropriate, planning, and clarification of agency roles to eliminate
    duplication, fine-tune pathways to program goals and maximize the
    return on the Federal investment.
        Biomass Conference of the Americas.--BERA requests DOE/USDA to
    consider support to re-establish the biannual Biomass Conference of the
    Americas (or similar venue), which would be partly subsidized by
    industrial and other sponsors, and organized through BERA in
    coordination with USDOE/USDA.
                                  conclusions
        Expansion of the USDA programs as recommended by BERA enables a
    considerably higher probability of significantly increasing the
    contribution of biomass to primary U.S. energy demand through use of
    forestry residues while eliminating a national fire hazard, encouraging
    sustainable energy crop production, improving the cost effectiveness
    and diversity of biomass resources for bioenergy, and providing
    opportunities for rural development.
        BERA recommends that all aspects of the feedstock infrastructure--
    from sustainable production of high yield crops to cost-effective
    delivery of those crops to the bioenergy customer--be developed with
    support from USDA, as outlined above. While grain crops are a viable
    solution for the near term for bioenergy, they will not provide a
    sustainable solution at the volumes needed to really impact our energy
    use. Thus, BERA includes R&D recommendations to ensure the availability
    of a wide diversity of non-food cellulosic feedstocks for bioenergy,
    such as dedicated energy crops and agricultural residues, while
    considering the challenges of environmental and societal sustainability
    and maintaining the economic vitality of America's farmers.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Bird Conservation Funding Coalition
        The Bird Conservation Funding Coalition (BCFC) consists of national
    organizations who together advocate for Federal funding to advance bird
    conservation. This year we ask that you once again provide funding to
    programs we believe are crucial for maintaining healthy and abundant
    bird populations throughout the United States. These programs are:
        The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grants Program
    supports partnership programs to conserve birds in the United States,
    Latin America, and the Caribbean, where approximately 5 billion birds
    representing over 500 species spend their winters, including some of
    the most endangered birds in North America. Projects include activities
    to benefit bird populations and their habitats such as research and
    monitoring, law enforcement, and outreach and education. The BCFC
    respectfully requests the committee prioritize fiscal year 2008 funding
    for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grants Program at
    $5.5 million, the currently authorized level, an increase of $1.5
    million from the appropriated amount in fiscal year 2007.
        Joint Ventures are regionally based partnerships of public and
    private organizations dedicated to the delivery of bird conservation
    within their boundaries. Originally formed to support programs
    involving waterfowl and wetlands, the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures
    have recently adopted a 5-year growth strategy to embody an ``all-bird
    approach,'' to provide additional capacity for partnership development
    and enhancement, and to expand monitoring and assessment efforts. The
    BCFC respectfully requests the committee allocate $15.1 million for
    fiscal year 2008, an increase of $4.3 million from the appropriated
    amount in fiscal year 2007.
        USFWS Science and Science Support provides invaluable information
    on the status and trends of bird species necessary for sound management
    decisions. This scientific information helps to ensure that funds are
    allocated wisely within all other BCFC priorities. The slight increase
    in funds requested by the BCFC will help to close a multimillion dollar
    shortfall which currently exists within the Office of Migratory Bird
    Management. Therefore, the BCFC respectfully requests the committee
    provide $29.52 million for this important program, an increase of $2.58
    million in fiscal year 2007 and consistent with President Bush's fiscal
    year 2008 budget mark.
        The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) provides
    funding for conservation projects for the benefit of wetland-associated
    migratory birds in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. More than
    half of the original wetlands in the United States. have been lost.
    This has contributed to the steady decline of migratory birds. NAWCA,
    in existence since 1989, has preserved over 20 million acres of
    wetlands by leveraging $573 million in Federal funds with more than
    $1.6 billion in partner contributions. The BCFC respectfully requests
    the committee prioritize fiscal year 2008 funding for NAWCA at $50
    million, an increase of $10.6 million appropriated in fiscal year 2007.
        State Wildlife Grants fund is the Nation's core program for
    preventing wildlife from becoming endangered, and supports a wide
    variety of wildlife-related projects by State fish and wildlife
    agencies throughout the United States. In order to receive Federal
    funds through the State Wildlife Grants Program, Congress charged each
    State and territory with developing an ``action plan.'' Every State and
    territory submitted their wildlife action plan to the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service for review (and approval) by the October 1, 2005
    deadline. The State Wildlife Action Plans are the result of a
    collaborative effort by scientists, sportsmen, conservationists, and
    other members of the community. The BCFC respectfully requests the
    committee allocates $85 million for fiscal year 2008, an increase of
    $17.5 million appropriated in fiscal year 2007.
        Wildlife Without Borders (WWB), within USFWS Division of
    International Conservation, is a mainstay of bird conservation in
    Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. Since the termination of
    the USAID funding to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for its
    Neotropical Migratory Bird Program, the WWB program is more critical
    than ever. These programs, which typically leverage $4 for every
    appropriated $1, are a foundation for long-term conservation efforts,
    because they focus on developing in-country capacity. At this time,
    there are four WWB programs, each covering an extensive area: Latin
    America and the Caribbean; Mexico; Russia and East Asia; the Near East,
    South Asia, and Africa. The BCFC respectfully requests the committee
    prioritize fiscal year 2008 funding for WWB at $4.8 million for fiscal
    year 2008, an increase of $500,000 over fiscal year 2007.
        International Programs, within the USDA Forest Service, supports an
    array of extremely effective bird conservation projects with a
    relatively small budget. Among these are restoration of Kirtland's
    Warbler with programs in Michigan and the Bahamas, and conservation of
    breeding habitat in Canada's Boreal Forest. The BCFC supports an
    increase in funds which would expand and accelerate work on these
    projects, as well as projects benefiting the rapidly-declining Cerulean
    Warbler and the mangroves and wetlands of Mexico's Sonora Coast and San
    Pedro River watershed. The BCFC respectfully requests the committee
    provide $8 million for fiscal year 2008, an increase of $1.1 million
    over fiscal year 2007.
        Again, we thank you for your steadfast support of these critically
    important programs.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Rosemary S. Bunn
        Thanks so much for considering our little perfect part of the world
    here in Mason Township, Maine. We have a 600+ acre parcel up here at
    Haystack Notch that is on your agenda for funding during the 2008
    fiscal year. Although I do not know a lot about all the different
    agencies who do all this (and I know you have stacks of papers to
    read!), I do know that the White Mountains National Forest is seeking
    your help for funds for the U.S. Forest Service to purchase this.
    Although I am originally from Florida, I have a small little camp up
    there and it is absolutely part of my heart. I hope it gets funded.
        I lost my husband, Denny, to cancer in 2003, but one of the last
    things he wanted was to come up to our camp in Mason Township. Denny
    was a triathlete and it was a place where he had often run, mountain
    biked, and just generally enjoyed. There are a few full-time residents
    and also some other summer people like us and all of us had become
    quite close. It was perfect and I am glad we got to make the trip.
        I now live here full time and can tell you that on a year-round
    basis, Haystack Notch is a rare find in our country. The trees,
    wildlife, streams, and ecological setting are pristine and classic. It
    is possible to hear the wind marching down from the top of the Notch,
    watch the sun peek through the deep foliage, and nothing beats the
    smell of balsam pines. You know, if you get the chance, I would love to
    have you come up for a visit. My camp is close to a stream and you
    could have a first-hand look at Mother Nature and her work! In a year
    which seems to be really gearing up for positive environmental work,
    this would be a great move.
        OK, I ramble too much and you have a lot of work to do! Thanks
    again for considering the parcel of land and also for all the work you
    do for us.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Central
                        California Ozone Study Coalition
        Madam 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 2008 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 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 current SIPs,
    all future 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. SIPs are now more complex than they were in the past.
    The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) now recommends 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 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
    PM10/PM2.5 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 2008, 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
    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 PM10/PM2.5
    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 California Industry and Government Coalition
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
    California Industry and Government Coalition for the Kern County Valley
    Floor Habitat Conservation Plan (KCVFHCP), we are pleased to submit
    this statement for the record in support of our funding request for the
    Interior Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2008.
        First, the Coalition supports the President's budget request for
    the Department of Interior's Cooperative Endangered Species
    Conservation Fund, especially funding for HCP land acquisition.
        Second, the Coalition urges the subcommittee to appropriate
    additional funding for land acquisition above the funding requested by
    the President. The additional funding requested by the Coalition
    anticipates that $1 million will be needed by the Kern County program
    to be used for purposes of acquiring and maintaining habitat preserves.
        The Coalition's request is supported by the timely need to
    implement the KCVFHCP. The County's local oil and gas production
    industry and Water Districts have contributed over $450,000 to the
    development of this program. In 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service allocated $500,000 of Federal Endangered Species Act Section 6
    funds to assist in program implementation. The California State
    Government has authorized $1 million to augment the Federal funds. In
    order to secure the $3 million total necessary to assist in the
    implementation of the plan, we will require $1 million for fiscal year
    2008 and $500,000 for fiscal year 2009.
        The Coalition requests that the subcommittee appropriate the
    maximum possible amount for this program, so that the funding pool can
    accommodate our request and need. We are confident that the plan's
    merits and urgency support this request.
        Kern County's program is unique from other regions in the Nation in
    that it contains some of the highest concentrations of plant and animal
    species protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the
    continental United States. The region is occupied by 11 wildlife
    species and 14 plant species covered as threatened or endangered under
    the program. The potential for conflict with the Federal ESA is great
    in Kern County because of the extensive oil and gas production
    activities, water conveyance efforts and the urbanization that is
    occurring. Since Kern County is the top oil producing county in the
    Nation and experiencing rapid urban growth, potential conflicts with
    the ESA and their resolution through a proactive conservation program
    has significant national importance.
        In recognition of the conflicts posed to economic growth by Federal
    and State endangered species laws, a joint agency Memorandum of
    Understanding was entered into by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    Bureau of Land Management, California Energy Commission, California
    Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources, California Department
    of Fish and Game and Kern County. The participating agencies agreed to
    develop a unified conservation strategy with the goal of providing a
    streamlined and consistent process of complying with State and Federal
    endangered species laws, yet at the same time allow important industry
    activities such as oil and gas, water conveyance and other industry
    activities to continue.
        Preparation of the KCVFHCP began in 1989 and involved a number of
    Federal, State, and local government agencies, as well as the oil and
    gas industry, agricultural interests, utilities and environmental
    groups.
        Kern County's Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan is one of the
    largest and most diverse endangered species conservation programs under
    development in the Nation encompassing over 3,110 square miles. The
    program represents a departure from traditional endangered species
    conservation programs which utilize prohibitory controls to assure
    conservation of species habitat. Instead, it is based on an incentive-
    based system of selling or trading habitat credits in an open market.
    This innovative approach, for the first time, provides landowners with
    real incentives and more importantly, the ability to choose how best to
    manage their own private property. The KCVFHCP is in the final stages
    of preparation. The HCP document is completed. An environmental impact
    statement is being prepared for public review in the near future. Final
    approval will occur in 2008.
        Numerous agencies, in concert with the State of California and
    local government entities, as well as the private oil and gas industry
    have contributed funding, time and other resources toward developing
    the KCVFHCP. The KCVFHCP program will be completed in 2008, provided
    there is the necessary Federal funding for the acquisition of habitat
    to mitigate for oil and gas operations and development. Additional
    funding is critical to completing the HCP. This is one of the final
    steps necessary to implement the conservation strategy. Because of the
    extensive private, local, and State government financial support that
    went into the development of this program, Federal participation in
    program implementation will demonstrate that the burden of ESA
    compliance is not being placed exclusively on private property owners.
    Program funding will also contribute to eventual species recovery.
                             program funding needs
        In order for the KCVFHCP to be implemented, the program requires
    funding in the amount of $1.5 million (augments the $1.5 million in
    State and Federal funding received in 1997) that could be funded in
    increments over the first 2 years of the program. The purpose of this
    funding is described as follows:
    Oil Development Issue
        A mitigation strategy has been devised that is intended to
    acknowledge existing oil field activities within Kern County. The
    strategy proposes to acquire 3,000 acres of endangered species habitat
    to mitigate for species loss resulting from oil field development
    outside of established oil field production areas, but within proximity
    of those areas. This is to allow for reasonable expansion of oil field
    activities over the life of the HCP program. The program strategy
    allocates $3.0 million for acquisition and perpetual maintenance of
    species reserve areas. With this type of strategy, oil field expansion
    activities would be provided for in the program. This strategy would be
    of great benefit to the small independent oil and gas companies within
    the program area.
    Urban Development/County Infrastructure Issue
        The conservation program includes an Urban Development/County
    Infrastructure mitigation strategy that mitigates for species habitat
    loss through the use of an incentive-based system of selling or trading
    habitat credits in an open market. This innovative program will add
    market value to land that is needed by project proponents to comply
    with endangered species laws which will encourage the owners of such
    properties to offer lands for the benefit of species conservation.
    Protected species of plants and animals will benefit from a program
    that promotes private property owners to conserve permanent habitat
    preserves consistent with the objectives of the ESA.
    Water District Activity Issue
        A water district strategy is included un the program address
    Covered Species protection duet to the construction of new facilities
    and the operation and maintenance of existing water management and
    conveyance facilities. The Covered Species will benefit form reduced
    and less intrusive operation and maintenance measures than have been
    conducted historically due to concerns for conflicts with endangered
    species laws.
    Federal Funding Support will Augment Local Government and Private
            Industry Efforts to Comply with the Endangered Species Act
        The $1.5 million required for the oil field strategy would help
    contribute to satisfying the program's endangered species conservation
    goals, while also providing for continued economic growth of Kern
    County's oil and urban development activities. Protected species would
    benefit from a comprehensive long-term program that promotes the
    creation of permanent habitat preserves.
        Numerous private businesses, in concert with the State of
    California and local government entities, are attempting to do their
    part, and we come to the appropriations process to request assistance
    in obtaining a fair Federal share of financial support for this
    important effort. This unique cooperative partnership involving State
    and local government, as well as private industry, has contributed
    substantial funds to date, to assist in the development of this
    program.
        The California Industry and Government Coalition appreciates the
    subcommittee's consideration of this request for a fiscal year 2008
    appropriation to support implementation of this significant program.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the California State Coastal Conservancy
                                project requests
        Funding for the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay Wildlife Refuge (FWS,
    Partners for Fish and Wildlife)--$7,000,000
        Monitoring of San Francisco Bay Salt Ponds (USGS, Biological
    Research and Monitoring)--$900,000
                                    summary
        The following testimony is in support of the California State
    Coastal Conservancy's fiscal year 2008 Interior and Environment
    Appropriations request. The Conservancy respectfully requests needed
    funding for the following critical projects: $7 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 $7,000,000 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 Cascade Land Conservancy
        Cascade Land Conservancy is supporting four funding requests from
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund and one for the Forest Legacy
    Program in Washington State in fiscal year 2008. These will protect
    wildlife habitat, sustain forest management, and improve recreation
    opportunities. They will also help achieve the goals of The Cascade
    Agenda, a 100 year vision for the region developed by citizens. We urge
    you to fully fund these important projects.
                    land acquisition--national park service
    Mount Rainier National Park--Carbon River--$3 million
        These funds would allow the National Park Service to acquire
    approximately 200 acres within the 800-acre Mount Rainier National Park
    Expansion Area, which was established by the Mount Rainier National
    Park Boundary Adjustment Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-31). The area
    includes frontage on the wild and meandering Carbon River that flows
    from the glaciers of Mount Rainier. It provides habitat for salmon,
    steelhead and terrestrial species.
        This scenic property will be the site for the new northwest
    entrance to the park, replacing facilities along a road frequently
    washed out by floodwaters from the Carbon River. Thus, along with
    providing park visitors improved access, the new entrance will reduce
    the cost of road repairs for taxpayers. A new campground is also
    planned to be built near the entrance above the floodplain.
    Conservation of these properties will help connect the surrounding
    wildlife corridors and protect the ecosystem health of the Carbon River
    Valley, linking the Fairfax Forest to the north, the National Park to
    the east, and the proposed pathway of the Foothills Rails-to-Trails
    corridor. Pierce County has invested in other properties along the
    Carbon River that complement this expansion of the Mount Rainier
    National Park.
                        land acquisition--forest service
    Central Cascade Ecosystem Land Acquisition--Big Creek--$1.3 million
        This request would allow the Forest Service to acquire key
    inholdings in the central Cascade Mountains, enhancing the protection
    of a major wildlife corridor. Significant sums from Federal, State,
    county, city and private sources have been invested to conserve lands
    in this area. Congress has appropriated nearly $60 million for land
    acquisition in the central Cascades over the past 6 years.
        Among several parcels of land central to conservation in this
    ecosystem, one stands out as highest priority--the 640-acre Big Creek
    parcel on Manastash Ridge, which is surrounded by the Wenatchee
    National Forest. This parcel contains late successional forest habitat,
    including one mile of Big Creek, which supports elk, deer, spotted owl
    and other species of wildlife, some of which are listed under the
    Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
    parcel also contains portions of a roadless area, which if acquired by
    the Forest Service, would link to other designated roadless areas in
    the Wenatchee National Forest. Big Creek is a tributary of the Yakima
    River.
        Acquisition of the Big Creek parcel by the Forest Service would
    accomplish a number of conservation goals, some of which were
    identified in the original 1998 Plum Creek Land Exchange, which was
    never completed. These include:
      --No new roads and no logging
      --Preserving fish and wildlife habitat
      --Allowing USFS to apply consistent land management practices in the
            area
      --Returning more than 5,000 acres to the Roadless Area Inventory
    Wild Sky Wilderness--Wallace River--$1.5 million
        This funding would allow the Forest Service to acquire 470 acres
    located in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. The properties
    are identified as priority acquisitions in the Wild Sky Wilderness
    legislation (H.R. 886) which passed the House recently. The property is
    within 2 hours drive for over 2.5 million Washington residents,
    including those residents in Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma. Recreation
    in the area include fishing, hiking, mountain climbing and wildlife
    watching.
        Wallace River is an important source of clean water for critical
    salmon habitat in the Skykomish River, one of the top three salmon
    producing rivers in Puget Sound. Public ownership will reduce impacts
    to water quality by logging and road building. The parcel supports a
    large grove of old growth forest and critical wetland habitat along
    Wallace River. Its remote location provides important security habitat
    for rare and threatened species such as gray wolf and wolverine. Public
    ownership of this inholding will improve protection from wildfires and
    thus reduce the hazard of wildfire to citizens and property.
    Additionally, blocking up ownership facilitates efforts to contain and
    eradicate invasive species.
        Acquiring these properties will save taxpayers by eliminating
    approximately five miles of inholding boundaries within the National
    Forest.
    Carbon River--Section 4--$115,000
        This request is for the Forest Service to purchase a 5.3 acre
    parcel in section 4, known as the Crandall property, which is a short
    distance from Mount Rainier's Carbon River entrance. This property is a
    private inholding in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. It
    serves as a critical wildlife and recreation corridor. Public ownership
    would protect watershed, wildlife, fisheries and will provide for
    recreation opportunities such as hiking and camping. This property will
    then be managed under the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land
    and Resource Management Plan.
                             forest legacy program
    Tahuya Headwaters--Working Forest Initiative--$3.5 million
        This appropriation would fund a grant under the Forest Service
    Forest Legacy Program, and would complete Phase 2 of the Tahuya Forest
    Conservation Project. The Headwaters portion would protect 1,705 acres
    in fiscal year 2008, in partnership with Pope Resources. A 25 percent
    dollar match would be provided by a combination of State and Kitsap
    County funds.
        This area contains some of the most ecologically significant,
    productive, and at-risk commercial forests in the Puget Sound Lowlands.
    It is part of a regional forest conservation effort in Kitsap and Mason
    counties. The Hood Canal Alliance is a sponsor partner for the project,
    which includes Kitsap County, Great Peninsula Conservancy, Washington
    Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and
    Wildlife, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, Point No Point Treaty Council
    and Hood Canal Environmental Council. Ultimately, the Project seeks to
    remove development rights from 15,640 acres of private working
    forestland on the Kitsap Peninsula, creating a network of working
    forests linking State and private forest lands, including the watershed
    for Bremerton. The project also seeks to maintain the viability of
    commercial forestry in the county.
        We appreciate your consideration of these requests. Please contact
    us if you have any questions.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Cedar City/Brian Head Tourism & Convention
                                     Bureau
        Madame Chairwoman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
    acquisition of the Ashdown Gorge property by the U.S. Forest Service.
    An appropriation of $5 million from the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund is needed to purchase the 320-acre inholding at the Dixie National
    Forest in southwestern Utah.
        I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the
    Chairwoman and subcommittee members for supporting funding for land
    acquisition accounts such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF). By acquiring lands within the boundaries of Federal land units,
    the LWCF is essential to protecting the natural, recreational,
    wildlife, and scenic resources that Americans cherish within their
    public lands. In the case of inholdings, acquisition improves land and
    resource management, ensures continued public access, consolidates land
    ownership, and prevents further fragmentation.
        The mission of the Cedar City/Brian Head Tourism & Convention
    Bureau is to increase visitation in Iron County. Established in 1987,
    the Tourism Bureau is a division of Iron County Government, charged
    with three specific objectives: (1) to promote Iron County as a unique
    destination to visit; (2) to encourage longer stays and repeat visits;
    and (3) to enhance, quality visitor experiences through services
    provided by our Visitor Center and through co-operative partnerships.
    The Ashdown Gorge land acquisition will in no doubt help us in
    fulfilling our objectives.
        The largest national forest in Utah, the 2 million-acre Dixie
    National Forest spans 170 miles across the southern part of the State.
    Known for its solitude, splendor, beauty, and recreational
    opportunities, the forest surrounds and links together Bryce, Capitol
    Reef, and Zion national parks, as well as Cedar Breaks and Grand
    Staircase-Escalante national monuments. The 7,000-acre Ashdown Gorge
    Wilderness. Area, within the forest, is characterized by forest and
    meadows and is located southeast of Cedar City, and just west of Cedar
    Breaks National Monument. Many of the red limestone formations of the
    park can be seen from areas within the wilderness area. Like the famous
    Cedar Breaks National Monument, which receives over 500,000 visitors a
    year, the Ashdown Gorge is known for its multicolored rock formations
    and plateau-top stands of 1,000 year old bristlecone pines. The gorge
    is named after the family of George Ashdown, who built a sawmill there
    in 1898.
        In fiscal year 2008 there is an opportunity to protect the 320-acre
    Ashdown Gorge inholding properties. The two 160-acre properties are
    owned by descendants of George Ashdown and have been in family
    ownership for over 100 years. They are completely surrounded by the
    Ashdown Gorge Wilderness Area and have been historically used for
    grazing and timber harvesting. Now, however, the Ashdown Gorge is a
    popular destination for backpacking and hiking with three heavily used
    trails traversing the properties, connecting both the Cedar Breaks
    National Monument and the Ashdown Gorge Wilderness area to the canyons
    near Cedar City. Except for the remains of the historic sawmill and a
    makeshift cabin, the properties have been left in a natural state.
    Rattlesnake Creek runs through the property and is joined by several
    smaller tributaries in the narrow red-rock canyons below. Trails along
    the streambed are used to access Flannigan's Arch, just a couple of
    miles downstream.
        The Ashdown Gorge inholdings are located just 20 miles from Cedar
    City putting them under considerable development pressure. The U.S.
    Census Bureau ranked the Cedar City MSA 11th in the nation for
    population growth between 1990 to 2000, with an increase of 62.5
    percent. It continues to grow about 5 percent annually, and the
    surrounding mountains are also in great demand for recreational
    properties. The city's growing population will place greater demand on
    local hiking trails and water resources. Protecting the Ashdown Gorge
    inholdings from development and enhancing public access would benefit
    both residents and tourists, and sustain the area's economic vitality
    and quality of life.
        This area has tremendous potential to attract tourists as a major
    destination in Utah. Assessing the popularity of neighboring Cedar
    Breaks alone, gives reason to believe that once Ashdown is protected as
    a national monument, it too could enjoy the same flow of people.
    Furthermore, the convenience of making a loop tour of Bryce, Capitol
    Reef, and Zion national parks, as well as Cedar Breaks and Grand
    Staircase Escalante National Monuments will help in enticing people to
    visit the Ashdown Gorge Wilderness Area and get a complete Utah
    wilderness experience.
        Recognizing this uniqueness, the Forest Service has offered various
    parcels in exchange for the Ashdown Gorge inholdings over the last
    several decades. No land exchange agreement was reached, however, now
    that the current generation of landowners are interested in selling the
    properties outright, there is now a unique opportunity to bring these
    properties into public ownership. In fiscal year 2008, if the
    appropriation of $5 million could be obtained from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund, then the Forest Service could finally acquire the
    Ashdown Gorge properties as part of the Dixie National Forest.
        Thank you again, Madame Chairwoman, for the opportunity to present
    this testimony to the subcommittee in support of the acquisition of
    Ashdown Gorge and of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
        The Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) is pleased
    to present written testimony regarding the fiscal year 2008 proposed
    budget for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation).
        CAWCD is a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, governed
    by an elected 15-member board of directors. CAWCD was created in 1971
    for the purpose of contracting with the United States to repay the
    reimbursable construction costs of the Central Arizona Project (CAP)
    authorized by the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968. CAWCD
    subsequently assumed the responsibility for operating and maintaining
    the Project. CAWCD has and continues to meet its repayment
    responsibility. In addition to a $175 million upfront contribution from
    CAWCD, Reclamation has been paid about $710 million in principal and
    interest since repayment began in January 1994.
                             bureau of reclamation
        CAWCD generally supports Reclamation's budget request. However, we
    believe that some of the priorities are misplaced. In early fiscal year
    2008 Reclamation is scheduled to complete a scoping process to develop
    new guidelines for managing the Colorado River system and to adopt
    Lower Basin shortage sharing guidelines. CAWCD strongly supports
    Reclamation's process and encourages Reclamation to take several
    actions to preserve, enhance and more efficiently manage the Colorado
    River water supply. Reclamation's Lower Colorado River Operations
    budget request has funds identified to complete the scoping process,
    but does not have sufficient funds for structures and programs to
    improve operational efficiency or augment supplies.
        We would urge the committee to reorder priorities in this budget to
    focus meaningfully on important strategies for the Lower Colorado
    River.
                    lower colorado river water conservation
        Specifically, we are concerned about the lack of concrete focus on
    preserving storage capacity in Lake Mead by undertaking activities that
    would augment water availability and improve system operational
    efficiency.
        Congress is well aware of the huge impacts that a multi-year
    drought has imposed on this region, and of the significant drawdown of
    stored water in the river's reservoirs that has resulted from this
    drought. A significant amount of water has been released over these
    years from Hoover Dam that could have been retained if effective
    downstream strategies had been implemented.
        The construction of an off stream regulatory storage reservoir near
    Drop 2 of the All-American Canal has been identified as capable of
    saving over 60,000 acre-feet per year. In order to ensure that this
    critical reservoir is constructed, the Seven Basin States have approved
    a program to make contributed funds available from Southern Nevada
    Water Authority (SNWA) to construct the reservoir. SNWA is prepared to
    contribute $84 million over 2 to 3 years of construction (the full
    estimated cost). Reclamation should be prepared with plans,
    administrative procedures and personnel to accept the money and
    continue construction in fiscal year 2008. The Lower Colorado River
    Front Work and Levee System budget request has $1,515,000 of the total
    of $3,318,000 designated to complete the cost sharing process and
    continue construction. CAWCD strongly supports this effort.
                              yuma desalting plant
        Reclamation's budget justification concerning the Yuma Desalting
    Plant (YDP) continues to be disingenuous. Reclamation continues to say
    that the plant is in ``ready reserve'' status, but States it would take
    4 years and adequate funding to have the YDP fully operational yet no
    such funding is identified or requested. Continuing the budget request
    to pay U.S. water delivery contractors to forebear use of water
    indicates the Reclamation preference for a forbearance program as
    opposed to salvaging the saline water by operating the YDP. A long-term
    program relying primarily on forbearance in the United States is not
    acceptable to CAWCD or any of the Lower Basin States. Decisions need to
    be made and resources need to be applied to bring the YDP into actual
    operation. Every year the YDP remains idle results in the loss of
    enough water to supply the annual water needs of half a million people.
    Lessons learned from the pilot operations in fiscal year 2007 should
    clearly identify what actions are needed to make the plant fully
    operational. This budget request contains no requests for funds or
    stated intention to operate the YDP in the future. We urge the
    committee to direct Reclamation to make the Yuma Desalting Plant
    operational at one-third capacity and initiate regular operations no
    later than September 30, 2008.
                          colorado river augmentation
        CAWCD would like to call the committee's attention to the
    provisions of sections 201, 202 and 203 of Title 1 of the Colorado
    River Basin Project Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-537). These provisions
    call for studies and actions to augment the supply of water available
    for distribution within the Colorado River Basin. These provisions
    specifically make satisfaction of the obligations of the 1944 Treaty
    with Mexico a national obligation and anticipate that such obligation
    will be met through augmentation of the Colorado River supply. The
    Seven Basin States have a program in process, led and funded primarily
    by the Southern Nevada Water Authority, to review previous augmentation
    studies and evaluate new concepts. Reclamation has participated in this
    process. A draft report will be completed before the end of fiscal year
    2007. We intend to develop recommended augmentation programs to be
    undertaken by local, State, and Federal organizations. At the very
    least, Reclamation needs to commit sufficient funds to support
    implementation of some of the programs beginning in fiscal year 2008.
    CAWCD suggests that at least $500,000 be committed from Reclamation's
    overall appropriations for such activities as General Planning,
    Research and Development, or Water 2025. CAWCD urges the committee to
    direct Reclamation to take action and provide funding to fulfill the
    commitment Congress made 39 years ago to augment the water supply in
    the Colorado River Basin.
                        cap indian distribution systems
        We support Reclamation's request for $21,140,000 in funding for CAP
    Indian Distribution Systems. A key element of the negotiated settlement
    embodied in the Arizona Water Settlements Act is continued Indian
    distribution system funding through 2009.
                               tucson reliability
        We note that Reclamation has increased its funding request for
    ``Tucson Reliability'' to $491,000, more than double the fiscal year
    2007 level. We have testified before and we reiterate here that
    Reclamation is obligated to confer with CAWCD before proceeding with
    any reliability projects that would increase the CAWCD repayment
    obligation. That said, we believe the $491,000 requested will be
    sufficient for Reclamation's planned activities in fiscal year 2007.
                    lower colorado river operations program
        In its fiscal year 2007 budget request, Reclamation includes
    $7,982,000 in its Lower Colorado River Operations Program for the Lower
    Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP).
        The MSCP is a cost-shared program among Federal and non-Federal
    interests to conserve endangered species and their habitat along the
    Lower Colorado River from Lake Mead to Mexico. CAWCD is one of the
    cost-sharing partners. This program will provide habitat for threatened
    and endangered species and, at the same time, allow current water and
    power operations to continue. CAWCD supports Reclamation's budget
    request for the Lower Colorado River Operations Program. This funding
    level is necessary to support the MSCP effort as well as environmental
    measures necessary to fully implement the interim surplus criteria for
    the Lower Colorado River. These are critical programs upon which Lower
    Colorado River water and power users depend.
        increased security costs for reclamation hydro power facilities
        We continue to oppose the funding of post-9/11 increased security
    costs for Reclamation facilities through hydropower rates. The
    increased costs are being incurred for national security reasons, not
    project maintenance or operation. Details of these costs must be kept
    secret and cannot be disclosed like other data in Power Marketing
    Administration rate cases, raising serious due process issues. Other
    project beneficiaries are not and, in some cases, cannot be charged a
    fair share of these costs. Congress should make these increased
    national security costs nonreimbursable.
                                   conclusion
        We have worked for over three decades with the Congress and all the
    succeeding administrations to make the Central Arizona Project a
    reality as envisioned by Congress in the 1968 Act and to ensure its
    major contribution to the economic welfare of the State of Arizona.
    Improving the ability of the Lower Colorado River system to conserve
    and store precious Colorado River water supplies is central to our
    mission and, we believe, a core directive of the 1968 Act. The lengthy
    drought on the Colorado River has proven the correctness of that focus
    and the wisdom of Congress in passing the 1968 Act. It is time to move
    forward to aggressively accomplish the additional tasks that have been
    identified. We look forward to working with the Congress, the Bureau of
    Reclamation and the other Federal agencies and the Basin States to get
    this work done.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Chugach Regional Resources Commission
        The Chugach Regional Resources Commission requests that the
    subcommittee restore $350,000 in recurring base funding in the BIA
    Trust-Natural Resources budget. The Commission also seeks an additional
    $150,000 to support the Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery.
        The Chugach Regional Resources Commission (CRRC) is an Alaska
    Native non-profit organization that was created by the villages of the
    Chugach Region to address environmental and natural resource issues and
    to develop culturally sensitive economic projects at the local level
    that support the sustainable development of the natural resources. The
    mission of CRRC is to work with our seven member villages 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.
        CRRC received annual funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs for
    nearly 16 years. In fiscal year 2006, CRRC was funded at $300,000--a
    significant cut from our previous level of funding. After across-the-
    board reductions, we received approximately $270,000 in fiscal year
    2006. This was the last year for which CRRC received funding. Although
    the BIA received that same amount of money in fiscal year 2007 under
    the Continuing Resolution, the Bureau elected not to provide CRRC with
    funding. After losing funding, we were forced to take out a bank loan
    in order to keep our doors open. We are working actively with the BIA
    to secure fiscal year 2007 funding in the amount necessary to pay back
    the loan, and also to be included in the BIA base budget going forward.
        Employment.--CRRC employs 35 Native people in the Chugach Region,
    all of whom will lose their jobs if CRRC if forced to close. 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 for
    necessary living expenses.
        Community Projects.--Over the past 16 years, CRRC funding 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, including:
      --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. The hatchery employs 4 individuals and
            is operated by CRRC. Alutiiq Pride is undertaking hatchery,
            nursery and grow out operations research to adapt mariculture
            techniques for the Alaskan shellfish industry.
      --King Crab Research.--Recently, CRRC staff have begun conducting
            scientific research on blue king crab and red king crab. This
            research is part of a larger Federally-sponsored program.
            Because Alutiiq Pride is the only hatchery in the State, CRRC
            is the only organization in Alaska that can carry out this
            research.
      --Natural Resource Curriculum Development.--Partnering with the
            University of Alaska, Fairbanks and the National Oceanic and
            Atmospheric Administration, CRRC is developing a model
            curriculum for Alaska Native students, integrating traditional
            knowledge and Western science. The goal of the program is
            encourage more Native students to pursue careers in science. So
            far, there are 10 students enrolled in the program who have
            earned a total of six university credits each that can be
            applied toward a certificate or degree.
      --Avian Flu Monitoring.--CRRC is the entity responsible for
            monitoring avian flu in Southcentral Alaska villages and would
            carry out the initial warning and response to the villages in
            case of an outbreak.
      --Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council.--CRRC is a member of
            the Council responsible for setting regulations governing the
            spring harvest of migratory birds for Alaska Natives.
        Budget.--CRRC's base operating funding supports the continued
    operation of the various community projects. The total operating budget
    for CRRC, Alutiiq Pride, and the community projects is close to $2
    million. Specific projects receive independent funding from sources
    such as ANA grants, the EVOS Trustee Council, the State of Alaska and
    the Forest Service. However, base operating funding is essential to
    continue work on these projects. Building on its base funding, CRRC has
    been able to build several community programs and partnerships, as
    described above. See next page for a detailed budget breakdown by
    project.
        For further information, please contact Addie Rolnick
    arolnick@sonosky.com or Mary Pavel mpavel@sonosky.com at Sonosky,
    Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP, at (202) 682-0240.

                                  BUDGET DETAIL
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Projected                              Cost
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chugach Region Shellfish Mariculture Development:
        Oyster grow-out operations in Tatitlek..............         $50,000
        Oyster marketing....................................  ..............
        Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery....................  ..............
    Nanwalek Sockeye Salmon Development Project:
        Seek funds for disease free water engineering study.          20,000
        Operate smolt out-migration weir....................  ..............
    Port Graham Pink Salmon Hatchery:
        Broodstock development..............................  ..............
        Sockeye and pink salmon fry production..............          50,000
        Training and education for hatchery crew............  ..............
    Program Development/Regional Office Operations:
        1 staff person/supplies/quarterly board meetings....  ..............
        Biological Professional Assistance..................         180,000
        Project development and Planning....................  ..............
        GIS Mapping.........................................  ..............
        Resource Evaluation and Management..................  ..............
                                                             ---------------
          Total Direct Costs................................         300,000
                                                             ---------------
    Indirect Cost (28.6 percent)............................          85,800
                                                             ---------------
          Total projected base budget.......................         385,800
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the City of Healdsburg, CA
                                project request
        Wastewater Treatment/Effluent Recycling Project.--$2,000,000
        (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: State and Tribal Assistance
    Grants)

        We are requesting $2,000,000 from the Environmental Protection
    Agency's State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) Program in the fiscal
    year 2008 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill for the City of
    Healdsburg's Wastewater Treatment/Effluent Recycling Project. Total
    funding for development of the wastewater reclamation and reuse
    facility is estimated to be $8,000,000; however, we are only requesting
    $2,000,000 in Federal funding this year to commence the project.
        The City of Healdsburg is a municipality located within Sonoma
    County, California, which blends the best qualities of turn-of-the-
    century America with the ambiance of a European countryside. Nearly
    11,000 people live within a 3.68 square mile radius approximately 65
    miles north of San Francisco; with a number of agricultural producers
    owning property just outside the city's incorporated limits. Our
    government provides a full range of services typical of any local
    government, including but not limited to maintenance of local roads,
    highways and bridges, as well as water resource utilities and
    infrastructure.
        I appear before the subcommittee to discuss a single project, but a
    project of great importance to the City of Healdsburg. Like many
    municipalities throughout California and other parts of the western
    half of the United States, we regularly confront water issues, and are
    consistently in search of how best to plan for and manage the use of
    this renewable, though sometimes rare and increasingly demanded,
    resource. The City of Healdsburg also has the added geographic
    challenge of how to dispose of its wastewater effluent in accordance
    with new environmental requirements. To that end, we are seeking your
    support in fiscal year 2008 of Healdsburg's efforts to develop a
    storage disposal and reclamation component to its new wastewater
    treatment plant.
        The city's wastewater treatment plant is located just west of the
    Russian River and south of the Dry Creek-Russian River confluence,
    approximately one mile southwest of the main city limits. In 1973, the
    city annexed the parcels on which the plant is located, and today the
    city's 36-acre treatment plant site is located on Foreman Lane on two
    adjoining parcels, with the existing treatment plant occupying
    approximately 17.4 acres of this area.
          healdsburg's wastewater treatment/effluent recycling project
        In an effort to effectively dispose of its wastewater effluent in
    accordance with new requirements, the city is including a storage
    disposal/reclamation component as part of its new wastewater treatment
    plant (WWTP), which is planned to be online by May 2010.
        This fiscal year 2008 STAG request is needed to develop the
    reclamation facility, create storage capacity at the WWTP, and build
    operational storage and provide for urban reuse within the City of
    Healdsburg. To accommodate limited storage capacity, the city will be
    disposing of its effluent though urban irrigation. This project will
    also support the construction of distribution lines measuring several
    miles that will carry recycled water to 85 acres of parks, school
    grounds and other turf areas within the city. A reliable means for
    disposing of our wastewater effluent by 2010 is especially important to
    the city because we must comply with a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals'
    decision in Northern California River Watch v. City of Healdsburg, 457
    F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2006), which required us to redirect our summertime
    wastewater effluent away from the Russian River by a date certain. This
    court-enforced agreement and the city's inability to dispose of the
    effluent in any other manner due to our geographical location makes the
    upgrading of the wastewater treatment plant and the inclusion of a
    recycling component a critical priority for the city and region at this
    time.
        By beneficially reusing our summertime effluent for urban
    irrigation, we will then be able to better manage the use of our water
    resources and reduce environmental concerns. As a result, we expect
    that the recycled water project will substantially address the region's
    water needs and reduce current environmental concerns. Without
    development of this facility, the City of Healdsburg simply will not
    have the means to legally dispose of our effluent given our
    geographical location and the ecological significance of the Russian
    River.
        This project represents a sound and important investment in the
    city's infrastructure, as the city has no choice but to find innovative
    ways to dispose of its effluent. I believe this treatment plant upgrade
    and advanced recycling component not only allows us to accomplish this,
    but also provides us an opportunity to responsibly manage and conserve
    scarce water resources. Thank you.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Coachella Valley Water District
            colorado river basin salinity control program, title ii
        Support for fiscal year 2008 Federal Funding of $5.9 Million for
    the Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to
    assist in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, with
    $1,500,000 to be designated specifically to identified salinity control
    efforts
        This testimony supports fiscal year 2008 funding for BLM for the
    subactivity that assists Title II of the Colorado River Basin Salinity
    Control Act. This successful and cost-effective program is carried out
    pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act and the Clean
    Water Act. Such an investment by Congress for the upcoming fiscal year
    will enable this Federal/State program to help alleviate hundreds of
    millions of dollars in economic losses caused annually by salinity.
        Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) is a public agency that
    provides agricultural irrigation and drainage, domestic water and
    sanitation services, recycled water, groundwater recharge and
    management, regional flood control, conservation and other water-
    related services and programs across an area of 1,000 square miles in
    an arid desert region of Southern California. CVWD has several hundred
    thousand residential and agricultural constituents, and is fortunate in
    that it can rely on several sources of water. Colorado River water,
    however, is the predominant source for agricultural irrigation and the
    sole source for groundwater recharge.
        While disputes among States that rely on the Colorado River for at
    least a portion of their water are well publicized, the presence of
    salt represents the biggest threat to the freshwater of this vital
    waterway. In California, this river is responsible for meeting drinking
    and other domestic water needs of 18 million residents. This waterway
    also is a lifeline for a multibillion-dollar agricultural industry in
    the southernmost areas of the State. In some areas Colorado River water
    is the only source for irrigation. Without it, some large farming areas
    would disappear.
        Coachella Valley's agricultural industry annually harvests more
    than $575 million in produce--a remarkable gross return in excess of
    $11,500 an acre--and gets at least two-thirds of its irrigation water
    from the Colorado River. Without imported water the area's vast aquifer
    would have been mined into extinction decades ago. With Colorado River
    water the region is economically vibrant, but removing salt-laden
    drainage from farmland to ensure continued fertility requires an
    elaborate, costly removal system, featuring nearly 2,500 miles of
    underground tiles and other pipeline.
        Our region's rapidly expanding residential population does not
    (yet) use Colorado River water in its homes directly, but this will
    occur in the very near future; and this water is used extensively to
    recharge the aquifer--more than two million acre-feet since 1973. The
    loss of Colorado River water as a viable source of freshwater would
    devastate Coachella Valley's economy and threaten the livelihood and
    lifestyle of virtually every resident.
        For more than three decades several Federal agencies have been
    seeking effective ways to combat Colorado River water salinity. BLM's
    role is crucial since it is the largest land manager within the river's
    basin. Much of its property is salt laden; and it is essential to
    prevent soil and rocks from being deposited in streambeds and flood
    plains. Significant results are possible through effective rangeland
    improvements. This is a team effort, with the Bureau of Reclamation's
    emphasis on irrigation delivery systems and the Department of
    Agriculture emphasizing on-farm programs.
        Some of these programs' success has been offset by recent drought
    conditions, which are expected to continue and have contributed to
    increased salinity levels in the Colorado River. Every increase of 30
    mg/l in salinity concentrations adds an estimated $75 million in
    economic losses. This is in addition to the $330 million in quantified
    damages in the United States, and significant unquantified losses.
        These losses include reduced yields of salt-sensitive crops and
    greater use of water for salt leeching; reduced service life for
    domestic and commercial water delivery systems and appliances; greater
    consumption of water than normal for a wide variety of purposes and
    difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements.
        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum presented Congress
    with compelling testimony that the rate with which salinity control
    projects are implemented needs to be accelerated. Funding of $5.9
    million for BLM's Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program will
    ensure one of the most valuable resources in the Southwest is not
    jeopardized by excessive salt.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of Cochise Trails Association
        Madame Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony in support of a
    $500,000 request from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to protect
    the 38.5-mile San Pedro Rail-Trail property (containing approximately
    470 acres of fee land) at the Bureau of Land Management's San Pedro
    Riparian National Conservation Area in Arizona.
        I would also like to urge your support for increased overall
    funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has been so
    vital in protecting our most prized conservation and recreation lands
    throughout our Federal parks and forests for over 40 years.
        The San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, containing about
    40 miles of the upper San Pedro River, was designated by Congress as a
    National Conservation Area (NCA) on November 18, 1988. The primary
    purpose of the designation was to protect and enhance the desert
    riparian ecosystem, a rare remnant of what was once an extensive
    network of similar riparian systems throughout the Southwest, and the
    unique resources of this public land. Managed by the Bureau of Land
    Management, it contains over 58,000 acres of public land in Cochise
    County, Arizona, between the Mexican border and St. David, Arizona.
    This riparian habitat is rare in the desert Southwest. The river can be
    spotted from far off because of the band of cottonwood trees that grow
    densely along its shores, drawing migrating birds and other wildlife.
    The San Pedro Riparian NCA is a key component of the BLM's National
    Landscape Conservation System, and in 1995 the American Bird
    Conservancy, in partnership with the National Audubon Society, named it
    a ``globally important bird area,'' the first designation of this kind
    in the Western Hemisphere.
        The river has long had an attraction for humans as well. Evidence
    of prehistoric hunters of 11,000 years ago has been found in the area,
    and in 1776 the Spanish attempted to establish the presidio of Santa
    Cruz de Terrenate on a hill overlooking the river. It was the discovery
    of silver, however, at Tombstone that caused the most activity along
    the formerly peaceful San Pedro. The railroad tracks along the San
    Pedro River connected the mining areas to the Southern Pacific
    Railroad's east-west main line at Benson. Tracks were later extended to
    the Mexican border. Today, the riparian conservation area offers bird-
    watchers, hikers and other nature lovers a chance to enjoy the beauty
    of the river and ponder its eventful past.
        Located in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, and
    available for acquisition by BLM in fiscal year 2008, are 38.5 miles of
    a recently abandoned rail corridor. The mission of the San Pedro Rail-
    Trail Task Force (a partnership including BLM, Cochise County,
    municipalities, and conservation organizations including Cochise Trails
    Association) is to coordinate and achieve the acquisition and
    conversion of this railroad corridor, currently owned by the San Pedro
    Railroad Operating Company and Union Pacific Railroad, into a rail-
    trail. Beginning in 1975, the industrial use of the railroad line
    steadily declined, and in 2005 the operators of the railroad line filed
    for abandonment of the railroad corridor with the Surface
    Transportation Board (STB). STB has approved abandonment, and the rails
    and ties are currently being removed. The goal of the task force is to
    have a rail-trail corridor secured in 2008, and to begin the conversion
    of the corridor to trail use under BLM management. This rail-trail will
    provide unparalleled access for a world-class non-motorized outdoor
    recreation experience that will foster widespread appreciation for the
    San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. The rail-trail will
    connect the outstanding local features that showcase Cochise County's
    reputation as the ``Land of Legends.''
        As background, the Cochise Trails Association is a not-for-profit
    advocacy group benefiting Cochise County residents and visitors through
    development of partnerships to establish, protect, and preserve trails
    for recreational use such as hiking, mountain biking, and horseback
    riding. One of our primary goals is to establish a regionally
    integrated, non-motorized, shared-use trail system. The proposed San
    Pedro rail-trail is strategically located near the heart of the
    county's thriving communities of Sierra Vista, Benson, Tombstone, and
    Bisbee. It is positioned to provide the hub of a future regional trail
    network that connects communities, historical sites, State Parks,
    National Forests, and other points of interest throughout the county.
    We believe the San Pedro rail-trail will create a successful transition
    from railroad-related economic activities to increased recreation and
    tourism opportunities for county residents and visitors. It has
    potential to be a world-class trail opportunity thru and beyond the San
    Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, providing a unique
    recreational destination as well as opportunities for nature-oriented
    tourism.
        Nature-based and cultural tourism can play an important role in the
    county's future economic growth, and the rail-trail can provide an
    important draw for visitors. It will connect the communities in the
    region, increase access to high-quality outdoor recreational
    opportunities, and raise awareness of the importance of the San Pedro
    River as a unique natural resource.
        An fiscal year 2008 appropriation of $500,000 from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund would assist the Bureau of Land Management in
    acquiring and protecting this corridor and all of its natural resources
    for public use and enjoyment for generations to come.
        Madame Chairwoman, thank you for this opportunity to submit
    testimony.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
           bureau of land management--fiscal year 2008 appropriation
        In support of $5,900,000 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 2008 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 2008 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 $5,900,000 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 2007 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 3 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 Board of California
        Support for fiscal year 2008 Federal Funding of $5.9 Million for
    the Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to
    assist in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, with
    $1,500,000 to be designated specifically to identified salinity control
    efforts
        This testimony is in support of fiscal year 2008 funding for BLM
    for the subactivity that assists Title II of the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act (Public Law 92-500). This successful and cost-
    effective program is carried out pursuant to the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act and the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500).
        The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is
    the State agency charged with protecting California's interests and
    rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River system.
    In this capacity, California and the other six Basin States through the
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the interstate
    organization responsible for coordinating the Basin States' salinity
    control efforts, established numeric criteria in June 1975, for
    salinity concentrations in the River. These criteria were established
    to lessen the future damages in the Lower Basin States, as well as,
    assist the United States in delivering water of adequate quality to
    Mexico in accordance with Minute 242 of the International Boundary and
    Water Commission. California's Colorado River water users are presently
    suffering economic damages in the hundreds of million of dollars per
    year due to the River's salinity.
        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.
        As you are aware, BLM is the largest landowner in the Colorado
    River Basin. Due to geological conditions, much of the lands that are
    controlled and managed by the BLM are 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, salts are dissolved into the Colorado River system causing
    water quality problems downstream.
        Congress has charged Federal agencies, including the BLM, to
    proceed 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
    significantly complement programs and activities being considered for
    implementation by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) through its
    Basin-wide Program and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through
    its on-farm Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
        In keeping with the congressional mandate to maximize the cost-
    effectiveness of the salinity control program, the Colorado River Board
    requests that Congress appropriate $5,900,000 to BLM in fiscal year
    2008 for activities that help control salt contributions from BLM
    managed lands in the Colorado River Basin. In the past, 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 projects that in fiscal
    year 2008 could use $1.5 million. The Colorado River Board urges the
    subcommittee to specifically designate $1,500,000 for the Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Program as has been the direction to BLM
    from the subcommittee in past years.
        Since the congressional mandates of over two decades ago, much has
    been learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River system.
    Reclamation estimates that the quantified economic impacts and damages
    to water users in the United States alone is about $330 million per
    year. However significant unquantified damages also occur. For example,
    damages can be incurred related to the following activities:
      --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 an additional $75 million damages within 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 2008, and in future fiscal years, that the Congress
    provides adequate funds to BLM for its activities related to salinity
    control in the Colorado River Basin.
        The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
    water resource to the 18 million residents of southern California,
    including municipal, industrial, and agricultural water users in
    Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego,
    and Ventura Counties. Preservation and improvement of Colorado River
    water quality through an effective salinity control program will avoid
    the additional economic damages to users in California and the other
    States that rely on Colorado River water resources.
                                     ______

         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 2008 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 CRC believes the
    BLM needs to specifically target $5,900,000 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 Colorado Springs Utilities
        I am requesting your support for appropriations in fiscal year 2008
    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, consistent with the President's recommended
    budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds to the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS to continue its essential
    participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program.
        2. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    within the $45,147,000 item entitled ``National Fish Hatchery
    Operations'' to support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray
    National Fish Hatchery in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $200,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet FWS's Region 2
    expenses in managing the San Juan Program's diverse recovery actions.
        We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request
    your assistance for fiscal year 2008 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Colorado Water Congress
        I am requesting your support for appropriations in fiscal year 2008
    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, consistent with the President's recommended
    budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds to the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS to continue its essential
    participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program.
        2. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    within the $45,147,000 item entitled ``National Fish Hatchery
    Operations'' to support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray
    National Fish Hatchery in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $200,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet FWS's Region 2
    expenses in managing the San Juan Program's diverse recovery actions.
        We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request
    your assistance for fiscal year 2008 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
                              Reservation (CTUIR)
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal
    year 2008 proposed budget for Native American programs in the
    Department of Interior budget.
        Once again the proposed budget for Indian Affairs does not support
    strong tribal self-government and self-determination. The fiscal year
    2008 proposed budget is essentially flat funding the Indian Affairs
    budget but an increasing amount is being used for Indian Affairs
    headquarters operations and not out in the field where it is most
    needed. In the newly created Bureau of Indian Education the Management
    costs have gone from $8.8 million in fiscal year 2006 to $23.7 million
    in the fiscal year 2008 proposal. According to a NCAI historical budget
    analysis, the total OIP budget is still below the fiscal year 1994
    enacted level, without adjusting for inflation. This proposed budget
    does not live up to meeting the trust responsibilities the Federal
    Government has to tribes.
        Tribal governments are like State governments in many ways--
    providing critical services, shaping values, and promoting jobs and
    growth. Though Federal spending for Indians has lost ground compared to
    spending for the U.S. population at large, tribal self-government has
    proven that the Federal investment in tribes pays off, as documented in
    the 2006 Harvard Project report. Unfortunately, tribal governments are
    treated much differently than States by being forced to compete for
    funds (when even eligible) to address local needs rather than directly
    receiving those funds.
        Even with the gains, substantial gaps remain--real per capita
    income of Indians living on reservations is still less than half of the
    national average. Indian unemployment is nearly quadruple the rest of
    the country and the poverty rate is three times the national average.
    Thus, while the work of tribal self-determination is well under way,
    much work is left to be done. These long enduring socio-economic
    disparities, and the success of tribes in addressing them, warrant
    continued Federal investment in tribal self-determination.
        With respect to the Indian Affairs budget, the CTUIR would like to
    address several issues beyond the total amount of funds that are being
    proposed. These include:
      --Proposed reductions to specific line items in the TPA will have
            disproportionate impacts on different tribes.
      --The CTUIR is adamantly opposed to any redistribution of TPA funds
            based upon a needs analysis and asks that Congress prohibit the
            Department from pursuing any such plan.
      --The CTUIR would like to point out that the review of the budget
            justifications was very difficult as the comparisons to fiscal
            year 2007 were essentially comparisons with the President's
            proposal, not the amounts actually funded.
          The CTUIR has several specific areas of the actual budget being
            proposed for Indian Affairs that we would like to comment on.
      --The CTUIR requests that the Water Management program be restored to
            at least the fiscal year 2004 budget levels. Apparently this
            administration does not consider water to be an important
            resource or a trust asset of tribes. The proposed budget
            reduces the Water Management, Planning and Pre-Development
            program by $1.4 million from the fiscal year 2007 Operating
            Plan level (not the level funding as shown in the budget
            justifications) and $1.8 million from the fiscal year 2006
            level. This is on top of a more than 30 percent decrease in
            these funds since fiscal year 2004. At the CTUIR these funds
            play an important role in our water management program, in
            determining the amount of water available on the Reservation
            and the amount of water required for various purposes such as
            municipal service, agricultural irrigation, fish passage and
            setting water quality standards.
      --The CTUIR requests that the Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation and
            Litigation Support/Attorney Fees programs be restored to at
            least to the fiscal year 2004 budget levels. These programs
            have received reductions for the past several years and the
            fiscal year 2008 budget calls for another $2 million reduction
            or 17 percent. A Federal water rights team has just been
            appointed to address CTUIR water rights in the Umatilla Basin
            that have been ignored for the last 100 years. The lack of
            available resources for this activity will result in
            protracted, expensive and divisive litigation. The success the
            CTUIR has had in the Umatilla and Walla Walla basins is
            recognized as a national model for bringing together the
            diverse interests to cooperatively solve the multi-dimensional
            problems around use of water.
      --The CTUIR strongly objects to the continuing decline in resources
            for Trust--Natural resources Management. The budget
            justifications indicate that these programs support the goal of
            fulfilling Indian fiduciary trust responsibilities and
            assisting tribes in the management, development and protection
            of Indian trust land and natural resource assets. The
            justification goes on to State that a significant portion of
            these activities are carried out by tribes under contracts/
            compacts--in other words are having positive impacts at the
            reservation level. In the fiscal year 2007 Operating Plan the
            BIA reduced funding for these activities by $7.5 million or 5
            percent. In the proposed budget the category is reduced by
            another $4 million from the fiscal year 2007 levels. The CTUIR
            has chosen to leave the operation of the Agriculture, Range and
            Forestry programs under the direction of the BIA. The Umatilla
            Agency Superintendent has identified a need for an increase of
            $310,000 for 6.5 additional FTE's to the agency's budget. These
            funds are required to implement the Forestry, Agriculture and
            Range Management Plans that will be adopted this year.
            Additionally the CTUIR is seriously considering compacting for
            these functions over the next 2 years but is extremely
            concerned that there are not sufficient resources available to
            adequately manage these resources. What good is it to build up
            a system to track funds when the natural resources cannot be
            managed in a way will generate funds?
      --The CTUIR requests that under the Trust--Real Estate Services
            budget category the TPA Trust Services be increased by at least
            $5 million and the $3 million requested for Probate Backlog
            (over the fiscal year 2007 Operating Plan) be added to the TPA
            Probate line item. Increases to the TPA base directly increase
            services to individuals and tribes at the local level where the
            needs are most acute and the greatest benefits are achieved.
            The CTUIR elected to leave these services under the management
            of the BIA, but as with the natural resources, the Tribe is
            seriously considering compacting them. The concern is having
            adequate resources to meet the requirements. In fiscal year
            2006 the BIA conducted a review of the Umatilla Agency's
            services and recommended that two (2) additional real estate
            staff be added to meet the work load. More recently the Agency
            Superintendent conducted a review of his staffing needs and
            found that three (3) additional real estate staff and one (1)
            additional probate staff were needed to meet the increasing
            work load demands being created by the implementation of the To
            Be Trust Model and to reduce the current probate and realty
            backlogs.
      --The CTUIR fully supports the requested $6 million increase to
            contract support costs along with the additional $11 million
            provided for in the fiscal year 2007 Operating Plan. It is
            anticipated that the requested amount will meet the full
            indirect contract support cost needs of tribes, something that
            has not happened since the late 1980's.
      --The CTUIR supports the proposed increase to the Law Enforcement
            Budget. Another bright spot in the proposed budget is the
            continuing commitment to increase law enforcement funding. The
            CTUIR has been very supportive of this initiative because of
            the disparity of law enforcement recourses in Indian Country as
            compared to the rest of rural America.
      --The CTUIR requests that $5.3 million be added to the Tribal Court
            TPA line item to increase resources at the local level. The
            increases to law enforcement have not been accompanied by
            increases to the tribal court budget even though it has
            resulted in increasing the court's work load. Additionally, as
            the Tribe has grown its economy, the demands on the court
            system have increased. The Tribe has adopted a number of codes,
            all of which call for final dispute resolution to be heard by
            the Tribal Court. In fiscal year 2006 an independent review of
            our Tribal Court system showed it is working, but additional
            resources to support the basic infrastructure that allows for
            the timely adjudication of criminal cases as well as for the
            expanded role in civil matters needs to be provided. Last year
            the BIA and Congress had a prefect opportunity of increasing
            Tribal Court basic funding by moving the $5.3 million Court IIM
            initiative funding, which was not successful because it was
            impossible to implement at the local level, to the Court TPA
            line item.
      --The CTUIR requests that Welfare Assistance funding be restored to
            at least the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. While not
            described in the budget justifications a $6 million reduction
            is being proposed which is on top of the $5 million reduction
            imposed in fiscal year 2007, a 13 percent reduction over the
            fiscal year 2006 enacted level. As pointed out above, Indian
            Country remains the poorest of the poor in this country. This
            program is not duplicative of other Federal and State programs
            as claimed because clients must apply for services from all
            other sources that they are eligible for before receiving
            assistance. Due to the already extremely constrained resources,
            the CTUIR can serve less than 50 percent of the eligible
            clients per month.
      --The CTUIR requests that the JOM and Scholarships/Adult Education
            programs be restored at least to the fiscal year 2004 budget
            levels and that these programs be moved back to the BIA
            structure. The budget justifications for the newly created
            Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) make it very clear that the
            entire focus of the new Bureau will be on BIE operated and
            funded schools. While such improvements are clearly needed, the
            BIE is completely leaving out the 93 percent of Indian children
            that receive their education from public schools. If the BIE
            does not want to contend with tribally controlled TPA funding,
            then the programs need to be moved to an environment that
            supports tribal self-determination. While not outlined in the
            budget justifications, the Johnson O'Malley (JOM) program is
            again being proposed to be completely eliminated (the fiscal
            year 2007 Operating Plan continued JOM at $12 million, a 25
            percent reduction). The assertion that these funds are
            duplicative of the Title VII program is simply not true. These
            funds go to tribal governments to provide support and services
            to Indian children, while Title VII funds generally go to
            school districts and tribes have little or no say over how they
            are used. Recent data shows that of the 552 tribal students
            from our reservation that attend local schools, 40 percent are
            not meeting the statewide standards in English/Language or in
            Math and are in need of the types of additional services
            provided by the JOM program. The fiscal year 2008 proposed
            budget also calls for a $4.6 million or 16 percent reduction to
            the TPA scholarship/adult education line item. As tribes build
            their local economies, these programs are essential to having a
            well educated work force and to provide basic skills and
            opportunities to adults to participate in those economies.
      --The CTUIR requests the restoration of Community Fire Protection to
            at least the fiscal year 2005 level. This line item within the
            TPA has been eliminated in the proposed budget. The BIA's
            assertion that since this is a small amount of funds, $1.14
            million, it would have limited impact again shows the
            inadequate understanding of Indian Country by the Washington
            bureaucrats. While the CTUIR receives limited funding under
            this program it has provided the core from which the Tribe has
            developed a full service fire department, including emergency
            medical and ambulance services to serve all reservation
            residents and visitors.
      --The CTUIR requests the restoration of the Housing Improvement
            Program. The budget justification States that this program is
            being eliminated to meet higher priority items in the budget.
            What could be a higher priority than providing safe housing to
            the least well off individuals on the reservation? The
            assertion that these needs can be met through the HUD program
            demonstrates a lack of understanding by Washington bureaucrats
            of how programs operate in the field.
        With respect to non Indian Affairs components of the bill the CTUIR
    would like to offer the following comments:
      --The CTUIR recommends that IHS funding for Contract Health Care
            Services be increased by $36 million over the requested amount
            and that the total IHS budget be increased by $200 million over
            the request. These numbers are based on an early analysis of
            the fiscal year 2008 budget request done by the Northwest
            Portland Area Indian Health Board and are less than half the
            amount that more recent analysis have shown as needed. The CHC
            budget is of critical importance to the CTUIR as there are no
            IHS hospitals or specialty clinics in the region so all
            referral work must be performed by the private health care
            community. In the first 6 months of fiscal year 2007 the CTUIR
            has used 85 percent of its CHC budget. It has been well
            documented that Native Americans health status is well below
            that of the overall U.S. population which is all too evident on
            the Umatilla Reservation. A 2003 study showed that on a per
            capita basis, Native American health care funding was 50
            percent of the amount the government spent on Federal
            prisoners.
      --The CTUIR opposes the proposed decrease for the Land Consolidation
            Program in the Office of Special Trustee. This program is
            recognized as being highly successful in reducing the
            fractionation of Indian allotments, thereby reducing the
            accounting nightmare and saving the government substantial sums
            of money by not having to track very tiny interests. A $50
            million reduction to this program does not meet the needs of
            the United States or tribes.
      --The CTUIR supports an increase to the National Park Service's
            NAGPRA activities. These funds have remained constant over the
            past several years while the number of tribes trying to access
            the funds has continued to grow. There has been a large
            increase in the number of NAGPRA activities with the return of
            many museum collections and the increased awareness. The Tribe
            would also like to point out that it is ironic funding for
            these activities comes through the NPS and there are no funds
            within Indian Affairs for such work or to support tribal
            efforts.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
                             Reservation of Oregon
                                    summary
        Mr. Chairman, I am Ron Suppah, Chairman of the Confederated Tribes
    of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. I hereby submit the
    following requests for the fiscal year 2008 BIA and IHS appropriations.
        (1) In BIA, restore the $1 million cut to the Timber Harvest
    Initiative in BIA Forestry Projects.
        (2) In BIA, significantly increase the BIA basic Forestry budget,
    starting with a $5 million increase to Forest Development.
        (3) In BIA, add $2.2 million to Endangered Species funding for
    required Northern Spotted Own and marbled murrelet surveys, and provide
    a national BIA total of $5 million for ESA.
        (4) In BIA, double the $16 million increase for Law Enforcement.
        (5) In BIA, fully fund Johnson O'Malley and the Housing Improvement
    Program.
        (6) In IHS, increase Contract Health Care funding by $142.4
    million.
        (7) In IHS, require that Contract Support Cost appropriations for
    new contracts be used for those purposes, and that Contract Support
    Costs be increased by $27.2 million for fiscal year 2008.
    (1) Restore the $1 million cut to the Timber Harvest Initiative in BIA
            Forestry Programs
        Mr. Chairman, Warm Springs' foremost priority for the BIA fiscal
    year 2008 budget is the restoration of $1 million to the Timber Harvest
    Initiative in Forestry Projects. Our base BIA Forestry budget is
    significantly below what is needed to adequately manage our forest.
    Currently, five of the BIA's 20 Forestry positions at Warm Springs are
    unfunded. The BIA's Timber Harvest Initiative is designed to help
    alleviate at least some of this problem on our Reservation and other
    reservations in the BIA's Northwest and Pacific Regions. At Warm
    Springs, the Timber Harvest Initiative provides funds for two
    additional Forestry personnel whose 2.3 million board feet harvest
    increase brings us close to our sustainable annual allowable cut. This
    additional harvest means logging and mill jobs in our community and
    critically needed revenues for our Tribal government. Given the chronic
    underfunding of the BIA's base Forestry budget, maintaining the Timber
    Harvest Initiative is particularly essential because it is directed at
    improving our harvest, which is a key element in our commercial
    forestry activities.
    (2) Significantly increase the BIA basic Forestry budget, starting with
            a $5 million increase to Forest Development
        As I discussed above, the necessity for a Timber Harvest Initiative
    is an indicator of a serious deficiency of funding for the basic BIA
    Forestry program. Even with the Initiative, one quarter of BIA's
    Forestry positions at Warm Springs are vacant, and BIA is unable to
    fulfill the Tribe's desired level of management for our forest. For
    instance, to provide a measure of economic certainty for our Tribe and
    to give our sawmill the flexibility to meet strong timber markets, we
    ask that, at any given time, BIA Forestry have 3 years of timber
    harvests sold and available. But manpower shortages prevent BIA from
    meeting that goal, and as a result, our forest is not managed to our
    best advantage.
        Inadequate BIA Forestry funding causes management deficiencies in
    many aspects of our forest. In addition to not meeting the Tribe's
    expressed management goals, the BIA Forestry program at Warm Springs
    does not have any funding for Federally mandated archeological surveys
    and endangered species assessments. Funds to provide bare coverage of
    those requirements must come out of other program funds, diminishing
    the Forestry program capacity. Additionally, BIA has not been able to
    reduce our Forest Development backlogs of 32,000 reforestation acres
    and 57,000 thinning acres due to flat funding over the past 8 years. On
    a national basis, this BIA Forestry funding shortage has been
    thoroughly documented over the past 14 years in the independent IFMAT
    reviews. So today we ask this subcommittee to undertake correcting this
    problem. IFMAT recommends that the BIA Forestry budget be doubled to be
    brought to parity with the Forest Service. But recognizing today's
    budget realities, Warm Springs supports the Intertribal Timber Council
    suggestion that an additional $5 million be provided for Forest
    Development. In addition to starting to ease the strain on the overall
    BIA Forestry program, this addition will help improve the future value
    of the Warm Springs forest. We also note that increased forest thinning
    improves forest health and, in our case, will help provide woody
    biomass to the 15 megawatt biomass electric generation facility we are
    developing at our sawmill.
    (3) In BIA, add $2.2 million to Endangered Species funding for required
            Northern Spotted Owl and marbled murrelet surveys, and provide
            a national BIA total of $5 million for ESA
        The Endangered Species budget item is the only BIA funding for
    tribal Endangered Species Act compliance for the Northern Spotted Owl
    and marbled murrelet in our forests. Funding for this mandate was
    initiated in fiscal year 1993 by this subcommittee. Thirteen years ago
    in fiscal year 1995, Congress provided $1.83 million for tribes
    affected by the Northern Spotted Owl and the marbled murrelet. In
    fiscal year 2002, Congress provided a total of $3 million for the BIA's
    national Endangered Species program. Since then, the administration has
    succeeded in driving the appropriation down so that today, the program
    is funded at just $230,000, which provides no funds to conduct required
    ESA activities actually on the ground--the funds just cover Central
    Office administration. The proposed fiscal year 2008 budget now before
    you essentially continues this level, requesting just $247,000.
        Warm Springs requests that the subcommittee increase the BIA
    Endangered Species budget by at least $2.2 million designated for
    Northern Spotted Owl and marbled murrelet surveys on affected
    reservations. These species are still listed and ESA compliance is
    required for our forest management and our timber harvest. I must also
    note that our Reservation is affected by listed spring Chinook and
    summer steelhead. Currently on our Reservation, these are pure unfunded
    mandates, and compliance either goes lacking or other desperately
    needed services for our community must be reduced. To correct this on a
    nationwide basis, we roughly estimate that Indian Country easily needs
    a total of $5 million in fiscal year 2008 for ESA activities, of which
    $2.2 alone is needed for the Northern Spotted Owl and the marbled
    murrelet.
    (4) In BIA, double the $16 million increase for Law Enforcement
        Beginning in the early 1960s, as our Tribe began to assert more
    jurisdiction and authority over Reservation law enforcement, the BIA
    responded by gradually transferring Federal funding elsewhere.
    Unfortunately, today our diminishing tribal budget is sharply reducing
    our ability to meet our Reservation law enforcement requirements, and
    we desperately need assistance from BIA. But we have seen scant relief
    from the BIA despite appropriations increases.
        Warm Springs law enforcement needs are severe. Our tribal police
    force is overextended. Major crime is increasing on our reservation,
    and the insufficient law enforcement has attracted meth labs,
    compounding our difficulties. Warm Springs appreciates the
    administration's proposed $16 million increase in Law Enforcement, but
    our Tribe has not received much assistance from previous law
    enforcement increases. BIA must meet its responsibilities for the
    public safety of the Warm Springs Reservation, so we accordingly
    request that Congress double the administration's proposed increase,
    adding $32 million to law enforcement--without stripping it from other
    BIA programs--so that the BIA can provide needed Law Enforcement
    Services for Warm Springs and other Tribes.
    (5) In BIA, fully fund Johnson-O'Malley and the Housing Improvement
            Program
        Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government's obligation to provide our
    Tribe with educational assistance is no different than that for any
    other tribe. Yet over the years, a massive disparity has developed in
    the BIA's distribution of education funding so that nearly a third of
    the total BIA Operation of Indian Programs budget is now directed to a
    few States with perhaps 15 percent of all Indian students. What is left
    for most other tribes is Johnson-O'Malley, and it is a shame that, for
    fiscal year 2008, the administration is proposing to strip us of even
    those funds, so that they can shift those funds to BIA schools and
    boast how they are improving Indian education. Not at Warm Springs,
    they're not! They are proposing to destroy JOM, which is a last
    critical link for our Tribe and our children to off-reservation public
    schools. JOM funds the special programs that help our children's
    adjustment and unique needs in these off-reservation schools, and JOM
    is the only K-12 educational assistance that is subject to tribal
    direction. JOM is the BIA's sole remaining contribution to our
    children's educational needs. It is already extremely modest, and it is
    the only tool available to our Tribe to directly participate in the K-
    12 education of our children. We ask that it be restored to $17 million
    in the Bureau of Indian Education, as well as in TPA.
        Warm Springs also objects to the administration's proposed
    elimination of the Housing Improvement Program (HIP). HIP is essential
    to providing housing repairs and, in limited cases, modest housing for
    very needy tribal members who have difficulty qualifying for HUD
    housing. If HIP is eliminated, it becomes a gaping hole in an already
    badly frayed safety net for our neediest citizens. We ask that it be
    restored to $19 million in BIA Human Services.
    (6) In IHS, increase Contract Health Care funding by $142.4 million
        The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, as are all Northwest
    Tribes, and almost all Tribes throughout the country, are significantly
    dependent upon Contract Heath Care funding to assure minimum health
    care for our enrolled membership. These funds provide for the delivery
    of our young children, specialty care, hospitalization and the
    treatment of life long, chronic diseases. The current request of an
    increase of $28.7 million in fiscal year 2008 is significantly
    inadequate and we would recommend an increase of $142.4 million would
    be more appropriate to address the minimal current needs. This is a 25
    percent increase over the administration's fiscal year 2008 proposal,
    and represents the roughly one quarter of the year that the Contract
    Health Care program runs out of money, forcing those needing care to
    either postpone it or, in our case at Warm Springs, seek care paid for
    directly by our Tribe.
    (7) In IHS, require that Contract Support Cost appropriations for new
            contracts be used for those purposes, and that Contract Support
            Costs be increased by $27.2 million for fiscal year 2008.
        For the past 2 years, we have had before the IHS a 638 proposal to
    assume the Public Health function, which our local IHS Service Unit
    provides on our Reservation. However, we have been unable to complete
    the contract due to the refusal of the IHS to provide Contract Support
    Costs as required by the Public Law 93-638 and its regulations. While
    the Congress has appropriated increases for new assumptions, the IHS
    has refused to allow those funds to be used for those purposes, citing
    ambiguous language in the appropriations bill. We are requesting two
    things. First, that the IHS language in the appropriations bill be
    changed to mandate that appropriations for new or expanded contract
    support costs ``shall''--not ``may''--be used for new or expanded
    contracts. Secondly, that fiscal year 2008 IHS Contract Support Costs
    be increased from $5.5million to $27.2 million to allow ourselves and
    other tribes to participate in the benefits of the Public Law 93-638.
        That concludes my testimony. Thank you.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Connecticut Chapter of the Sierra Club
        Madame Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: I submit
    this testimony on behalf of the 11,000 members of the Connecticut
    Sierra Club who support the protection of important natural habitats
    and wildlife areas in our State. This property is of particular
    interest because of its unique location contiguous to the Stewart B.
    McKinney Wildlife Refuge, the only Federal refuge in Connecticut.
        We urge you to approve the $710,000 appropriation from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund for the Menunketesuck Salt Meadow Marsh project
    in Westbrook, CT.
        Unique characteristics of this salt meadow marsh underscore its
    importance for protection:
      --A rock outcropping that towers above 1,000 of frontage along the
            gentle Menunketesuck River as it winds its way to Long Island
            Sound,
      --Spectacular bird habitat designated by the National Audubon Society
            as an ``Important Bird Area'' critical to the wildlife species
            listed as special concern by the State,
      --Important aquatic habitat for recreational fish and species of
            special concern such as Tom Cod which may soon be listed as
            threatened or endangered.
        Since the McKinney Refuge was originally established to protect
    migratory bird habitat and the Menunketesuck Salt Meadow Marsh would
    add a critical piece to expand this habitat, the Sierra Club designates
    this acquisition as a top priority.
        As our founder John Muir said, ``When we try to pick out anything
    by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.''
        Thank you for the opportunity to express our views to you.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Connecticut Ornithological Association
        Madame Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: The
    Connecticut Ornithological Association (COA) appreciates the
    opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $710,000
    appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the
    Menunketesuck Salt Meadow Marsh project in Westbrook, CT. The COA is a
    not-for-profit organization and is the only organization specifically
    dedicated to birds and birding in Connecticut.
        The Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge--the only Federal
    Refuge in Connecticut--was created to protect migratory bird habitat
    along 60 miles of Connecticut's Long Island shoreline. The 20-acre
    Menunketesuck Salt Meadow Marsh includes undeveloped and pristine
    coastal tidal marsh, forested upland, and scrubland, which provides
    prime habitat for neotropical migratory birds, wading birds,
    shorebirds, songbirds and terns (including the endangered roseate
    tern). As a result, this property is the top property for acquisition
    for the Refuge.
        The Refuge--used by over 280 species of migrating neotropical
    birds--is also designated as an ``Important Bird Area'' by the National
    Audubon Society. Notably, a nesting population of Salt Marsh Sharp-
    tailed Sparrows, listed by the State of Connecticut as a Species of
    Special Concern, has been documented at the Stewart B. McKinney NWR. In
    addition to the conservation value, the acquisition will also enhance
    opportunities for scientific research, environmental education, and
    fish and wildlife oriented recreation.
        The acquisition of this parcel by the Refuge will continue efforts
    to protect bird habitat along Connecticut's highly developed coastline.
    If funding is not made available in fiscal year 2008, there is a strong
    possibility that the parcel could be developed and Connecticut would
    lose more of the already-rare salt marsh habitat found on the subject
    property. On behalf of the COA, I hope you will provide the $710,000 in
    the fiscal year 2008 Interior Appropriations bill to ensure the success
    of this important conservation project.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Conservation System Alliance
        The Conservation System Alliance is a coalition of more than 50
    conservation, historic preservation, recreation, and other groups
    working to protect and restore the Bureau of Land Management's National
    Landscape Conservation System. This testimony is submitted by John
    Garder, Public Lands Associate at The Wilderness Society, on behalf of
    the coalition.
        Ms. Chairman, the Conservation System Alliance would like to thank
    you for the opportunity to provide recommendations and comments on the
    fiscal year 2008 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill. On behalf of our millions of members, we provide
    below our fiscal year 2008 funding recommendation for $69 million, and
    increased budget clarity and accountability, for the Bureau of Land
    Management's National Landscape Conservation System.
        The Conservation System is comprised of the most spectacular lands
    and waters under the stewardship of the Bureau of Land Management
    (BLM), like National Monuments, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National
    Scenic and Historic Trails, that have been designated for protection by
    Congress or the President. Created in 2000, the System provides
    economic benefits to neighboring communities across the West through
    unparalleled opportunities for solitude, adventure and recreation such
    as hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching. These lands and waters
    offer opportunities for science, education, economic growth and
    recreation, and uses as diverse as grazing and archaeological research.
    Yet with bare-bones funding for management and land stewardship, the
    BLM is unable to keep its most extraordinary 26 million acres healthy,
    wild, and open.
        Adequate funding for the Conservation System is vital to protect
    America's most pristine BLM landscapes, which are vital components of
    our natural and cultural heritage. These lands and waters are a network
    of the last places where visitors can still experience the history and
    wild beauty of the American West. These special areas provide a
    uniquely American visitor experience; they are places where people can
    bring their families to escape the crowds and create their own
    adventure. Furthermore, they are a living classroom for academic
    researchers and outdoor educators. Congress can ensure that
    Conservation System lands and waters will remain valuable resources for
    present and future generations of recreators, ecologists,
    archaeologists, educators, and others by protecting these intact
    landscapes for public enjoyment, scientific research and outdoor
    education.
        However, Conservation System lands will not remain resource-rich
    without active stewardship. These extraordinary places are being ruined
    by vandalism, reckless off-road vehicle use, irresponsible resource
    extraction, and neglect. With an average of less than one ranger for
    every 200,000 acres, BLM lacks sufficient staff to adequately protect
    these lands. As a result, the agency spends more to repair damage than
    it would to provide the necessary staff and other resources to protect
    and restore invaluable cultural sites, riparian habitat, and other
    culturally and naturally significant places. Continuing damage to
    Conservation System lands and waters poses considerable threats to the
    integrity of these historically and biologically extraordinary
    landscapes.
    fiscal year 2008 operations, maintenance, and planning budget needs for
                                   the system
        The President's fiscal year 2008 budget is the lowest level of
    funding ever proposed for the National Landscape Conservation System:
    $49.2 million, or less than $2 an acre. This constitutes a destructive
    cut of almost $3 million from the already inadequate fiscal year 2007
    enacted budget, and nearly $10 million, or more than 16 percent, from
    the insufficient fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $59 million. When
    accounting for inflation alone, and not even normal uncontrollable
    operating increases, the President's proposal is over 20 percent below
    average funding over the last 5 years. The administration's total
    proposed budget of just $49.2 million would 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 $69 million as
    permanent base funding for operations and management of the
    Conservation System, a modest increase over historic funding levels
    when adjusting for inflation. Priority needs include additional rangers
    and field staff, investments in monitoring and restoration to sustain
    the system's unique resources, cultural and historical site protection,
    and volunteer program support.
        This funding level would enable the BLM to restore needed services
    lost to recent funding cuts, 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 System 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 congressionally mandated responsibility to identify,
            evaluate, and nominate historic properties to the National
            Register of Historic Places, and to protect cultural sites. The
            Conservation System 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 Conservation System Monuments and Conservation
            Areas.
      --Support for Volunteer Programs and Conservation Partnerships.--The
            Conservation System relies heavily on volunteers to help
            educate visitors, restore areas damaged by illegal off-road
            vehicle use, monitor cultural sites, and more. While volunteers
            provide free work, BLM still needs at least modest resources to
            create, run, and expand volunteer programs; ``partner'' groups
            need support for their work as well. Few areas have adequate
            resources to capitalize on the good will and free labor that
            volunteers supply.
        The System offers innumerable examples where currently bare-bones
    funding is leading to irreparable resource damage. Colorado's Canyons
    of the Ancients National Monument, which has the highest density of
    cultural sites in America, has faced budget cuts of hundreds of
    thousands of dollars. The Monument has cut education and interpretive
    positions while existing staff contend with vandalism and theft of
    cultural resources. Another unmet BLM need, in Oregon's Cascade-
    Siskiyou National Monument--an ecological wonder with a mandate to
    protect and retain its biological diversity--is to monitor the impacts
    of grazing and rangeland health on biological objects the Monument was
    created to protect.
        We also ask the committee to give serious consideration to any
    member requests for increasing programmatic funding or land acquisition
    funding for Conservation System units in the fiscal year 2008
    appropriations bill. These increases should be allocated in addition
    to, not in lieu of, funding already budgeted for each System unit in
    the BLM's fiscal year 2008 budget.
        conservation system land and water conservation fund priorities
        The President's fiscal year 2008 budget would provide just $4.1
    million for BLM land acquisition via LWCF--the lowest level ever and
    far below historic levels. We do support the projects proposed for
    funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the President's
    request, but strongly recommend at least an additional $20 million for
    projects in Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument
    (CA), Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (CO), Lewis & Clark
    National Historic Trail (MT), Cascade Siskiyou National Monument (OR),
    Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area (OR), Rogue
    National Wild and Scenic River (OR), and the Oregon National Historic
    Trail (OR). These projects offer willing sellers, local support, and
    opportunities to resolve inholder/access issues and protect
    recreational opportunities and biological integrity.
       extend the president's fiscal year 2007 cultural resource funding
                          increase to fiscal year 2008
        We supported the President's proposed $3 million program increase
    for cultural resource enhancement on BLM lands in fiscal year 2007 and
    are puzzled by the administration's failure to propose the increase
    again this year. We encourage the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee
    to increase funding for the BLM's cultural resource program by at least
    $8 million and direct the BLM to devote $5 million of this increase to
    inventory and protect the Conservation System's hundreds of thousands
    of significant archaeological and historic sites (both known and
    unknown), and the wild lands surrounding these sites. The subcommittee
    should also restrict the use of these funds to proactive management of
    cultural resources (surveys, necessary maintenance and stabilization of
    historic sites), and provide adequate funding to comply with Section
    106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which should be funded
    by that account only.
             restore needed funding for the national trails system
        The BLM has prepared a 10 Year Strategy and Plan to bring its 13
    National Scenic and Historic Trails into full operation for public
    appreciation and enjoyment. Funding is needed to implement this Plan,
    including actions to preserve historic and cultural resources along
    national historic trails, to administer the Iditarod and Old Spanish
    National Historic Trails, to continue progress toward completing the
    Continental Divide National Scenic Trail in Wyoming and New Mexico, and
    to protect the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail in southern
    California.
         conservation system management accountability and transparency
        BLM's budget structure for the Conservation System discourages
    program integration and limits accountability. For example, the System
    receives funding from 47 budget categories and subcategories, obscuring
    the total funding devoted to the System and how it is used within its
    different lands and waters. The BLM cannot effectively track
    Conservation System funding, so the President's budget does not provide
    a clear depiction of System expenditures. In order to ensure the
    efficient use of scarce conservation dollars, we urge the subcommittee
    to direct the Interior Department provide annual reports on System
    revenues, expenditures, and accomplishments, starting with budget
    documents for fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008.
        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, National Scenic and Historic Trail 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 request that in future
    budget requests, the committee direct BLM to include unit-level
    allocations by major sub-activities for all non-wilderness and
    Wilderness Study Area (WSA) units. These unit-level allocations should
    be combined with Wilderness and WSAs under a new activity account for
    the entire National Landscape Conservation System.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Conservation Commission of Westbrook,
                                  Connecticut
        On behalf of the Conservation Commission of Westbrook, Connecticut,
    I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a
    $710,000 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 20-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 of the 20-acre
    Menunketesuck Salt Meadow Marsh within the Stewart B. McKinney National
    Wildlife Refuge will add significant protection to the Refuge, 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 2008 is the 20-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 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 $710,000 is needed from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2008. 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
    $710,000 for the Stewart B. McKinney NWR in the fiscal year 2008
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Coquille Indian Tribe
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman, my name is Tom Younker and I am the Vice Chairman of
    the Coquille Indian Tribe. Our Tribe is located on the southwest coast
    of Oregon. I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony to you
    concerning the fiscal year 2008 budget requests for the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service.
                        fiscal year 2008 budget requests
        In our efforts to provide quality government services to our tribal
    members and be responsible stewards in the management of our tribal
    lands, I bring to the attention of the subcommittee serious concerns
    that our Tribe has relating to the following Federal programs and
    proposed fiscal year 2008 funding levels for tribes:
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)--$10 million
        Endangered Species Act--$4 million
        Road Maintenance--$5 million
        Development of Renewable Energy Resources--$1 million
    Indian Health Service (IHS)--$210.1 million
        Contact Health Services--$47.1 million
        Behavioral Health (Alcohol and Substance Abuse)--$13 million
        Contract Support Costs--$150 million
    Total Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Requests (BIA & IHS)--$220.1 million
        In addition to these specific budget matters, I also want to bring
    your attention to an issue that is also very important not only to my
    Tribe, but all of Indian country:
      --Reauthorization of the Indian Healthcare Improvement Act
    Endangered Species Act Funding--$4 million
        The BIA has a trust responsibility to provide comprehensive
    management of Indian forest lands. This responsibility includes surveys
    and other on-the-ground activities mandated by the Endangered Species
    Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Despite this mandate, funds appropriated
    to the BIA for ESA compliance have been limited and have declined
    substantially since Congress first appropriated funds to the BIA for
    ESA compliance. The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request will
    fund just two central office personnel, failing to comply with ESA
    mandates that must be carried out in the field.
        For the Coquille Indian Tribe, which is harvesting timber within
    the range of endangered species such as the Northern Spotted Owl and
    Marbled Murrelet, surveys are essential to comply with ESA mandates.
    The current support provided by the BIA is limited to $5,000 to $7,000
    annually (if available). This amount of funding satisfies only 6-10
    percent of the Tribe's annual need ($75,000). Without this funding, the
    Coquille Forest Tribal Timber Harvest program is in danger of failing
    to meet the ESA compliance mandates. In addition, general Tribal funds
    which can be applied to other Tribal programs must be reallocated to
    cover the funding shortfall. The Coquille Indian Tribe recommends that
    a minimum of $4 million be appropriated to the BIA to meet ESA
    compliance requirements.
    Road Maintenance--$5 million
        The BIA Road Maintenance program provides maintenance of roads and
    bridges constructed under the Indian Reservation Roads Program in
    Indian Country. The goal of this program is ``the Advancement of
    Quality Communities for Tribes & Alaska Natives.''
        Unfortunately, the President's Budget falls tragically short of
    achieving this worthy goal. The fiscal year 2008 President's Budget
    would result in only 14 percent of participating roads in acceptable
    condition and only 44 percent of bridges in acceptable condition. As a
    consequence many roads and bridges in Indian country are in
    unacceptable levels of disrepair. We urge you to raise this funding
    level to help this program reach its goal by supplementing this funding
    by at least $5 million.
    Woody Biomass Project to Support Renewable Energy Supply--$1 million
        There are 18 million acres of Indian forests and woodlands which
    produce large amounts of woody biomass material suitable for energy
    production. The goals of Indian forest management are to restore and
    maintain health of Tribal forests and woodlands and to provide a
    sustainable supply of forest products for economic opportunities.
    Indian tribes place a high importance on resource protection and
    emphasize that an integrative, holistic approach be taken in managing
    all forest resources, recognizing a multiplicity of uses and values.
    While biomass utilization supports tribal goals and desired management
    approaches for Indian forests and woodlands, opportunities for biomass
    projects have been limited due to lack of specific funding in the BIA
    forest management program.
        Our Coquille Forest lands are located in the Oregon Coast Range
    which includes some of the most productive forest lands in the Nation.
    These Tribal lands and surrounding Federal forests contain thousands of
    acres of dense forest stands capable of producing vast quantities of
    woody biomass as a renewable energy supply. Production of woody biomass
    by thinning of these overstocked forest stands will improve forest
    health, reduce hazardous fuels and decrease the risk of wildfires. The
    Coquille Tribe recently initiated a study to determine the feasibility
    of developing a 20 megawatt or larger power generating facility
    utilizing woody biomass. While the feasibility study has the support of
    the State of Oregon and numerous other entities, full implementation of
    the project is currently delayed due to lack of funding which has been
    requested from the BIA.
        The Coquille Tribe requests additional funding in the amount of $1
    million be provided to the BIA forestry program to provide technical
    assistance to Tribes in the planning and development of woody biomass
    projects for renewable energy production.
    Contract Health Services--$47.1 million
        Like all other tribes in the IHS Portland Area, the Coquille Indian
    Tribe depends heavily upon Contract Health Services to serve Tribal
    members' medical needs because there are no IHS hospitals within the
    region. Long-term, gross under-funding of the IHS Contract Health
    Service Program has forced the Coquille Indian Tribe to make harsh
    choices regarding the level of medical care that it provides to the
    Coquille Indian People. The fiscal year 2008 budget falls short of even
    maintaining the existing Contract Health Service Program. The Coquille
    Tribe's Contract Health Services expenses have increased at an average
    of 18 percent per year from 1996-2006, far outpacing any increase in
    IHS funding. The vast discrepancy between the IHS budget and medical
    inflation have forced the Coquille and other tribes to choose between
    funding programs for education, social services, law enforcement,
    economic development, housing and natural resource management, or
    maintaining a basic health care program for their people. To maintain
    current services in fiscal year 2008, the Coquille Indian Tribe
    recommends that Congress appropriate $47.1 for the Contract Health
    Services Program, an $18.4 million increase over the President's
    request.
    Behavioral Health (Alcohol and Substance Abuse)--$13 million
        The Coquille Indian Tribe supports the President's proposed
    increase of $12.3 million to the Indian Health Services budget for
    Alcohol and Substance Abuse Programs, but notes that this increase is
    required only to maintain existing services. Problems with substance
    and alcohol abuse continue to plague Indian people and their families.
    There is a significant lack of adequate and appropriate treatment
    facilities within the Southern Oregon region. The methamphetamine
    epidemic has impacted the Coquille Tribe as drastically as other tribes
    in the Northwest. Treatments for successful recovery from meth addition
    have been demonstrated, but the costs to adequately treat
    methamphetamine addiction are enormous and there are few facilities in
    our area that provide this specialty care. To fight these addictive
    diseases and this growing epidemic in Indian country, the Coquille
    Indian Tribe recommends increased funding for these programs
    significantly beyond the President's request.
    Contract Support Costs--$150 million
        For more than three decades the promise of Self-Determination has
    been undermined by chronic under-funding of contract support costs.
    Contract support costs provide tribes with the funding necessary to
    administer the programs assumed from the Federal Government through
    Self-Determination. Despite congressional amendments to the Indian
    Self-Determination Act in 1988 and 1994 aimed at correcting
    deficiencies, the agencies still request and Congress still
    appropriates less than needed each year to meet their legal obligation,
    paying far less than tribes are entitled to or need. According to the
    IHS, that deficiency has accumulated over the years to over $150
    million. This shortfall robs Tribes of precious limited resources that
    might otherwise be put to the important work of economic self-
    sufficiency, education of our young, health care and numerous other
    priorities.
            reauthorization of the indian healthcare improvement act
        Although we recognize it is not in this committee's jurisdiction,
    The Coquille Indian Tribe wishes to note our strong support for
    reauthorization of the Indian Healthcare Improvement Act (IHCIA).
    Provisions of the IHCIA are crucial to assuring the health and
    wellbeing of the Coquille and all Indian people. Major provisions of
    the IHCIA address significant health concerns of the Coquille Tribe,
    including behavioral health programs, eldercare, modernization of
    health care delivery, and health promotion and disease prevention.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my testimony.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of the Corps Network
        The Corps Network (formerly the National Association of Service and
    Conservation Corps or NASCC) urges you to fully fund the Public Lands
    Corps at $12,000,000 in fiscal year 2008 through the Departments of
    Agriculture and Interior. The Corps Network is the voice of our
    Nation's 115 Service and Conservation Corps which operate in 42 States
    and enroll more than 23,000 young people every year.
        The Public Lands Corps is an authorized program that was signed
    into law through the Public Lands Corps Healthy Forests Restoration Act
    of 2005 (Public Law 109-154) and authorizes the Secretaries of
    Agriculture and Interior to contract with ``qualified youth and
    conservation corps'' to carry out critical projects on public lands.
    The primary purposes of the Public Lands Corps Healthy Forests
    Restoration Act of 2005 are twofold:
        (1) to employ youth Service and Conservation Corps as a tool to
    assist land managers in the ongoing efforts to fight wildfires,
    invasive species and other threats to our public lands, and
        (2) to engage young people, particularly those who are
    disadvantaged, in these efforts.
        The priority projects identified in the authorization legislation
    address issues of significance to our Nation. Priority projects are
    designed: ``(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. These funds would also enable Corps to do disaster prevention
    and relief activities on Federal, State, local and private land as part
    of a Federal disaster relief or prevention effort. This is the kind of
    work at which Corps excel.
        Funding the Public Lands Corps (PLC) will allow Federal land
    managers to more cost-effectively deploy resources to fight the effects
    of wildfires and invasive species, as well as complete backlogged
    projects. Youth Service and Conservation Corps are cost-effective
    partners and Corps provide a 25 percent non-Federal match for every
    project. In addition, Corps represent trained, experienced and mobile
    workforce that can quickly and efficiently complete a wide variety of
    projects.
        With a diverse pool of 23,000 young people, Corps are a means for
    Federal land managers to hire skilled and experienced Corpsmembers to
    fill the shoes of the many career land managers that are nearing
    retirement. With this in mind, the Public Lands Corps Act allows the
    Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Interior to provide non-
    competitive hiring status for Corps alumni for 120 days after service
    is complete, allowing Federal land managers to more easily hire
    Corpsmembers into fulltime jobs.
                  service and conservation corps and wildfires
        Service and Conservation Corps are an experienced, cost-effective,
    and valuable resource in the fight against wildfires. The Public Lands
    Corps can, and should, play a key role in the implementation of the
    National Fire Plan, especially with regard to forest and wildland
    rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction and community assistance.
        Corps help to ensure that the necessary resources are available to
    respond to fires and provide logistical support to firefighters. Across
    the Nation, they participate in emergency stabilization and
    rehabilitation activities like reforestation, road and trail
    rehabilitation, fence replacement, fish and wildlife habitat
    restoration and replanting and reseeding with native vegetation. They
    have experience reducing hazardous fuels to reduce the risks of fires
    to people, communities and natural resources. Corps also have
    experience in helping communities that have been, or are at-risk of
    fire by educating citizens on the effects of fire and doing community
    fire protection planning.
        According to the Climatic Data Center of the Department of
    Commerce, in 2006 some 96,326 fires consumed 9.8 million acres--the
    worst year for fires since 2000. Federal agencies spent $1.9 billion on
    fire suppression in 2006. One factor that increases the wildfire threat
    and cost is the growing number of new homes in the wildland/urban
    interface. About 8.4 million new homes, or 60 percent of new homes,
    were built in the interface during the 1990s.
        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.'' Corpsmembers quite often
    serve as these ``quiet heroes.'' Corps nationwide are proving to be
    cost-effective partners in the effort to combat wildfires:
        The Washington Conservation Corps (WCC) has partnered with Olympic
    National Park for 12 years. Since January 2007, the WCC crew has been
    bucking up hundreds of downed old growth trees toppled during several
    fierce windstorms that hit the region during the winter. The primary
    goals of this project are to reduce fire fuels and increase access.
    Many of the downed trees are in popular campgrounds. The WCC crew is
    also limbing trees and cleaning up areas around park headquarters and
    residences.
        The California Conservation Corps (CCC) operates statewide and has
    a dedicated 18-person crew that partners with Whiskey Town National
    Park located near Redding, CA. This CCC crew is 100 percent focused on
    wildfires and performs controlled burns, completes hazardous fuels
    reduction and cuts fuel breaks. The CCC and NPS have partnered together
    on providing trainings and other related work for 6 years. The CCC crew
    typically works year round.
        The Southwest Conservation Corps (SCC), based in Durango, CO,
    worked with Mesa Verde National Park to complete fire fuels reduction
    at Chapin Mesa to reduce the risk of wildfire. Mesa Verde NP has a
    significant history of wildfire, especially in recent years. Mesa Verde
    NP needed assistance from SCC in removing hazardous fuels from key
    areas in advance of 100th anniversary celebrations. The entire SCC crew
    received 40 hour chainsaw training and certification by SCC staff.
    Corpsmembers also received S130/S190 Introduction to Wildland
    Firefighting at the conclusion of their 4 month term of service so as
    to prepare them for obtaining jobs in the wildland fire management
    industry.
        The Coconino Rural Environment Corps (CREC), based in Flagstaff,
    AZ, thins hundreds of acres of Federal, State, county, city, and
    private lands every year. CREC 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. CREC thins more than 500 acres
    a year and returns more than 4,000 acres to native grasslands.
              service and conservation corps and invasive species
        Invasive species are another enormous 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. According to the U.S. Department
    of Agriculture, invasive alien plant infestations cover 100 million
    acres (an area twice the size of Delaware) and are spreading at a rate
    of 14 percent per year. Recent studies have also revealed that the San
    Francisco Bay is invaded by a new exotic species on the average of once
    every few weeks. NASA estimates a cost to the U.S. economy to monitor,
    contain, and control these species, including plant, animal and
    disease-related invasives, at $100-$200 billion per year--an annual
    cost greater than that for all natural disasters combined.
        Corps have been mobilized nationwide to combat invasive species
    like Tamarisk, Leafy Spurge and Russian Olive and to combat
    agricultural pests and insects such as the Bark Beetle and Pine Beetle.
    For example:
        The Alaska Service Corps (ASC) was tasked with a week-long invasive
    removal project in one of Alaska's premiere National Parks, Wrangell
    St. Elias. Alaska's National Parks have few invasive species compared
    to National Parks in other States. Wrangell St. Elias is invested in
    maintaining this relatively pristine gene pool and provide early
    detection and rapid response and removal when new invaders are
    observed. The ASC crew help eradicate White Sea Clover & other invasive
    plants from key areas near the Slana Visitor Center. The ASC crews
    efforts allows native plants opportunities to reseed and enhance the
    experience for residents and tourists.
        The Rocky Mountain Youth Corps (RMYC), based in Taos, New Mexico
    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.
           about the corps network and service and conservation corps
        The Corps Network is the voice of our Nation's 115 Service and
    Conservation Corps which operate in 42 States and enroll more than
    23,000 young people every year who contribute 13 million hours or
    service to their communities each year.
        Service and Conservation 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 16-25 year olds the opportunity to earn a second chance in
    life through hard work and service to their communities.
        In the Corps model, Corpsmembers are organized into crews of 8-12
    to carry out these projects while being guided by adult leaders who
    serve as mentors and role models as well as technical trainers and
    supervisors. For the past 25 years Corps have re-engaged society's most
    vulnerable young people through a comprehensive approach of full-time
    service, a minimum-wage based stipend, job training, life skill
    development, career counseling and education. Most importantly, these
    young men and women learn to value their personal contribution, learn
    the importance of teamwork and experience the recognition that comes
    from making a positive investment in their community.
        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.
        The Public Lands Corps will provide work experience to low-income,
    disadvantaged youth between the ages of 16-25, 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 for the Public Lands Corps
    and we appreciate your attention to this request.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Cradle of Texas Conservancy and the Galveston
                                 Bay Foundation
        Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the committee: Thank you for
    the opportunity to testify in support of a Land and Water Conservation
    Fund request for $3 million to permit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service to acquire the 1,988 acre McGinnes property at the San Bernard
    National Wildlife Refuge in Texas.
        I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the chairman
    and subcommittee members for supporting ample funding for land
    acquisition through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This project
    at the San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge provides but one example of
    the profound need for Federal funding for land acquisition nationwide.
    In Texas, and throughout the country, Federal land acquisition is
    critical to both protect our public lands and to augment State and
    community efforts to preserve natural and recreational resources.
        For the past 35 years I have been involved in coastal conservation
    issues on the local, State, and national level. Those include coastal
    management, oil spills, RECRA, CWA, wetlands, land conservation, on-
    shore impacts of oil spills and CBRA. These are issues that I have
    testified before the United States House and Senate committees in
    Washington. I received two presidential/congressional appointments to
    the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. I have
    received 4 Governor's appointments in these issue areas in Texas; and
    other appointments from the General Land Office of Texas, and Texas
    Parks and Wildlife. In the mid-80's I lobbied for and co-submitted the
    States application to Congress for the inclusion of Galveston Bay in
    the Clean Water Act. As a result of the creation of the Galveston Bay
    Estuary Program, I worked with attorney Jim Blackburn to create the
    Galveston Bay Foundation to parallel the functions of the Chesapeake
    Bay Foundation. We are now 20 years old, and I still serve on the
    executive committee. The Cradle of Texas Conservancy was founded by
    conservationist Andrew Sansom in 1984 to be the land trust for Brazoria
    County as it developed a county park system, and for conservation
    purposes. I have served on the board since the beginning. We have
    helped create 11 county parks and many city parks. We also hold over
    3,000 acres including critical habitat in the Galveston Bay area and
    the Columbia Bottomlands/Austin's Woods within Brazoria County.
        The Texas Mid-Coast National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex is
    comprised of three refuges: the Brazoria NWR, the Big Boggy NWR, and
    the San Bernard NWR. Located just south of Houston, this refuge complex
    serves as a haven for both wildlife and thousands of people living in
    the Houston metropolitan area. These three units form a vital complex
    of coastal wetlands harboring more than 300 bird species and offering
    exceptional wildlife viewing opportunities. The vast expanses of salt
    and freshwater marshes, sloughs, ponds, coastal prairies, and
    bottomland forest provide feeding and nesting habitat for a myriad of
    species throughout the year. Further, they serve as an end point of the
    Central flyway for migrating waterfowl in the winter months and as an
    entry point for neotropical songbirds migrating north from Mexico.
        The San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1968 to
    provide quality habitat for wintering migratory waterfowl and other
    bird life. The 41,000-acre refuge is located in Brazoria and Matagorda
    counties, 12 miles west of Freeport in southeastern Texas. The refuge
    consists of flat coastal prairie and salt marsh with numerous saltwater
    lakes, shallow freshwater lakes, associated marshlands, intermittent
    streams, and bottomland hardwood forest areas.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2008 is the 1,988-acre
    McGinnes tract located in the Linville Bayou Unit of the San Bernard
    NWR. Comprised of old growth bottomland forest, wetland, and associated
    upland habitats, the McGinnes tract would serve as an important
    addition to the Linville Unit as it would consolidate tracts of high
    quality habitat rarely seen. The addition of the McGinnes tract would
    consolidate over 1,400 acres of old-growth bottomland forest, making it
    one of the largest old-growth bottomland forests in public ownership.
    Once acquired, the refuge will seek to restore the entire tract to its
    original forested State. Located directly adjacent to previous-year
    acquisitions, the protection of the McGinnes tract will help
    consolidate refuge lands and safeguard previous Federal investments.
        The National Significance of adding these bottomland hardwood areas
    to the Austin's Woods/San Bernard Refuge now, while there's still some
    left is that this bottomland forest is located directly in the center
    of the Gulf of Mexico. It is a visual clues in this area for migrating
    birds 200 miles out in the Gulf. The biggest visual clues are the
    Brazos River in the Columbia Bottomland/Austin's Woods, and Galveston
    Bay. The Brazos River is the second largest stream flow into the Gulf
    of Mexico after the Mississippi River, anywhere in the Gulf from
    Florida to Yucatan. Birds also migrate using magnetic fields. The long-
    shore current of the Gulf of Mexico changes direction twice a year,
    usually in April and October. Off-shore debris washes up along the
    Brazoria/Matagorda coastline more than any other part of the coast.
    This was documented in the 80's and 90's by marine debris studies done
    by the Texas General Land Office and the Department of Interior, Marine
    Management Service. The significance of this is location. This
    bottomland forest, located in the middle of the gulf is more
    significant than any other bottomland forest in the United States for
    migrating and wintering songbirds.
        As a result of a wetland lawsuit in the mid-90's, increased studies
    have shown the significance of this wetland forest for the majority of
    the Nations migrating songbirds. These birds migrate three ways. One,
    down the Pacific Coast. Two, down the Atlantic Coast and either across
    Cuba from Florida--or around the coast to Mexico. Three, the Central
    Flyway of mid-America comes through Texas and particularly through this
    mid-coast area. The tall canopy of trees along the multi-waterways of
    these coastal counties provides resting space where these birds spend
    up to 2 months building up strength for their flight across or around
    the Gulf. And in the spring, it is more significant for those who fly
    across the Gulf to rebuild their body weight prior to migrating on.
        Current research is finding a much larger number and species of
    wintering birds than previously believed. Any real estate agent will
    tell you that the first and last rule of real estate is location,
    location, location. As Houston expands these critical spots for habitat
    are disappearing rapidly, and the price is accelerating rapidly. Look
    on the map, this is the only major forest for these birds that close to
    the coast. It is also the only bottomland forest along the Gulf that
    still has Old-Growth tracts left! If it isn't acquired now it will be
    impossible to acquire it later. This acquisition also provides
    opportunity for Carbon Sequestration. It is already impossible to find
    a tract that has not been partially cleared due to the taxation policy
    (agricultural exemption) of the United States. Since it does not seem
    likely that the tax policy is going to change quickly, that pressure
    will not be lessened. This refuge complex provides sequestration and
    habitat opportunities that U.S. environmental policy supports.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify for this
    significant project at the San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge in
    Texas. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, and I
    will do my best to provide the answers.
                                     ______

                        Prepared Statement of Dance/USA
        Madam Chairwoman and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
    Dance/USA is grateful for this opportunity to submit testimony on
    behalf of our members. We urge the committee to designate a total of
    $176 million to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for fiscal
    year 2008. This testimony is intended to highlight the importance of
    the Federal investment in the arts to sustaining a vibrant cultural
    community.
        Dance/USA, the national service organization for not-for-profit
    professional dance, believes that dance is essential to a healthy
    society, demonstrating the infinite possibilities for human expression
    and potential, and facilitating communication within and across
    cultures. Dance/USA sustains and advances professional dance by
    addressing the needs, concerns, and interests of artists,
    administrators, and organizations. By providing services and national
    leadership, Dance/USA enhances the infrastructure for dance creation,
    education and dissemination. To fulfill its mission, Dance/USA offers a
    variety of programs, including data research and regional professional
    development, and works with organizations within and outside the arts
    field with whom common goals are shared. Dance/USA's membership
    currently consists of over 400 ballet, modern, ethnic, jazz, culturally
    specific, traditional and tap companies, dance service and presenting
    organizations, artist managers, individuals, and other organizations
    nationally and internationally. Dance/USA's member companies range in
    size from operating budgets of under $100,000 to over $50 million.
        The NEA makes it possible for everyone to enjoy and benefit from
    the performing arts. Before the establishment of the NEA in 1965, the
    arts were limited mostly to a few big cities. The Arts Endowment has
    helped strengthen regional theater, opera, ballet and other artistic
    disciplines that Americans now enjoy. NEA funding provides access to
    the arts in regions with histories of inaccessibility due to economic
    or geographical limitations. The Endowment embodies the ideal that no
    one should be deprived of the opportunity to have art in their lives.
    The Arts Endowment has helped the arts become accessible to more
    Americans, which in turn has increased public participation in the
    arts.
        Despite diminished resources, the NEA awards more than 1,000 grants
    annually, to nonprofit arts organizations for projects that encourage
    artistic creativity. These grants help nurture the growth and artistic
    excellence of thousands of arts organizations and artists in every
    corner of the country. NEA grants also preserve and enhance our
    Nation's diverse cultural heritage. The modest public investment in the
    Nation's cultural life results in both new and classic works of art
    reaching all 50 States.
        NEA grants are instrumental in leveraging private funding. On
    average, each NEA grant generates at least $7 from other sources.
    Government cultural funding plays a catalytic leadership role that is
    essential in generating private support for the arts.
      nea is a great investment in the economic growth of every community
        The return of the Federal Government's small investment in the arts
    is striking. The non-profit arts generate approximately $134 billion
    annually in economic activity, support 4.85 million jobs, and return
    $10.5 billion in Federal income taxes. Few other Federal investments
    realize such economic benefits, not to mention the intangible benefits
    that only the arts make possible. Even in the face of tremendous
    cutbacks in recent years, the NEA continues to be a beacon for the arts
    organizations across the country.
                               nea grants at work
        NEA grants are awarded to dance organizations through its core
    programs Access to Artistic Excellence, Challenge America: Reaching
    Every Community, Federal/State Partnerships, and Learning in the Arts,
    as well as through initiatives such as American Masterpieces: Dance.
    The following is a description of a dance organization that is able to
    capitalize on its NEA Access to Artistic Excellence grant and bring
    outstanding artists in the dance field to the people of Massachusetts
    and the United States:
        Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival in Becket, MA is renowned throughout
    the world as a cultural icon; it celebrates its 75th anniversary this
    year. Called ``the hub and mecca of dancing in North America,'' by Time
    Magazine, Jacob's Pillow has been named one of America's Irreplaceable
    Dance Treasures by the Dance Heritage Coalition, is listed on the
    National Register of Historic Places, and recently became the first
    dance institution to be designated by the Federal Government as a
    National Historic Landmark. The Christian Science Monitor has referred
    to Jacob's Pillow as ``the largest, longest, oldest and most
    comprehensive dance festival in the world,'' and it is indisputably one
    of the most beloved and enduring cultural institutions in existence
    today.
        In 2007, Jacob's Pillow was awarded $70,000 to support residencies
    and performances of dance companies during Jacob's Pillow Dance
    Festival's 75th anniversary. The project will include a Creative
    Development Residency, presentation of national and international dance
    companies, and audience engagement programs and educational programs.
                    non-profit professional dance community
        America's dance companies perform a wide range of styles and
    genres. These include both classical and contemporary ballet, classical
    and contemporary modern, as well as jazz, tap, cross-disciplinary
    fusions and traditional to modern work rooted in other cultures. Over
    two-thirds of America's professional dance companies are less than 45
    years old; as an established art form with national identity and
    presence, dance has burst onto the scene almost entirely within living
    memory. And, yet, America can boast some of the greatest dance
    companies of the world and can take credit for birthing two indigenous
    dance styles--tap and modern dance.
        One key to this spectacular achievement has been the creation of a
    national marketplace for dance. When the National Endowment for the
    Arts instituted its Dance Touring Program in the 1970's, great dance
    became accessible to every community in America. What used to be a
    handful of professional companies and a scattering of ``regional''
    dance has become a national treasure spread across cities and through
    communities, schools and theaters in all 50 States. NEA programs today,
    like the National College Choreography Initiative, continue to ensure
    that the best of American dance is for all of America and a showpiece
    for the rest of the world as well. There are now over 600 professional
    dance companies in America as well as over a thousand pre-professional
    and semi-professional groups. Based on recent surveys, Dance/USA
    estimates that the 79 largest and most visible non-profit dance
    companies in the United States do the following:
      --Employ over 7,000 people.
      --Perform for total home audiences of nearly 3.3 million people. This
            does not include touring audiences, nor does it count the
            millions who attend performances given by the hundreds of dance
            companies with budgets under $1 million.
      --Pay nearly $227.9 million in wages and benefits.
      --Have operating expense budgets totaling $439.4 million.
      --Earn $171.0 million, or 38 percent of their income, from
            performances.
      --Earn $104 million from sales, tuitions and activities other than
            performances.
      --Received $14.2 million from State, local, and government
            contributions.
      --Receive $25.6 million from corporate contributions.
      --Receive $55.4 million from private foundations.
      --Receive $132 million from individual contributions through
            donations, benefit events, guilds, and United Arts drives.
      --Have over 26,500 volunteers, including over 3,100 members of Boards
            of Trustees.
                                   conclusion
        Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending
    Federal tax dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered
    from a 40 percent budget cut in the mid-nineties, and its programs are
    seriously underfunded. Dance/USA and other performing arts service
    organizations work hard each year to strengthen support for the NEA in
    Congress. As the NEA banner underscores, a great Nation deserves great
    art. In order for there to be great art, organizations need stronger
    infrastructure and stability. We urge you to increase the 2008 NEA
    funding allocation to $176 million.
        On behalf of Dance/USA, thank you for considering this request.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Defenders of Wildlife
        Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, I am Jamie
    Rappaport Clark, Executive Vice President of Defenders of Wildlife.
    Founded in 1947, Defenders of Wildlife has over 500,000 supporters
    across the Nation and is dedicated to the protection and restoration of
    wild animals and plants in their natural communities.
        I come before today you not only in my capacity with Defenders of
    Wildlife but as a former Federal career employee with the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, and, subsequently its director, to tell you that the
    Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is an agency in crisis, and the
    wildlife related programs in the other land management agencies also
    are at the breaking point. Budgets over the last 6 years have left the
    Service in danger of failing at mission critical programs, unable to
    meet its inherently Federal obligations for both domestic and
    international wildlife conservation. Fixed costs have gone unmet and
    the agency is cannabilizing itself to stay afloat. As staffing keeps
    shrinking far below needed levels, the agency is undergoing a massive
    restructuring, institutionalizing a smaller FWS with resources
    inadequate to satisfy its mission. Defenders deeply appreciates the
    needed infusion of funds provided in H.J. Res. 20, the fiscal year 2007
    appropriations bill. Unfortunately, significant additional funding will
    be needed over the coming years to reverse the damage to the FWS and
    other agencies and to make them once again whole. We know that the
    subcommittee must operate within the constraints of its 302(b)
    allocation, but we ask you to do as much as possible. Defenders has
    worked during the development of the fiscal year 2008 congressional
    budget resolutions to support important increases for the environment
    and natural resources budget function, and we will continue to work for
    increases for the subcommittee for fiscal year 2008 and the coming
    years.
        To prevent collpase of the agency's functions, the subcommittee
    should begin to rebuild the FWS workforce which has suffered
    substantial losses. H. Rpt. 109-465 accompanying H.R. 5386, the fiscal
    year 2007 House Interior, Environment and related agencies
    appropriations bill expressed concern that FWS has lost 600 staff from
    2004-2006, equivalent to a 7 percent staffing reduction. Information on
    specific programs corroborates that the Service is facing a staffing
    crisis, and reductions in force or buyouts may be imminent in some
    regions. In addition, numerous key vacancies in mission critical
    functions are being left unfilled, creating serious challenges for
    program implementation in many areas.
      --The endangered species program is experiencing a 30 percent overall
            vacancy rate in the ecological services account and in some
            areas that rate may be close to 50 percent.
      --The Refuge System has lost nearly 230 staff from 2004-2006 and
            projects a further reduction of at least 335 positions that
            equal a 20 percent reduction in total.
      --Since 2002, the law enforcement program has lost 45 staff, more
            than 8 percent overall, including 16 percent of its special
            agents, and is in desperate need of both agents to enforce
            Federal wildlife conservation laws and scientists for their
            world renowned wildlife crime forensics laboratory. In
            addition, the program will lose 10 more staff due to mandatory
            law enforcement retirement by 2011 and another 10-15 agents
            eligible are expected to retire voluntarily.
      --Over the past 3 years, under the International Wildlife Trade
            program, the Division of Scientific Authority has lost one
            third of an already very small number of employees and the
            Division of Management Authority has suffered a 15 percent
            staffing reduction.
        To stop severe erosion of programs, the subcommittee should fully
    fund fixed costs, including, if possible, unfunded amounts from earlier
    years. H. Rpt. 109-465 correctly highlighted severe erosion of programs
    throughout the bill due to absorption of rising fixed costs, such as
    pay, rent, utility and fuel, observing that the nine largest agencies
    in the bill have suffered over $1.2 billion in ``hidden'' decreases
    from fiscal year 2001-2006. The National Wildlife Refuge System is a
    poster child for these impacts. According to Service data, the System
    needs a $15 million yearly increase just to keep up with annual fixed
    costs. Based on this figure, just to stay even with the peak fiscal
    year 2004 level of $391.5 million, its fiscal year 2008 funding level
    should be $451.5 million. Other programs in FWS need 3-5 percent in
    increases each year to keep up with fixed costs. They, like the refuge
    system, are continuing to spiral downwards in an unacceptable manner.
        The subcommittee should restore the integrity of the National
    Wildlife Refuge System, one of the crown jewels in our Nation's
    conservation heritage. To cope with funding shortfalls, the Service is
    in the process of making an unacceptable ``Sophie's choice'' to
    restructure the Refuge System, practically ensuring that the Refuge
    System envisioned in the landmark 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System
    Improvement Act will never be realized. Forced to leave vacancies open,
    FWS is shifting staff to ensure that mission critical functions are
    carried out at highest priority refuges. Determining ``highest
    priority'' has been hugely challenging due to discrepancy among regions
    and lack of national policy guidance to ensure that critical
    conservation functions of the System as a whole are being maintained.
    Scores of refuges are being de-staffed, significant acreage is now
    overseen by distantly located staff, and services to the public and
    wildlife are being significantly cut, including loss of law
    enforcement, invasive species control, species restoration, and
    environmental education and other public use programs. The Cooperative
    Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, a diverse coalition of 21 national
    conservation, sporting, and scientific organizations will soon release
    a comprehensive analysis of Refuge System funding needs that recommends
    a yearly level of $765 million for Refuge Operations and Maintenance by
    fiscal year 2013.
        The subcommittee should provide increases to important FWS grant
    programs where it will not take needed funding from core agency
    operations, and provide direction that maximizes their efficiency.
    Defenders' highest priorities among the grant programs are the State
    and Tribal Wildlife Grants (STWGP), Cooperative Endangered Species
    Fund, and Landowner Incentive and Private Stewardship Grants. While we
    strongly support these programs, we also have been concerned that,
    under the guise of increasing cooperative conservation, the
    administration has justified cuts to core FWS operations by purporting
    to meet these obligations through funding the grant programs. The STWGP
    was established to serve the Federal interest by conserving species
    before they decline to the point where they need Endangered Species Act
    protection. We ask the subcommittee to continue its strong oversight of
    the implementation of the new Action Plans created through STWGP and to
    consider giving the Service direction to explore ways to maximize
    efficiency of all its grant programs by using the proactive Action
    Plans to help target their funding.
        The subcommittee should refocus the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
    on its multiple use mission, and, in particular, halt the diversion of
    BLM wildlife funding to pay for energy and other programs. The
    administration has virtually converted the BLM from a multiple use
    agency to an agency dominated by one use: energy development. The full
    cost of the administration's energy policies has not been accounted for
    in budget requests, yet energy development and other extractive
    industries on Federal land are expected to generate $4.5 billion in
    2008 We ask the subcommittee to explore ways in which the extractive
    industries can be required to pay their fair share for mitigation needs
    and Federal costs associated with energy development. For example, we
    support the administration's proposal to repeal provisions in Section
    365 of the Energy Policy Act that prohibit BLM from implementing cost
    recovery fees for processing applications for permits to drill. Also,
    of high importance to Defenders, we ask the subcommittee to include
    language prohibiting the uncompensated diversion of resources from the
    Wildlife and Fisheries Management and Threatened and Endangered Species
    Management activities to other programs. As highlighted in the BLM's
    own internal reviews, these activities have routinely seen more than 30
    percent of funding siphoned away to pay for compliance activities of
    BLM's energy, grazing and other non-wildlife related programs, which
    should instead come from benefiting programs. In particular, funding in
    the Threatened and Endangered Species activity should be focused on
    proactive efforts to recover listed species on BLM lands. Moreover,
    this diversion of resources has made the Challenge Cost Share program
    increasingly important, with reports that it is the primary means
    through which proactive wildlife conservation work is accomplished.
    Finally, while the budget touts a $15 million cross-cutting ``Healthy
    Lands Initiative'' that it says is targeted to protecting wildlife and
    restoring habitat in energy interface areas, it is unclear exactly how
    this money will be spent, and whether it will be effective, given the
    small amount proposed in the face of such massive damage to the
    resources.
        The subcommittee should restore the LWCF. Habitat loss is the
    single biggest threat facing wildlife. According to a recent Forest
    Service report, the United States loses 6,000 acres of open space a day
    or 4 acres each minute. The Bush administration has repeatedly cut LWCF
    funding by increasingly greater levels each year. Even though the
    unspent balance in the Fund on paper will exceed $15 billion by the end
    of fiscal year 2007, the Bush administration proposed just $57.9
    million in its fiscal year 2008 budget, a 60 percent cut below fiscal
    year 2006 levels.
        The subcommittee should begin to address pressing needs related to
    increased U.S.-Mexico border traffic and enforcement. Federal lands
    along the Southwest border continue to suffer significant damage from
    the impacts of illegal immigration and related enforcement, including
    tons of trash, hundreds of miles of illegal trails and roads, hundreds
    of abandoned vehicles, fouled water sources, vandalized and stolen
    facilities and equipment, and degraded habitat across the landscape.
    Public lands in the area are spending significant portions of already
    insufficient budgets in inadequate attempts to deal with the impacts.
    To date, there has been no assessment by land management agencies of
    the costs to fully address the situation--we ask the subcommittee to
    include language in the bill requesting a full estimate of these costs
    in the fiscal year 2009 budget so that the subcommittee can take steps
    to provide the level of funding to ensure these lands and the wildlife
    they support are not irreparably harmed.
        The subcommittee should restore the integrity of the USGS
    cooperative fish and wildlife research units. Without an infusion of
    funds, one fifth of all CFWRU scientist positions (24) will be vacant
    by the end of fiscal year 2008 to remain within allowable spending
    levels. The Research Units provide critical scientific capability to
    the four land management agencies.
        The subcommittee should reject the administration's proposed cut to
    Forest Service (FS) wildlife and fisheries habitat management. Although
    more than 425 listed species and another 3,200 at-risk species occur on
    FS lands, the budget proposes an 11 percent cut ($14.1 million) and
    reduction of 187 staff.
        The subcommittee should take steps to block any administrative
    proposal that would undermine the Endangered Species Act. Recently, FWS
    draft documents were leaked that propose sweeping changes that, if
    enacted by rule, would dramatically alter implementation of the ESA.
    While Department of the Interior officials have stated that many of
    these changes are no longer under consideration, it is clear that new
    regulations are being developed. Defenders remains highly concerned
    that damaging administrative changes will yet be proposed, and we urge
    the subcommittee to include language intended to prevent any such
    proposal.

               RECOMMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2008 PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              President's      Recommended
                    Program                     request           level
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FWS Endangered Species Total..........            146.5            185.2
    Candidate Conservation................              8.6             12
    Listing...............................             18.3             25.2
    Recovery..............................             68.1             84.8
    Consultation..........................             51.6             63.2
    FWS National Wildlife Refuge O&M......            394.8            451.5
    FWS Law Enforcement O&M...............             57.6             66.6
    FWS Migratory Bird Management.........             40.6             52.7
    FWS International Affairs.............             10               17.6
    FWS State and Tribal Wildlife Grants..             69.5            100
    FWS Cooperative Endangered Species                 80               96.2
     Fund.................................
    FWS Multinational Species Conservation              4.3             10
     Fund.................................
    FWS Neo-tropical Migratory Bird Cons.               4                5
     Fund.................................
    FWS Landowner Incentive Program.......  ...............             27.4
    FWS Private Stewardship Grants........  ...............             11
    BLM Wildlife and Fisheries............             41               55.9
    BLM Threatened and Endangered Species.             22               29.4
    BLM Native Plants.....................              4.6             15.8
    BLM Challenge Cost Share..............              9.4             19.4
    FS Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat                 117.6            159.9
     Management...........................
    USGS Coop. Fish and Wildlife Research              15.4             20.5
     Units................................
    Land and Water Conservation Fund:                  57.9            220
     Federal..............................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Delaware Highlands Conservancy
        Madame Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of an important Land
    and Water Conservation Fund request of $4 million to allow National
    Park Service acquisition of the 120-acre Santos Farm property within
    the legislated boundary of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation
    Area. I also want to urge the committee to increase overall funding for
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund account, which is critical to
    helping communities protect our Nation's natural and recreational
    lands.
        The Delaware Highlands Conservancy is a non-profit land trust
    dedicated to working with landowners, other conservation organizations
    and local and State government to conserve the natural and cultural
    heritage of the Upper Delaware River region. Specifically the
    Conservancy serves Pike and Wayne Counties in PA, as well as Sullivan
    and Delaware counties New York. We are members of the National Land
    Trust Alliance and follow their best management standards and
    practices.
        To date the Conservancy has helped landowners protect nearly 10,000
    acres for the benefit of future generations. Located within easy
    driving distance of the Nation's most populous metropolitan area, New
    York City, and within a 5-hour drive of one-third of the population of
    the United States, the primary industry in this area is tourism.
        Protecting our natural areas is of vital economic importance to the
    region. The Pocono Mountain Visitors Bureau (PMVB), reports that the
    travel and tourism industry produces $1,073 billion in expenditures to
    the four primarily rural counties they serve. The Bureau recently
    completed extensive research with visitors and determined that the top
    values were: preservation of the natural environment; preservation of
    the authentic small town charm; and responsible development.
        A coalition of diverse groups--including local elected officials,
    the Pike County Commissioners, local planning commissions, watershed
    groups, the Conservancy, and like-minded organizations--have identified
    key parcels in the region that need to be protected to maintain the
    scenic rural character. The Santos Farm is viewed by all to be a
    critical component of the landscape and critical for protection.
        Please allow me to provide some background on the area. After
    flowing south to Port Jervis, New York, the Delaware river turns along
    the long ridge of the Kittatinny Mountain. For 40 miles the river runs
    southwest in a valley confined by the Kittatinny Mountain in New Jersey
    and the Pocono Mountains in Pennsylvania. Just east of Stroudsburg, the
    river breaks through the Kittatinny Mountain creating a dramatic
    ``water gap'' in the ridge. The forested and craggy mountains on both
    sides of the Delaware River tower over it by more than 1,200 feet.
        Geologists believe the water gap was created by separate rivers on
    both sides of the Kittatinny Mountain. For thousands of years the two
    rivers, assisted by wind and rain, eroded the mountain, carrying away
    more earthly material at weak spots in the rock than at stronger spots.
    Several million years ago, the rivers linked at a particularly weak
    spot in the mountain's geology. This action created both the water gap
    and the current Delaware River. The creation of the water gap increased
    erosion by the more powerful single river, which led to the dramatic
    chasm that is today referred to as the Delaware Water Gap.
        In the 1960s the Army Corps of Engineers planned to dam the
    Delaware River and create the Tocks Island Reservoir. Congress approved
    the proposal in 1965 and instructed the Corps and the Interior
    Department to acquire lands around the proposed reservoir for ``public
    outdoor recreation use and enjoyment of the proposed Tocks Island
    Reservoir . . . and for preservation of the scenic, scientific, and
    historic features contributing to public enjoyment of such lands and
    waters.'' This 1965 legislation created the present Delaware Water Gap
    National Recreation Area, covering nearly 70,000 acres in New Jersey
    and Pennsylvania. However, controversy over the dam blocked its
    construction for nearly 15 years. Many critics found the two purposes
    of the authorizing law, damming the River and preserving the land and
    water, contradictory.
        Congress resolved the issue by designating the portion of the
    Delaware River within the Recreation Area as a National Wild and Scenic
    River, ending the possibility of building a dam and making the
    conservation of the natural, recreational, historical, and cultural
    attributes of the water gap and the River valley the primary mission of
    the park.
        Today the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area is a natural
    and recreational treasure in the mid-Atlantic section of the
    Appalachians Mountains. It is the largest recreation area unit between
    Maine and Virginia. Its proximity to the metropolitan areas of northern
    New Jersey, New York City, and Philadelphia places it within reach of
    tens of millions of people. Its accessibility to these populations--
    Interstate 80 runs through the water gap--brings more than 5 million
    annual visitors. Attractions include scenic viewpoints in the water gap
    on I-80 and in the valley along U.S. 209, waterfalls, hiking, biking,
    rock climbing, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, camping, canoeing,
    kayaking, rafting, tubing, swimming, wildlife observation, and the
    opportunity to learn about the many historical and cultural sites in
    the park. River recreation and wildlife thrive on the exceptionally
    clean waters of the Delaware River throughout the valley. Additionally
    the Recreation Area includes 27 miles of the Appalachian Trail.
        Within the legislative boundary, there are a number of privately
    owned properties that could be potentially sold for development.
    Acquisition of these inholdings from willing sellers allows the
    National Park Service to consolidate ownership and improve management
    of forest, wildlife habitat, and recreational resources. In fiscal year
    2007 the National Park Service has the opportunity to acquire the 120-
    acre Santos Farm property in Milford, Pike County, Pennsylvania.
        The Santos Farm property is located along the Delaware River at the
    northern end of the National Recreation Area. The property is one of
    the last undeveloped farmland tracts in Pike County and provides
    significant wildlife habitat. Milford Borough, Township, and county
    officials have expressed strong support for protecting this property,
    which could otherwise be developed into a ``big box'' retail commercial
    site or residential lots. If developed, the loss of scenic,
    recreational, and habitat resources would be significant.
        Pike County voters recently approved the Scenic Rural Character
    Preservation Bond for the protection of natural areas in the County,
    with a yes majority of 68.2 percent. Support for the conservation of
    this land is high, but there are insufficient funds locally to raise
    the entire purchase price.
        While this property is valued at approximately $7 million, it is
    anticipated that at least $3 million can be raised at the local or
    State level, leaving a $4 million Federal need to protect the Santos
    Farm.
        An appropriation of $5.2 million to the National Park Service for
    the acquisition of both the Minisink Bluffs property in adjacent New
    Jersey and the Santos Farm property would consolidate ownership and
    improve management of forested areas within the park, protect wildlife
    habitat, enhance local park and trail networks, and protect the
    watershed of the Delaware River within the National Recreation Area.
        Madame Chairwoman, and distinguished subcommittee members, I wish
    to thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony in support of
    this critical land acquisition funding need at the Delaware Water Gap
    National Recreation Area.
                                     ______

                       Prepared Statement of Denver Water
        I am requesting your support for appropriations in fiscal year 2008
    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, consistent with the President's recommended
    budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds to the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS to continue its essential
    participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program.
        2. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    within the $45,147,000 item entitled ``National Fish Hatchery
    Operations'' to support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray
    National Fish Hatchery in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $200,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet FWS's Region 2
    expenses in managing the San Juan Program's diverse recovery actions.
        We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request
    your assistance for fiscal year 2008 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 15 member
    groups and coalitions representing citizens from Mississippi to Maine,
    I would like to offer testimony concerning fiscal year 2008
    appropriations for U.S. Forest Service State and Private Forestry and
    the Department of the Interior's Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF). We feel that recent Federal studies, most notably the U.S.
    Forest Service's recently released Forests on the Edge and Cooperating
    across Boundaries reports, support our call for the strongest possible
    mark for conservation funding programs in the fiscal year 2008
    Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. We are
    strongly recommending that the committee reject the administration's
    proposed cuts to key programs within U.S. Forest Service State and
    Private Forestry such as Forest Stewardship, Urban and Community
    Forestry, and Forest Inventory and Analysis, and make appropriate
    increases in key State and Private Forestry programs, including a $100
    million appropriation for the Forest Legacy Program. We are also
    recommending that committee provide at least $220 million for the
    Federal side and $100 million for the State side of LWCF. We have
    included at the end of this testimony a list of priority eastern
    projects for Forest Legacy and LWCF that we feel are especially
    meritorious of fiscal year 2008 funding.
                          eastern forests on the edge
        Over the past 15 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. U.S. Forest Service and interagency studies like
    the Southern Forest Resource Assessment and New York-New Jersey
    Highlands Study Update 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.
    The release of the U.S. Forest Service's Forests on the Edge report has
    added another 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 in the
    State of Maine alone.
        This conversion is driven on one track by the wave of industrial
    forest landowners across the United States now developing or divesting
    their timberlands at an unprecedented rate, responding in part to
    international competition that has hurt domestic producers. While these
    short-term economic challenges are real, there are many reasons to
    believe that domestic forest products will once again be highly
    competitive in a carbon-constrained economy that better represents the
    true costs of transportation of goods. It is also important to note
    that the slower growing and high value northern hardwoods found in
    areas like the Northern Forest are largely on the upswing of long
    harvest cycles, and will be peaking again in future decades--holding
    our forests will pay off.
        Despite these long-term considerations, the sell-off of working
    forestland continues at an accelerating rate. In the Northern Forest
    region, for example, an incredible 23.8 million acres of forestland has
    changed hands since 1983, with 45 percent of that total in the last 5
    years.\1\  What was once constrained to certain corners of the Nation
    like the Northern Forest has now become a national trend led by
    companies like International Paper selling millions of acres of
    productive forestland and sensitive areas in the Upper Midwest and
    Southeast. Timber Investment Management Organizations (TIMO) and other
    investment entities are the most notable buyers for the forestland that
    has remained in traditional uses. These entities rely heavily on
    conservation easements, funded in significant part by Forest Legacy, to
    help generate returns from forest ownership. If continued easement
    funding is not available, it is likely that investment capital will dry
    up and lands controlled by investors will be converted for development
    to generate adequate returns. We know that many of the major investment
    groups that are playing an essential role in maintaining our forest
    future have written to the Appropriations Committee this spring in
    support of strong fiscal year 2008 Forest Legacy funding.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Hagan, J.M., L.C. Irland, and A.A. Whitman. 2005. Changing
    timberland ownership in the Northern Forest and implication for
    biodiversity. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, report
    #MCCS0FCP-2005-1, Brunswick, Maine, at p. iii.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On another track, family forest owners across the country are also
    selling their lands. The return for these landowners from traditional
    forest uses has been undermined by rising taxes, management challenges
    including new pests and invasive species, and turbulence in the forest
    products industry. Land sales are also driven by the fact that family
    forest owners are statistically an elderly group nearing or at
    retirement age. The 4.9 million family forest owners in the
    Northeastern States average 60 years of age, creating a looming threat
    of massive ownership transfer in the coming decades.\2\ As these owners
    increasingly look to retirement and consider passing their land onto
    their families, the growing gulf between forestland's forest value and
    development value is a significant problem. For example, from 2001 to
    2005, the median price per acre of open land and forestland parcels in
    Vermont of 25 acres or more rose 62 percent, from $974 per acre in 2001
    to $1,580 in 2005. Further subdivision only increased value: the median
    price per acre of open land and forestland parcels of between 1 and 25
    acres rose from $4,505 per acre in 2001 to $10,000 in 2005--a 117
    percent increase.\3\  Slowing parcelization will require helping to
    close the gap between the returns that landowners can expect from
    keeping lands forested and selling for development. This includes
    providing landowners with technical assistance through continued
    funding for highly effective USFS State and Private Forestry programs
    like Forest Stewardship. Forest Legacy easements can also be an
    effective tool for supporting these landowners. For many, a Forest
    Legacy easement would provide sufficient new revenue from forest
    ownership to enable them to stay on the land.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ America's Family Forest Owners, 2003, U.S. Forest Service,
    Butler and Letherberry.
        \3\ Vermont's Housing Market--Trends and Perspectives, Handout by
    Phil Dodd for Forest Roundtable, Oct. 18, 2006. Available at http://
    svr3.acornhost.com/vnrcorg/frt//presentations.htm
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            controlling forest parcelization: forest legacy and lwcf
        It is clear that the Nation faces an historic moment in its
    conservation history in fiscal year 2008, as it will for the next
    decade. Forest Legacy and LWCF work very well as a paired set of tools
    that enable government agencies and non-profit organizations to keep
    private landowners on the land for traditional uses and also to
    purchase lands for new public ownership where appropriate. We feel that
    conservation on both tracks will have to reach unprecedented levels if
    we are to conserve adequate green infrastructure for the needs of the
    eastern States, from clean drinking water and clean air to forest
    products, wildlife habitat and recreation.
        Our top priority Forest Legacy and LWCF projects were for the first
    time in many years very poorly represented in the President's fiscal
    year 2008 Budget. This was in part due to the administration's totally
    unacceptable proposed overall funding levels for both programs. Perhaps
    most striking was the total absence of a single Region 8 U.S. Forest
    Service LWCF project. This region has the fastest rate of forestland
    loss in the country and suffers from a highly fragmented national
    forest system that is being quickly and permanently compromised by
    development of private inholdings. The agency described this dire
    situation well in fiscal year 2007 testimony:
        ``The watersheds of the Chattahoochee National Forest supply the
    drinking water for the largest urban areas in the State of Georgia . .
    . The cumulative impact from this development and population growth
    surrounding the Forest is seriously threatening water quality by
    generating non-point source pollution.''
        The administration also failed to support funding for the Highlands
    Conservation Act, nor even many of the Highlands' Forest Legacy or LWCF
    projects, despite the leadership role of the U.S. Forest Service in
    Highlands conservation and research. We were also surprised and
    disappointed not to see our projects for the highly threatened
    Connecticut River watershed included in the administration's lists--
    neither the four-State LWCF request for Silvio Conte National Fish and
    Wildlife Refuge acquisition nor the Forest Legacy request for the
    community-led Brushwood Community Forest project that will help a rural
    municipality buy its first ever town forest.
        All of these projects are also notable for the enthusiastic local
    support for conservation that has been evidenced through letters,
    communications with elected officials, and attendance at public
    meetings. In March we traveled to Washington with local supporters for
    many of these projects and the others listed below, which produced more
    than 50 meetings with individual congressional offices across the
    Capitol. We encourage the Federal Government to maintain its catalytic
    leadership role that has delivered so much for conservation over the
    last decade. Thank you very much for your consideration of this
    testimony and the projects listed below.

        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND--FISCAL YEAR 2008 EASTERN FOREST
                                   PRIORITIES
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
         State                       Project                      Request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 AL Alabama National Forests                    $1,800,000
             AR, OK Ouachita/Ozark-Plum Creek Inholding          2,000,000
                     Tracts
                 CT Stewart McKinney National Wildlife             710,000
                     Refuge
                 FL Suwannee Wildlife Corridor/Pinhook           1,500,000
                     Swamp
                 GA Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests--      4,000,000
                     Riparian Project
                 KY Daniel Boone National Forest                 2,848,000
              KY/TN Cumberland Gap NHP                           2,800,000
                 ME White Mountain National Forest--Maine          500,000
                     Access
                 ME Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge       2,000,000
                 MS Delta National Forest--Lower Yazoo             150,000
                     Basin
                 NC Uwharrie National Scenic Trail                 800,000
                 NH Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge        1,000,000
                 NJ Cape May National Wildlife Refuge            7,500,000
                 NJ E.B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge       1,375,000
                 NJ Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge         1,500,000
                 NJ Wallkill National Wildlife Refuge            2,000,000
                 NJ Delaware Water Gap NRA--Minisink             1,200,000
                     Bluffs
     PA, NJ, NY, CT Highlands Conservation Act                  10,000,000
                 SC Francis Marion & Sumter NFs--Tibwin          2,350,000
                     Project Area
                 SC Congaree National Park                      14,500,000
                 TN Cherokee National Forest--Ripshin            3,000,000
                     Mountain Wetlands
         VA, NC, TN Appalachian National Scenic Recreation       5,115,000
                     Trail
     VT, NH, MA, CT Silvio Conte National Fish & Wildlife        8,250,000
                     Refuge--Multiple
                 VT Green Mountain National Forest--Cold         2,883,000
                     Brook, Mt. Snow; Spruce Peak; Pine
                     Brook
                 WV Monongahela National Forest                    300,000
                                                           -----------------
                          Total                                 70,031,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            FOREST LEGACY--FISCAL YEAR 2008 EASTERN FOREST PRIORITIES
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
         State                       Project                      Request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 AL Mobile Tensaw Delta                         $2,000,000
                 AR Moro Big Pine phase II                       2,450,000
                 CT Skiff Mountain phase II                        770,000
                 GA Paulding County Land Area                    3,500,000
                 KY Marrowbone Creek State Forest (Garmon        1,222,000
                     tract)
                 MA Westfield Heritage Woods                       975,000
                 ME Lower Penobscot Forest                       3,300,000
                 ME Stowe Mountain                               1,500,000
                 MS State Start Up                                 500,000
                 NC Clarendon Plantation                         1,500,000
                 NH Ossipee Pine Barrens                         2,380,000
                 NH Crotched Mountain                            2,750,000
                 NJ Sparta Mountain South phase II               5,700,000
                 NY Tahawus Extensions                             605,000
                 PA Little Bushkill Headwaters Forest            7,000,000
                     Reserve
                 RI Yawgoo Pond II, South Kingstown and          1,500,000
                     Exeter
                 SC Belfast                                      3,000,000
                 TN Big Forks                                    1,000,000
                 VA Nottoway River                               1,500,000
                 VT Brushwood Community Forest                   1,500,000
                 WV South Branch                                   750,000
                                                           -----------------
                          Total                                 48,027,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           eastern forest partnership
        Appalachian Mountain Club--Appalachian Trail Conservancy--
    Environmental Defense--Highlands Coalition; NC Coastal Land Trust--
    Northern Forest Alliance--National Wildlife Federation--Southern
    Appalachian Forest Coalition; SC Coastal Conservation League--Southern
    Environmental Law Center--TN Parks and Greenways Foundation; and Trust
    for Public Land--The Wilderness Society--Western PA Conservancy.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Endangered Species Coalition
        On behalf of the millions of members represented by the undersigned
    organizations, we urge you to increase funding for the implementation
    of the Endangered Species Act to no less than $185.2 million for the
    fiscal year 2008. We ask that this letter be included in the official
    committee record for the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill.
        The Endangered Species Act is a safety net for wildlife, plants and
    fish that are on the brink of extinction. This law successfully helped
    to bring back our Nation's majestic symbol, the American Bald Eagle. We
    have a responsibility to future generations to protect endangered
    species and the special places they call home. However, for years, the
    Endangered Species Act has been under funded, making it difficult for
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service experts to carry out their
    responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act.
        The four Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species operating
    accounts are key to effective implementation of the Endangered Species
    Act. All four program areas are currently experiencing at least a 30
    percent staffing shortage due to budget constraints, an unacceptable
    vacancy rate. To adequately implement the endangered species program, a
    total of at least $305.8 million is needed for the four main accounts
    by 2012, an increase of $158 million over fiscal year 2006. Our
    recommendation for fiscal year 2008 is $185.2 million and the break out
    is detailed below.
        The undersigned organizations request the following funding
    increases for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species
    operating accounts:
        Listing.--The listing line item funds the addition of species to
    the endangered and threatened species list and the designation of
    critical habitat. This line item has suffered years of chronic under
    funding. There are more than 270 species currently awaiting protection
    on the Candidate List. An astounding 64 species have been languishing
    without protection since 1975. While it would be ideal to address this
    listing backlog rapidly, we understand that it takes time and diligence
    to determine these listing decisions. We therefore request an increase
    to accomplish the average listing number under both Presidents Bill
    Clinton and George H.W. Bush--these administrations were able to list
    an average of 60 species per year. This would require approximately
    $36.5 million per year by 2012. We request $25.2 million for fiscal
    year 2008, an increase of $7.6 million over fiscal year 2006 levels and
    $6.9 million over the President's request.
        Recovery.--While the Endangered Species Act has been extremely
    successful at preventing wildlife from going extinct, the purpose of
    the act is to protect and recover endangered and threatened fish,
    plants and wildlife. The President's budget request cuts the recovery
    program by 7.5 percent, nearly $5.5 million. By turning its back on
    recovery funding, the Bush administration is setting the Endangered
    Species Act up for failure. The Fish and Wildlife Service must meet its
    mandatory responsibilities under the act to research, develop and
    implement recovery plans; to monitor the populations of listed species;
    and to oversee species recovery. It is difficult to estimate the true
    needs for the recovery program--current estimates place it at
    approximately $100 million. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    is currently developing a new database--Recovery Online Activity
    Reporting--which is expected to be complete in 2007 and will allow for
    better estimates of true costs. The conservation community would like
    to see the recovery program funded at no less than $121.6 million by
    2012 (the increased level over $100 million accounts for fixed costs
    increases needed over that time period) therefore, we request recovery
    be funded at $84.8 million for fiscal year 2008 as a first step, an
    increase of $11.2 million over fiscal year 2006 levels and $16.7
    million over the President's request.
        Consultation.--The consultation program is the ``look before you
    leap'' mechanism that the Federal departments and agencies must go
    through in order to proceed with a Federal project in areas where
    endangered and threatened species are located. This process reviews the
    impacts to species, while identifying alternatives and mitigation
    measures needed to ensure that the Federal Government is not driving
    species to extinction through its actions. It is an important part of
    the checks and balances system to ensure that endangered fish,
    wildlife, and plants are protected on the ground. Shortage of personnel
    in this program area causes delays of project reviews thus creating
    conflicts between agencies. The consultation budget also funds the
    Service's work with non-Federal entities for permitting and development
    of Habitat Conservation Plans; lack of funding prevents the Fish and
    Wildlife Service from ensuring that these plans are properly developed,
    implemented and monitored. There are approximately 800 HCPs that have
    been approved or are under development. Yearly costs of monitoring HCPs
    range from $2,000 for a simple, single species HCP to $500,000 for a
    complex Multi-Species HCP. To adequately implement the consultation
    program would require an overall program budget of $122.4 million by
    2012. We request $63.2 million for fiscal year 2008, an increase of
    $15.2 million over fiscal year 2006 levels and $11.6 million over the
    President's request.
        Candidate Conservation.--This program protects species before they
    are actually listed, thus in theory averting the need to ever list them
    at all. The theory fails to hold up when not enough money is provided
    to arrest the decline of candidate species. The program is currently
    extremely under staffed and staffing should be doubled to ensure
    adequate program implementation. This would require $25.4 million. The
    conservation community again requests this increase to be accomplished
    over 5 years and, therefore, requests the program be funded at $12
    million for fiscal year 2008, an increase of $3.4 million over fiscal
    year 2006 levels and $3.4 million over the President's Request.
                     voluntary endangered species programs
        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. However, the President's budget request eliminated two
    important programs to carry out proactive recovery efforts on private
    lands--the Landowner Incentive Program and the Private Stewardship
    Grants Programs. These programs should be restored through the
    congressional appropriations process. (While these programs are
    important for the recovery of our Nation's imperiled species, they
    should not be funded at the expense of the Fish and Wildlife Service's
    core endangered species programs.)
           landowner incentive program and private stewardship grants
        Endangered and other at-risk wildlife depend upon private lands for
    their survival. The help of private landowners is essential for the
    conservation of these species. Landowner Incentive Program and Private
    Stewardship Grants provide funding for voluntary conservation actions
    taken by landowners to conserve plants and animals at risk on private
    lands. The Landowner Incentive Program awards competitive grants to
    State and tribal conservation agencies for their work with private
    landowners and tribal lands, while the Private Stewardship Grants
    Program allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide funding
    directly to individuals and groups implementing private land
    conservation actions. In 2006, funding was awarded to efforts in 46
    States, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The need for these
    programs far outstrips available funding--the amount requested for
    worthy projects on average totals two to three times the yearly
    available funding. To support private landowners in their voluntary
    conservation efforts, a total of at least $77 million is needed in
    these two incentive programs, an increase of $48.3 million over fiscal
    year 2006. Again, we request that the increase in funding occur over a
    5-year period from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2012 to reach this
    goal. For fiscal year 2008, we request these two programs be funded at
    $27.4 million and $11 million respectively, an increase of $9.5 million
    over fiscal year 2006 levels and $38.4 million over the President's
    request.
                      cooperative endangered species fund
        The Cooperative Endangered Species Fund provides grants to States
    for wildlife and habitat conservation activities on non-Federal lands
    for listed and candidate species. Without the proposed increases States
    will fall further behind in their ability to independently work to
    protect imperiled species. Crucial conservation activities funded by
    these grants include: research, species status surveys, habitat
    restoration, captive propagation and reintroduction, planning
    assistance, and land acquisition by States for Habitat Conservation
    Plans and recovery. Twenty-seven States received funding under this
    program in 2006 to benefit species ranging from orchids to bull trout
    to migratory birds to Canada lynx. To adequately fund State endangered
    species conservation activities a total of at least $160 million is
    needed, an increase of $80 million over fiscal year 2006. The
    conservation community recommends this increase occur over a 5-year
    period from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2012. We request $96.2
    million for fiscal year 2008, an increase of $16.2 million over fiscal
    year 2006 levels and $16.2 million over the President's request.
        The Endangered Species Act is a broadly supported and very
    successful law. A recent poll illustrated that 86 percent of voters
    nationwide support the Endangered Species Act. We have a responsibility
    to prevent the extinction of fish, plants and wildlife because once
    they are gone, they are gone forever. Without the necessary funding to
    carry out conservation of imperiled species, an increasing number will
    slip closer to the brink of extinction. We ask the members of the
    Appropriations Committee to fully fund the Endangered Species Act this
    year.
        American Lands Alliance, Washington, DC; American Rivers,
    Washington, DC; Animal Protection Institute, Sacramento, CA; Arkansas
    Valley Audubon Society, Pueblo, Colorado; Association of Zoos &
    Aquariums, Silver Spring, MD; Biodiversity Conservation Alliance,
    Laramie, WY; Buckeye Forest Council, Columbus, OH; Buffalo Field
    Campaign, West Yellowstone, MT; California Trout,San Francisco, CA;
    Center for Biological Diversity, Washington, DC; Center for Native
    Ecosystems, Denver, CO; Citizens to Complete the Refuge, Palo Alto, CA;
    Colorado Wild, Durango, CO; Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC;
    Earthjustice, Washington, DC; Endangered Habitats League, Los Angeles,
    CA; Endangered Species Coalition, Washington, DC; Environment Maine,
    Portland, ME; Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association, San Francisco,
    CA; Federation of Fly Fishers, Livingston, MT; Forest Guardians, Santa
    Fe, NM; Great Old Broads for Wilderness, Durango, CO; Gulf Restoration
    Network, New Orleans, LA; The Humane Society of the United States,
    Gaithersburg, MD; Izaak Walton League of America-Maine, Holden, ME;
    Maine Audubon, Falmouth, ME; National Audubon Society, Washington, DC;
    National Wildlife Federation, Washington DC; Native Plant Conservation
    Campaign, San Francisco, CA; Natural Resources Defense Council,
    Washington, DC; Oregon Wild, Portland, OR; Predator Conservation
    Alliance, Bozeman, Montana; RESTORE: The North Woods, Hallowell, ME;
    San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, Alamosa, CO; Save the Species
    Worldwide Foundation, Vancouver, WA; Sierra Club, Washington, DC;
    Sinapu, Boulder, CO; Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, Denver, CO;
    Synod of Southern California and Hawaii Presbyterian Church (USA),
    Carlsbad, CA; Virginians for Wilderness, Staunton, VA; Wildlife
    Alliance of Maine, Bangor, Maine; and The Xerces Society for
    Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Environmental Council of the States
        These are the comments of the Environmental Council of the States
    (ECOS) to the United States Senate, Appropriations Committee, on the
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2008 Budget. ECOS is asking
    Congress to allocate no less than $3,729,407,000 to the State and
    Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) portion of U.S. EPA's budget.
        The Environmental Council of States is the national non-partisan,
    non-profit association of the leaders of State environmental agencies.
    Our members are the officials who manage and direct the environmental
    agencies in the States and territories. They are the State leaders
    responsible for making certain our Nation's air, water and natural
    resources are clean, safe and protected. ECOS members have been
    following the EPA budget for many years, and very closely since fiscal
    year 2005, the year that reductions in the STAG first began to occur.
    Our comments are primarily directed to the STAG portion of EPA's
    budget.
        States are co-regulators with U.S. EPA and have the challenging job
    of front-line implementation of our Nation's environmental pollution
    laws. States have increased their capacity and as environmental
    protection has become increasingly important to the general public,
    more and more responsibilities have been moved to the level of
    government best able to carry them out efficiently--State and local
    governments--which are most efficient because they are closest to the
    problems, closest to the people who must solve the problems, and
    closest to the communities which must live with the solutions.
        Today States are responsible for:
      --Managing most of the delegable environmental and public health
            programs and rules--96 percent of the programs that can be
            delegated have been delegated to the States;
      --Issuing environmental and public health standards under the Federal
            laws and for State-specific laws;
      --Issuing most environmental permits;
      --Collecting nearly 94 percent of environmental monitoring data in
            EPA's six biggest databases; and
      --Conducting over 90 percent of all enforcement actions.
        From the earliest days of EPA, funds have been provided to the
    States to assist them in the implementation of Federal programs. States
    also provide funds for these programs, typically many times over the
    Federal amount. The Federal funds are important to States because they
    are targeted to specific programs and help states meet Federal
    requirements such as permitting, enforcement, monitoring, standards
    development, rule issuance, and reporting--in short, all the
    significant components of our co-regulator agreements with the Federal
    Government.
        During the past few years, U.S. EPA has promulgated a significant
    number of new rules for the States to implement. These are documented
    regularly in EPA's Regulatory Agenda, which designates the rules that
    are likely to have an impact on State and local governments (and
    others). EPA has compiled a list of these rules from the period 2000
    through 2006 at ECOS' request. During this time, the agency issued 284
    new final rules with a significant impact on the States, with many more
    pending. Many of these rules are well-known and involve significant
    effort. For example, the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) and the Arsenic
    in Drinking Water Rule are two of them. States must invest considerable
    effort to adopt and implement these rules on behalf of the agency, and
    real costs are involved in doing so. More rules are expected, of
    course, in 2007 and 2008, and so this trend continues. To be clear, the
    States believe many of these rules are needed. We acknowledge that they
    are often crucial in meeting Congress' expectations for environmental
    protection. Our concern is over our ability to implement them.
        If Congress accepts the agency's 2008 proposal for STAG, it will
    mean that States will have lost over $1 billion in Federal support
    since 2004. The loss of these funds will certainly result in the
    deterioration of environmental quality and public health in the United
    States. The States strongly urge Congress not to accept these
    proposals.
        In the 2008 budget development cycle, EPA for the first time
    involved the States in the early stages of the budget's development,
    and we were very appreciative of this opportunity. The ECOS officers
    presented information to the agency, and proposed a tier of priorities.
    Our highest priorities included the programs mandated by Congress in
    the major environmental statutes. We also had medium priorities and
    even low priorities. We asked that the high priority areas receive
    modest increases, and the moderate priorities be held at previous
    levels, while the low priority areas could be reduced. Our belief was
    that this would be the best approach to assure the most environmental
    protection for the areas Congress had entrusted to EPA and the States
    in a fiscally prudent manner. Our list of priorities is shown in Table
    1. This is a list of the Categorical Grants and Infrastructure that
    Congress includes in the STAG portion of EPA's appropriation. The ECOS
    membership endorsed this approach.
        EPA accepted a few of the States' recommendations, but for the most
    part continued the pattern of the budget from the 2007 cycle. The
    States nevertheless remain hopeful that continued consultation will
    result in a budget that supports the States' role as co-regulator and
    implementer of most Federal environmental programs. The States'
    alternative STAG budget is based on the following principles, agreed
    upon by the ECOS members:
        1. In times of fiscal crisis, when resources are in short supply,
    the core mandated environmental programs funded through STAG, including
    infrastructure capitalization, must be funded first;
        2. Reductions in EPA's budget, if they must occur, should be shared
    proportionately by EPA and the States after STAG levels are returned to
    their 2004 levels; and
        3. States should be afforded the flexibility to run their core
    programs in a manner that will obtain the highest level of attainment
    with the standards set by Congress and EPA without undue hindrance from
    EPA, but within its oversight responsibilities.
        The combination of reduction in funds and increased numbers of new
    rules is causing great pressure on the State environmental agencies.
    While States are reluctant to return Federal programs to EPA for many
    reasons, we have begun to see programs returned, as well as delays in
    implementation of new rules. This combination potentially means
    increased costs to the Federal Government as well as delays, as the
    agency must take over implementation for items that States cannot
    address.
        Among our top priorities, ECOS wants specifically to address the
    air programs, the clean water programs, the drinking water programs,
    and the waste programs.
        The 2008 proposed EPA budget will cut $35 million from State and
    local air programs. This cut comes at a critical time for States and
    localities. States are juggling the many responsibilities associated
    with putting together three--and in some cases four--sets of State
    implementation plans (SIPs). The development of effective SIPs is
    essential to ensure that measures will be adopted that reduce air
    pollution and protect public health.
        If the proposed $35 million budget cut is enacted, 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). This is at the same time States
    are beginning to prepare to implement the new National Ambient Air
    Quality Standard (NAAQS) that EPA issued last year for fine particulate
    matter (PM2.5). 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. ECOS is
    asking Congress to provide States an increase for the air categorical
    grant of just over $25 million for 2008, when compared to the 2006
    amount.
        According to a report jointly prepared by EPA and the States in
    2002 (State Water Quality Management Resource Analysis), the amount of
    funds (from all sources) that States needed to implement the Clean
    Water Act rules that were in force at that time was between $1.54
    billion and $1.68 billion per year. Since that time, EPA has asked
    States to implement several new rules, including rules on stormwater
    phase II and permit fees, and to prepare for new rules such as one
    expected this summer on confined animal feeding operations. ECOS is
    asking Congress to provide States a Federal share of these funds of
    $241,542,000 for non-point source pollution control (sec. 319), and for
    $229,326,000 for point source pollution control (sec. 106).
        Another report entitled State RCRA Subtitle C Core Program
    Implementation Costs (January 2007), found that ``the shortfall in
    Federal funding to run effective and adequate RCRA Part C core programs
    is approximately $90 million.'' States also note that Congress has yet
    to appropriate funds for the States to meet the mandates of the 2005
    Energy Policy Act with respect to inspections at underground storage
    tanks. ECOS is asking for $50,000,000 for the Brownfields categorical
    grant, $103,689,000 for the Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance
    categorical grant, and for $37,567,000 for the new requirements of the
    Underground Storage Tanks program.
        Our fourth top priority is drinking water, the Public Water System
    Supervision categorical grant. The most recent rules promulgated by
    U.S. EPA are extremely resource-intensive for a State agency to
    implement. These rules are the next suite of Disinfection By-Product/
    Microbial Contaminant rules (referred to as LT 2/Stage 2; promulgated
    in December 2005) and the Ground Water Rule (promulgated in October
    2006). These new resource-demanding rules layer on top of a suite of
    rules issued in the 2000/2001 time frames (arsenic, uranium,
    Disinfection By-Products Stage 1) that are just now hitting with full
    force. ECOS asks Congress to provide at least $104,170,000 for this
    categorical grant.
        Finally, the States have two infrastructure programs as their top
    priorities: the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) and the
    Drinking Water SRF. Each of these programs addresses only a portion of
    the total infrastructure needs, but provides an important source of
    funds for small towns. The States are asking for $1.379 billion and $1
    billion respectively for these programs.

                                     TABLE 1.--THE STATES' PRIORITIES FOR STAG, 2008
                                     [Items are not rank ordered within categories]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal year   ECOS' proposal
                 STAG Programs                   2007 CR          2008                      Rationale
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Highest PriorityState and Local Air Quality Management.        $220,250        $245,297  increase for new rules
    Public Water System Supervision (PWSS).          98,274         104,170  increase for new rules
    Brownfields CG.........................          49,262          50,000  max. allowed
    Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance...         101,939         103,689  same as 2004
    Underground Storage Tanks..............          11,774          37,567  increase for new rule
    Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319).............         204,268         241,542  same as 2004
    Pollution Control (Sec. 106)...........         216,162         229,326  increase for new rules           Moderate PriorityEnvironmental Information..............          19,705          14,850  reduced request
    Beaches Protection.....................           9,852           9,852  same as last year
    Homeland Security......................           4,926           4,926  same as last year
    Lead...................................          13,498          13,498  same as last year
    Pesticides Enforcement.................          18,621          18,621  same as last year
    Toxics Substances Compliance...........           5,074           5,074  same as last year
    Pesticides Program Implementation......          12,907          12,907  same as last year
    Pollution Prevention...................           4,926           4,926  same as last year
    Radon..................................           7,439           7,439  same as last year
    Tribal Air Quality Management..........          10,887          10,887  same as last year
    Tribal General Assistance Program......          56,651          56,651  same as last year
    Underground Injection Control (UIC)....          10,838          10,838  same as last year
    Wastewater Operator Training...........           1,182           1,182  same as last year
    Water Quality Cooperative Agreements...  ..............          16,608  same as 2004
    Wetlands Program Development...........          15,764          15,764  same as last year              Low PrioritySector Program.........................           2,217           1,838  same as 2004
    Targeted Watersheds....................          16,607  ..............  elim. in favor of WQCA above
                                            --------------------------------
          Subtotal, Categorical Grants.....       1,113,022       1,217,451
                                            ================================
        Infrastructure Highest PriorityClean Water SRF........................       1,083,817       1,397,785  same as 2004
    Drinking Water SRF.....................         837,454       1,000,000  increase for new requirements    Infrastructure Moderate PriorityBrownfields Projects...................          88,672          88,672  same as last year
    Clean Diesel...........................           6,897  ..............  move to EPM account
    Alaska Native Villages.................          34,483          15,500  President's request
    Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico                49,262          10,000  President's request
     Border.
    Infrastructure Assistance: Puerto Rico.  ..............  ..............  President's request
                                            --------------------------------
          Subtotal, Infrastructure.........       2,100,585       2,511,956
                                            --------------------------------
          Total, all items.................       3,213,606       3,729,407
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Federation of State Humanities Councils
        Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the State humanities
    councils, the State-based programs of the National Endowment for the
    Humanities. I am here to support the humanities community request of
    $177 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities and to
    request an increase of $30 million over the next 2 to 3 years for the
    Federal-State Partnership, to begin to address the many unmet
    programming needs identified in the communities served by State
    humanities councils.
        The State humanities councils were created in the early 1970s,
    pursuant to the original act creating the NEH, to provide local access
    to the humanities through public programs offered in communities
    throughout the State. The councils are seen as full partners of the
    NEH, receiving their core funding through the Federal-State Partnership
    line of the NEH budget and using that funding to leverage additional
    funding from State government, foundations, corporations, and private
    individuals. Unlike the other programs in the Endowment, the councils
    operate as independent nonprofit organizations charged with conducting
    a statewide program supported entirely by their Federal funding and the
    other funds they leverage through those Federal dollars.
        For the State humanities councils, the needs increasingly outstrip
    available resources. Following the severe cuts of the mid-1990s,
    funding for the NEH and the State humanities councils has continued to
    decline in real dollars. The Federal-State Partnership line in the NEH
    budget has been basically flat for more than a decade, and yet, since
    1995 the Nation's population has increased by 15 percent, and the rate
    of inflation has been 35 percent. Meanwhile, the needs have steadily
    grown for programs that address illiteracy, support humanities
    teaching, and contribute to the understanding of our democratic
    institutions and culture. Further, new but costly technologies present
    expanded opportunities that councils are attempting to use in
    fulfilling their missions and responding to community needs.
        A recent study conducted by the Federation of State Humanities
    Councils illustrates the challenge. Along with the extremely important
    grants that councils make to local institutions and organizations, the
    Federation identified four key areas of programming that councils carry
    out in their States: (1) Support for humanities education, including
    funding for both teacher development and classroom programs, (2)
    reading and literacy, (3) media and technology, and (4) community and
    institution building. Data the Federation collected about all these
    areas of programming reveal unmet programming needs in the amount of
    $50 million in communities throughout the States. In other words,
    councils could expend $50 million above what they are now providing to
    support critically important humanities education for both teachers and
    students; improve the reading skills of parents and children; create
    additional opportunities for community residents to explore their own
    history, learn about the cultures of their new neighbors, and discuss
    issues of vital importance to their future; and expand the use of
    technology to engage citizens in the study of their local and national
    history. With an increase of $30 million in Federal funds over the next
    2 to 3 years, councils could leverage the additional funding at the
    State and local level to begin to meet these pressing needs.
        These calculations do not take into account the many new areas of
    programming that councils are exploring daily to strengthen the
    underpinnings of democracy--expanded programs that involve young people
    in the understanding of history and ethics and prepare them for
    productive engagement in the civic process; strategic support for the
    cultural institutions that sustain public life throughout their States;
    and new technologies that offer the possibility for engaging and
    educating greater numbers of people.
        In grantmaking alone, councils nationally expend more than $15
    million, funding half to two-thirds of the requests they receive. But a
    survey of the councils reveals that these figures are far from defining
    actual needs, because councils discourage funding proposals from
    community groups when they see that they are reaching the end of their
    available grant funds for the year. With adequate resources, councils
    could easily provide three to four times the dollar amount in grants
    for programs designed by local groups to improve the understanding of
    history and engage citizens in the lives of their communities. Further,
    because each Federal dollar must be matched by dollars at the local
    level and often leverage many times the amount of the council grant,
    the increase in the Federal investment would multiply the funding
    available for humanities programs at the State and local level.
        Many councils, in an effort to achieve maximum impact with their
    grant funds, develop special grant initiatives addressing particular
    needs in their States. The Kentucky Humanities Council, for example,
    through their ``Lincoln Interpretive Grants'' program, will provide
    grants to nonprofits throughout Kentucky to plan and implement high-
    quality programs defining and interpreting the Lincoln era in Kentucky,
    including the Underground Railroad and the Civil War. The New Mexico
    Humanities Council developed an initiative called ``Bridges and
    Fences,'' based in part on the Smithsonian's Museum on Main Street
    ``Between Fences'' exhibit that toured the State in 2006, to initiate
    dialogue among the diverse communities of the State about divisive
    historic events. The African-American Heritage Program conceived and
    supported by the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities is the first
    project in that State to systematically capture the cultural history of
    the African-American community, through a database of historic sites,
    grants, publications, and a community partnership initiative. Through
    each of these initiatives and many others, councils are serving a
    unique and vital role in capturing endangered legacies and prompting
    important public dialogue.
        In other areas of programming the picture is equally compelling,
    with needs and demand for resources far outstripping the funding
    available. The following are only very brief examples of the important
    roles councils are playing and the potential for expansion.
        Support for Humanities Education.--A solid grounding in history,
    literature, and other areas of the humanities is the most valuable
    foundation we can offer our children as they begin the road to becoming
    engaged and responsible citizens. The teachers who provide this
    grounding deserve access to all the resources possible to improve their
    own knowledge and build their enthusiasm for the task. Councils across
    the country play a key role in offering content-based professional
    development for our Nation's teachers at a surprisingly modest cost.
    The New Hampshire Humanities Council, for example, this year is
    offering not only a summer institute on poetry but also a series of 1-
    day workshops on voting history in the Nation. The Florida Humanities
    Council, through their Florida Center for Teachers, provides week-long
    education frequently focused on topics mandated but not funded by the
    State. Councils provide important web-based resources for teachers, as
    well as curriculum development and classroom programs.
        Reading and literacy.--Councils also help strengthen not only
    reading skills but also family ties with their support for family
    reading programs such as the very successful and widespread Motheread
    and Prime Time programs. Councils in more than a dozen States offer
    training and curriculum development for Motheread instructors who work
    with small groups of parents and children to read and discuss high-
    quality children's literature. Prime Time, developed by the Louisiana
    Endowment for the Humanities in 1991, focuses on low-income families
    with children aged 6 through 10, encouraging family reading and
    discussion and promoting use of libraries. Several councils have
    specifically included immigrant family in these programs, easing their
    transition into their new homes and strengthening their language
    development.
        Other councils have designed their own programs shaped for specific
    audiences. The Missouri Humanities Council offers a program called Read
    from the Start for at-risk parents of children 1 to 5 years of age. The
    New York Council for the Humanities offers ``Together--Book Talk for
    Kids and Parents'' to involve parents and their 9-to-11-year-old
    children in discussion of issues about American identity and culture,
    using children's books that address such themes as ``courage'' or
    ``freedom.'' Their program aims to encourage the habit of reading and
    discussing books and strengthening family relationships in the process.
    The demand for these council-supported family literacy programs across
    the Nation is such that the current investment of $10 million could
    easily be doubled and still not meet the demonstrated needs.
        In addition, many councils encourage the practice of reading and
    discussing books within communities as a forum for exchanging ideas on
    issues of concern, anchored in a common text. One of the Maine
    Humanities Council's reading and discussion series, for example, is
    entitled ``Behind the Headlines: An Introduction to the Middle East.''
    Councils also use these programs as a way to strengthen institutions in
    their State. The Pennsylvania Humanities Council's ``Read About It''
    program has a two-fold purpose--to expose a wide demographic of readers
    to new authors and to help develop the network of libraries in their
    State as community learning centers.
        Media and Technology.--Councils are increasingly expanding their
    use of media and technology, not only to increase the audiences for
    their programs but to include new audiences, such as younger people,
    who are more comfortable with electronic forms of communication. They
    are also using technology to provide programming not available through
    other means. Humanities Tennessee is nearing completion of a web-based
    guide to the Unicoi Turnpike Trail, supported by NEH ``We the People''
    funding, which the council has developed with its Story Mapper software
    application. Using a Google Maps interface, the guide shows points of
    interest on this historic trail, each accompanied by a digital image or
    audio or video files providing an interpretive narrative of the trail
    by those familiar with it. The council will provide training and
    support to organizations and individuals who can use the software to
    produce cultural tours, cultural resource inventories, virtual museum
    exhibitions, or K-12 lesson plans.
        Several other projects provide a glimpse of the dazzling variety of
    content and purpose councils pursue in using these technologies. The
    Massachusetts Foundation for the Humanities has been educating
    residents about their State's history for 3 years through daily
    ``Massachusetts Moments'' aired on commercial radio and made available
    on a website that offers readers the opportunity for further reading.
    The California Council for the Humanities, now in the third year of
    their multi-year initiative entitled ``California Stories,'' has
    launched a new program, ``As I See It,'' which uses a variety of media
    to allow young people from diverse backgrounds to explore community and
    personal issues and present their thoughts, ideas, and discoveries to
    the public, gaining new skills and perspectives in the process. The
    Arizona Humanities Council's ``Arizona Heritage Traveler Web Site,''
    launched in collaboration with the Arizona Office of Tourism, features
    nearly 300 heritage destinations throughout the State, allowing
    travelers to design trips based on topics ranging from Native American
    history to contemporary architecture and astronomy.
        Community and Institution-Building.--Among the most important
    functions State councils serve is to provide programs and services that
    bring communities together and strengthen local institutions. The
    Pennsylvania Humanities Council's special initiative, ``Our Stories,
    Our Future,'' provides a variety of settings and formats for citizens
    of the State to reflect on stories from American history that highlight
    issues important to how we live our lives today. The council helps
    civic groups take leadership in their communities by shaping projects
    that illuminate current concerns and advance knowledge of the American
    experience. The Connecticut Humanities Council, through its Statewide
    Heritage Advancement Program, assists heritage institutions in
    addressing organizational needs identified through a formal strategic
    planning process. This ongoing program strengthens the museums and
    other history institutions that present the State's story to both
    residents and tourists.
        With 30 years of experience, humanities councils have become
    remarkably effective in extending the reach of NEH programs to a wide
    variety of communities through an array of programs that provide
    resources for teachers, support scholars, increase literacy, offer
    opportunities for community discussions, and educate the public. With
    the additional Federal investment of $30 million that we are requesting
    over the next 2 to 3 years, we could do so much more. We appreciate the
    opportunity to describe our programs and needs, and we thank you for
    your support.
        Contact: Esther Mackintosh, President, FSHC, 703/908-9700 (p), 703/
    908-9706 (f), emackintosh@statehumanities.org, 1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite
    902, Arlington, VA 22209
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Florida State University
                               summary of request
        Florida State University proposes to create a Florida Coastal
    Marine Institute (FCMI), for the purpose of bringing researchers on
    southeastern coastal marine environments together with Minerals
    Management Service (MMS) scientists on projects related to MMS' work on
    the marine resources of the outer continental shelf (OCS). We are
    requesting $850,000 from the Minerals Management Service for this
    project in fiscal year 2008.
        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 $190
    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.
        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 summarize our primary interest today. Beach
    erosion and renourishment are critical issues in regions that are
    dependent on tourism and recreation. Much of the Nation's sandy
    coastline is eroding at rates averaging 3 ft/yr, threatening coastal
    structures, infrastructure and wetlands, and increasing our
    vulnerability to major storms. As an example, 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 proposes 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. 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 beaches in Florida and other
    States. 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, and
    would serve as a national center to provide a focus for both generic
    and site-specific studies into the environmental effects of sand
    extraction from the continental shelf.
        We are requesting $850,000 from the Minerals Management Service for
    this project in fiscal year 2008.
        Mr. Chairman, we believe this research is vitally important to our
    country and would appreciate your support.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
        Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee, my name is Karen R.
    Diver. I am the Chairwoman of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior
    Chippewa. On behalf of the Fond du Lac Band, I would like to thank you
    for this opportunity to present testimony on fiscal year 2008
    Appropriations. Our Tribe occupies a reservation in northeastern
    Minnesota which encompasses 100,000 acres. It is a part of our
    aboriginal homeland and was established by the Treaty of September 30,
    1854. We provide health, education, social and other governmental
    services to a population of 6,500 Indian people that live on or near
    our Reservation.
        We support those parts of the President's fiscal year 2008 budget
    which are recommended for increases in funding. However, we are
    concerned that those increases do not fully address the massive unmet
    needs in Indian country. We are further concerned about those portions
    of the President's budget that would reduce or cut funding for other
    programs. All these programs are essential to 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 members.
        BIA: Education.--We support the administration's request for an
    increase of $15 million in the Bureau's Improving Indian Education
    Initiative, to ensure Indian students graduating from the Bureau of
    Indian Education-funded elementary and secondary school system possess
    the academic knowledge and skills necessary to successfully compete for
    employment at home and in a global economy. We also support the
    proposal to increase by $4.3 million the funds for Student
    Transportation. In addition, we support an $1.85 million increase in
    funding for the Native American Student Information System (NASIS) if
    those funds are directed to the schools themselves to offset the costs
    associated with implementing NASIS. If the Bureau of Indian Education
    does not consider supporting the schools' costs for implementing
    technology, then the funds should be dedicated to school operations.
        While we support the overall increase to Indian education programs,
    we do not support the administration's proposal to increase funding for
    Education Program Enhancements ($5.3) or Education Management ($3.6
    million) because both would allocate funds to administrative functions
    specific to Bureau of Indian Education personnel. In our view, these
    funds should not be spent on administrative costs, but instead should
    be added to school operations as a specific line item that would
    increase funding for schools coping with the cost of living factors
    associated with retaining qualified teachers. Investing funds into
    school operations is an investment in improving Indian education.
    Funding levels must increase at the most critical level--teachers--in
    order to improve opportunities for all students to achieve success in
    their academic pursuits.
        Additionally, we do not support the manner in which the
    administration proposes to pay for the overall increases for education
    programs by cutting higher education scholarship funding and
    eliminating the Johnson O'Malley (JOM) program. We request that
    Congress restore full funding to these vitally important programs.
    While the Department of the Interior attempts to justify the
    elimination of the JOM program by claiming that it duplicates funding
    provided by the Department of Education, that is not the case. JOM
    funds help Indian children with tutoring, cultural enrichment and
    Native language education.
        We also ask that Congress appropriate $860,000 for the use of the
    Fond du Lac Tribal College in converting the accreditation it now
    shares with a Minnesota Community College into a separate
    accreditation. The Fond du Lac Tribal College was established by the
    Band in 1987 and has since provided post-secondary education to Indian
    students under a partnership with a Minnesota Community College. The
    College currently serves approximately 500 Indian students. The
    Interior Department previously recognized the Tribal College as an
    entity eligible for Federal financial assistance under the Tribally
    Controlled College and University Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1801,
    but has advised the Tribal College that to maintain eligibility for
    assistance under this act, the Tribal College must convert the
    accreditation that it has shared with the Community College into a
    separate accreditation. This requires considerable resources. The Fond
    du Lac Band has committed staff and resources to do this work, but
    needs additional financial assistance to make this transition while
    ensuring that the best interests of the students continue to be served.
        BIA: Public Safety and Justice.--We strongly support the
    administration's proposed $16 million increase for the Safe Indian
    Communities Initiative but urge Congress to appropriate additional
    funds above that amount. We ask that Congress increase the Band's base
    funding by $1.5 million for court operations and law enforcement, and
    request a one-time appropriation of $6 million to allow us to expand
    the facility that houses our law enforcement and natural resources
    departments but which, because of the demands on both, is no longer
    adequate for those purposes.
        The Fond du Lac Band--like other tribes throughout the Nation--
    faces massive unmet needs for law enforcement. Our responsibilities for
    law enforcement substantially increased in the last 10 years. In 1997,
    when a Minnesota Supreme Court ruled 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), it became
    necessary for us to establish a Tribal law enforcement department to
    address on-reservation law enforcement needs. The Band has done this,
    using a combination of tribal and Federal funds (made available through
    the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program and the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs), and by cooperative agreements with local law
    enforcement agencies. At the same time, our law enforcement
    responsibilities have increased as a result of the insurgence of
    methamphetamine, alcohol, illegal prescription drug use, and gang-
    related activities on our Reservation. We have developed many different
    initiatives to try and combat these serious problems, and Federal
    assistance is critical to those efforts.
        Our law enforcement department currently employs ten officers and
    three administrative staff-persons, but this is not adequate to address
    our needs. In each of the last 2 years, our officers have responded to
    several thousand calls. These address a wide range of matters including
    traffic stops, domestic assaults, disturbances, theft, drug and alcohol
    related incidents, suicide threats and accidents, to name just a few.
    With only ten officers, we cannot provide law enforcement services 7
    days a week, 24 hours a day without having those officers work
    considerable overtime. Our limited staff also means that we are
    handicapped in our ability to implement pro-active measures, such as
    youth education and outreach programs, and assistance to the clinics in
    developing means for identifying and preventing prescription drug
    abuse. To adequately carry out law enforcement duties, we need fifteen
    to twenty officers. This, however, would require additional funding for
    staffing, training, recruitment and retention. Further, because of
    budget limitations, we have not been able to offer competitive salaries
    needed to recruit and retain officers.
        Federal funding is also vital for law enforcement equipment. Our
    ability to effectively address crime--especially given the increase in
    methamphetamine-related crimes--requires basic equipment like
    binoculars, video cameras and other surveillance tools. Other equipment
    is needed as well. For example, because the Band does not own an
    intoxilyzer, our officers must transport persons arrested for DWI on
    our Reservation an hour drive each way to the St. Louis County Jail for
    DWI processing--pulling our limited number of officers away from their
    other responsibilities for long periods of time. We also anticipate
    incurring significant equipment costs within the next few years in
    order to integrate the Band's dispatching system with the more advanced
    dispatching system recently adopted by St. Louis and Carlton Counties--
    with whom we coordinate our law enforcement responsibilities. We do not
    yet know the full cost of converting this system, but expect it to be
    substantial as it will involve the purchase of new equipment and
    software as well as the installation of a T-1 line.
        We also urge Congress to increase Tribal Court funding. As the
    demands on the Band's law enforcement have grown, so too has our Tribal
    Court docket. We support additional funding to meet detention facility
    needs, but that 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.
        BIA: Natural Resources.--We urge Congress to increase Federal funds
    for Natural Resources Management. Related in part to the Band's law
    enforcement work 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 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. The Band seeks an additional $1.5 million to
    be added to the Band's base budget for the Band's Resource Management
    programs to enable us to continue to protect natural resources for the
    future generations at Fond du Lac. The funds for this program have not
    been increased since 1991.
        BIA: Natural Resources, Circle of Flight.--We ask Congress to
    restore the Circle of Flight Wetland/Waterfowl Enhancement Program in
    the BIA's fiscal year 2008 budget to at least the fiscal year 2007
    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.
    Circle of Flight 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.
        BIA: Human Services.--We urge Congress to reject the
    administration's proposal to decrease Human Services and Indian Child
    Welfare funding. These programs are not only historically under-funded,
    but Tribes generally are further severely disadvantaged by the fact
    that current law does not provide the Tribes with direct access to
    Title IV-E funds. Funding levels for human services that will lead to
    the successful implementation of the Indian Child Welfare Act should be
    increased. This is essential if this critical part of Federal law is to
    have its intended impact on American Indian communities and families.
    Furthermore, we urge Congress to increase funding for childcare
    subsidies for tribally licensed daycare and foster care homes and to
    provide 100 percent FMAP (Federal Medical Assistance Percentage) for
    both Title IV-E services provided by tribal employees and for child
    welfare case management activities. We also ask Congress to appropriate
    funds to analyze State non-compliance with the Indian Child Welfare
    Act.
        Indian Health Service.--While we support the President's proposal
    to increase the budget for Indian Health Services, the amount of that
    increase ($212 million from the current funding level) 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), which is absolutely critical for tribes to
    address the serious and persistent health issues that confront our
    communities. The Band serves approximately 5,900 Indian people at our
    clinics, but the current funding level meets only 38 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 conclusion, the needs at Fond du Lac and throughout Indian
    Country remain massive. Your support on these funding issues is
    essential to our ability to maintain vitally important programs and
    will enable us to improve the delivery of services to Band members so
    that we may enter the 21st Century with a renewed sense of hope.
    Miigwech. Thank you.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Fort River Partnership
        Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee 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 (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 board Chair of The Kestrel Trust, 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 under a plan set forth in a 1995
    Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 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 in the Conte NFWR in Massachusetts are
    several tracts in Hadley--the Fort River Grasslands--that total nearly
    150 acres. These parcels are part of the Grasslands Complex Special
    Focus Area identified in the 1995 EIS, and are prized for their
    frontage on the Fort River and for their habitat potential for
    grassland bird species such as the grasshopper sparrow, bobolink, and
    upland sandpiper. The Fort River is the longest free-flowing tributary
    of the Connecticut River in Massachusetts. In its lower reach above the
    confluence with the Connecticut River, the Fort River is home to the
    Federally listed endangered dwarf wedgemussel and many other rare
    species, including the bridle shiner dragonfly and burbot, a freshwater
    cod.
        With roughly 2.5 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. An assemblage of three of the available parcels
    were ranked as the second highest priority for fiscal year 2007 funding
    for the entire FWS Region 5 because of their resource value and urgent
    threat, but the Conte NFWR ultimately received no acquisition funding
    for the fiscal year. Those parcels are subject to an agreement expiring
    in May 2007 that the landowners are unwilling to extend, forcing
    conservation groups to consider taking expensive steps to protect the
    Service's opportunity to acquire them in fiscal year 2008.
        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 $4
    million, which is part of a larger $8.2 million request to fund other
    conservation opportunities throughout the four Conte NFWR States in
    fiscal year 2008. The $4 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 $4
    million for the Silvio O. Conte NFWR in Massachusetts in the fiscal
    year 2008 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 $8.2 million for the entire
    four-State refuge. This amount will help fund the 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 Archie Carr Refuge
        We are requesting an increase in fiscal year 2008 operations and
    maintenance funding to $500 million, for the National Wildlife Refuge
    System program, which is part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        We are greatly concerned about the detriment to the Archie Carr
    National Wildlife Refuge, due to the severe cuts in workforce which
    have resulted from inadequate funding.
        The Archie Carr is the only refuge established for the protection
    of sea turtles. This twenty and one half mile stretch of beach in
    Brevard and Indian River Counties in Florida hosts the largest
    concentration of loggerhead and green sea turtles in the United States.
    It is the second most important nesting site in the world for
    loggerhead turtles.
        The Archie Carr NWR presents a special management challenge because
    of the extensive private in-holdings of residents and businesses. The
    refuge is configured linearly along the beach and is peppered with a
    multitude of private in-holdings. The only way to effectively manage
    these private in-holdings, and insure they are not harming the
    endangered and threatened species found within the refuge, is through
    refuge outreach.
        Management of the Archie Carr NWR is supported by a Working Group
    which consists of representatives from the Federal, State, and county
    governments, as well as several national and local environmental
    organizations and universities, all chaired and directed by the refuge
    staff. This important cooperative effort would be put at risk as a
    result of the severe cuts in the USF&WS refuge staff.
        The loss of refuge staff will also greatly affect sea turtle and
    other wildlife surveys, as well as habitat management such as predator
    and exotic plant controls. Education and outreach programs will be
    eliminated and the volunteer program will be hampered. The ``Turtle
    Watch'' programs, which are an important method for educating our
    children to the importance of wildlife in their lives, will be
    affected.
        The Archie Carr NWR has a great potential to show that humans and
    wildlife can coexist in a shared environment. This is a message that is
    of utmost importance in today's world. An increase in funding for
    additional refuge staff is critical for the refuge to perform the
    function as originally intended when first created by an act Congress.
    We urgently request an increase in refuge funding.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Friends of Blackwater National Wildlife
                                     Refuge
        My name is Lisa Mayo, and I have been the volunteer webmaster at
    Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge for the last 6 years. I am
    requesting that Congress approve a $451.5 million budget for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System for fiscal year 2008.
        Throughout its life, the Friends of Blackwater have been at the
    forefront of helping the National Wildlife Refuge System to do more
    with less. In 2003, the FoB was named the ``Friends Group of the
    Year,'' due in large part to our efforts to improve the Nation's
    Friends organizations and to help refuges find volunteers and
    additional funds during lean times.
        At Blackwater NWR, the FoB performs the equivalent annual work of
    7-10 full-time USFWS employees because the staffing is so low at
    Blackwater Refuge--this is despite the fact that Blackwater NWR is the
    largest refuge in Maryland and one of the most popular in the mid-
    Atlantic States due to its large breeding population of bald eagles.
        If not for the FoB, Blackwater Refuge would not be able to keep its
    Visitor Center open during the entire year--the USFWS staff would have
    to close it multiple times during the week and possibly for weeks
    during the summer. The Refuge staff would also not have the recently
    added second floor at the Visitor Center, or the new land trails or the
    new paddling trails, which were all made possible through grants that
    were acquired by the FoB.
        As webmaster, I run the FoB website, which includes a live Bald
    Eagle Cam and Osprey Cam--something that the FoB pays for in its
    entirety. Because of our live online raptor cams, our website is one of
    the most popular in the Refuge System, and we spend a good deal of time
    reaching out to citizens and educating them about the Refuge System,
    wildlife conservation in America, and the need for wise management of
    our bountiful natural resources.
        But when I read about all the cuts that will come to the Refuge
    System if the $451.5 million budget is not passed, I grow very
    despondent. It seems that the American Government is defaulting on its
    responsibility to properly manage the lands and wildlife of the
    National Wildlife Refuge System, and I can't imagine that Teddy
    Roosevelt would be anything but furious.
        Without the $451.5 million budget for fiscal year 2008, the Refuge
    System will have to cut environmental education programs to thousands
    of schoolchildren, cut invasive species monitoring, cut biological
    surveys and endangered species protection, cut hunting and fishing
    opportunities, cut law enforcement, and cut Visitor Center hours.
    Poaching will increase, all-terrain-vehicle abuse will increase, and
    wildfires will increase--all without adequate oversight from the USFWS
    staff.
        Some people in the Bush administration seem to think that
    volunteers will be able to make up the difference if large amounts of
    staff are cut within the Refuge System, but that is not true. First,
    it's not the job of the taxpayers to provide manpower for the Refuge
    System--that's why we pay taxes, so the Federal Government can hire
    wildlife and recreation professionals to do the job. Second, if a
    refuge has inadequate USFWS staff then there will be fewer volunteer
    programs since volunteers need the staff to guide them and oversee
    their efforts.
        If we lose the staff, we will lose volunteers and the programs they
    provide. This will only compound the problem and create a situation
    where the Refuge System will be close to collapse from inadequate money
    and people.
        I don't understand how Congress can let this happen. It is clear
    that much money is wasted in the Federal Government due to lack of
    proper oversight. From superfluous tax breaks to wealthy oil companies,
    to waste and theft in the Iraq War funding, to farmers double-dipping
    in the farm subsidy programs, there is a lot of Federal money being
    thrown away. A small percentage of that money could literally save the
    Refuge System.
        Please approve a $451.5 million budget for the National Wildlife
    Refuge System in fiscal year 2008. Thank you for your commitment to
    conservation in America.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness
        Mrs. Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a
    $1.5 million appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    for the final phase acquisition of Long Island in the Superior National
    Forest in northeastern Minnesota. I also wish to commend the chairman
    and committee members for supporting funding for the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund to protect our public lands heritage in places such
    as the Superior National Forest.
        The mission of the Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness is to
    protect, preserve and restore the wilderness character of the Boundary
    Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and the Quetico-Superior Ecosystem. The
    organization formed in 1976 to protect this vulnerable area and two
    years later worked with Congress to bring full wilderness protection to
    the Boundary Waters. Today the Minneapolis, Minnesota-based
    organization has 4,000 members and subscribers nationwide.
        Long Island is the largest undeveloped island on Bumtside Lake.
    Located 30 miles southeast of Crane Lake and 3 miles northwest of Ely,
    Bumtside 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, five campsites and six public canoe launching points.
    The lake is also the start of an 11-mile canoe trail called Bumtside-
    Dead River-Twin Lakes-Everett. 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 loon in the State.
        Beyond its current recreational and natural qualities, Bumtside
    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 County to Aldo Leopold, Listening
    Point was a place of inspiration for Olson and where got the ideas for
    his books and where he crafted aspects of the 1964 Wilderness Act.
        Long Island is situated directly across from Olson's beloved
    Listening Point. From his cabin, the ancient trees of Long Island were
    within his view. He undoubtedly gazed across the water of Bumtside Lake
    on countless occasions and contemplated the island's undisturbed
    shoreline and ancient trees. While Listening Point is protected today,
    the view across the lake featuring Long Island is not.
        Long Island would be an outstanding addition to the Superior
    National Forest, boasting 1 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 Bumtside Islands Scientific and Natural Area, 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 pine forests that are extremely rare outside
    of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Public acquisition of the
    Long Island property will ensure that the attributes of the boreal
    forest northwoods region, so treasured by its many visitors, will be
    protected in perpetuity.
        An appropriation of $1.5 million from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2007 will secure the acquisition of
    the final 33 acres of Long Island, to protect its critical natural
    resources for the public, and maintain the integrity of the great
    northwoods.
        Thank you, Mrs. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Friends of Congaree Swamp
        Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: We appreciate the
    opportunity to present this testimony in support of an appropriation of
    $5.6 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 authorized a boundary expansion of 4,576 acres.
        Congaree National Park rests on the Congaree River floodplain 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. All waters within the park's pre-2003 boundary
    have been designated Outstanding Resource Waters, and much of Cedar
    Creek within the park boundary is designated Outstanding National
    Resource Waters.
        With at least 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 tree
    heights exceeding 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. The South Carolina Ivory-billed Woodpecker Working Group has
    coordinated searches within Congaree National Park each of the past 2
    years.
        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, the only
    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 park boundary expansion
    authorized in 2003. The National Park Service completed this
    acquisition in November 2005.
        fiscal year 2008 presents the opportunity to acquire the 1,840-acre
    Riverstone tract--the second-largest tract within the park boundary
    expansion 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) on the Congaree River 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 2008 appropriation of $5.6 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, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony and for your consideration of our request.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Friends of Lake Woodruff NWR, DeLeon Springs, FL
        My name is Elena Jarvis and I am representing the Friends of Lake
    Woodruff NWR, a volunteer, advocacy and educational group of some 100
    members. I respectfully ask that you appropriate $451.5 million for
    fiscal year 2008 for the refuge system. Realistically, if the National
    Wildlife Refuge system were operating at full capacity with the
    appropriate funding, the budget should be in the vicinity of $765
    million annually.
        Vitally important to our Nation's wildlife, refuges provide
    unparalleled opportunities to hunt, fish, watch wildlife and educate
    children about the environment. Without increased funding for refuges,
    wildlife conservation and public recreation opportunities will be
    jeopardized.
        In a larger sense, refuges also act as emissaries for the natural
    wonders of our country. As an almost daily visitor to the Lake Woodruff
    Wildlife Refuge, which is within walking distance of my home, I have
    met people from around the world who come to Lake Woodruff to witness
    its vibrant array of wildlife and plant life, including a pair of rare
    Whooping Cranes that have wintered here for the past 3 years. As you
    may know, 17 of these highly endangered birds were tragically killed
    this year during the Feb. 2 tornadoes that hit their winter home near
    Kissimmee.
        Whether from China or Chile, visitors return to their homelands
    with not only a vision of what responsible stewardship of natural
    resources can be, but also, I hope, with the inspiration to encourage
    their own countries to follow suit. Funding for wildlife refuges, when
    you think of it, pays for itself through this type of positive public
    relations, not to mention the influx of tourism dollars from the
    hundreds of birders and wildlife enthusiasts who enjoy the refuges. Of
    course, the educational programs our refuge offers--through the
    kindness of volunteers--have a lifelong impact on the young people
    touched by them.
        Refuges are vital economic engines in the local economy, fueling
    hotel stays, restaurant patronage and much, much more. According to
    Banking on Nature, a 2004 report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    recreational visits to national wildlife refuges generate substantial
    economic activity. Nearly 37 million people visited national wildlife
    refuges in 2004, creating almost 24,000 private sector jobs and
    producing $454 million in employment income. Recreational spending on
    refuges generated nearly $151 million in tax revenue at the local,
    county, State, and Federal level.
        Currently, the National Wildlife Refuge System suffers from a $2.75
    billion operations and maintenance stewardship funding backlog, which
    will only grow larger if the current rate of funding continues. Because
    of this, refuges such as ours, struggle to meet even its most basic
    wildlife conservation objectives. In fact, shortfalls have led to the
    decline of refuge habitats and wildlife populations, aging facilities
    and infrastructure, the cancellation of many public use programs and
    increased crime on public lands.
        More troubling, some refuges may be forced to close their doors as
    a result of declining budgets.
        Since moving to DeLand 6 years ago from Los Angeles--an area that
    knows a thing or two about unrestricted growth, as well as
    conservation--I've seen visitors to Lake Woodruff grow, as money for
    maintenance dwindles. Until 2 years ago, our refuge was able to offer
    visitors trash and recycling bins, though, even then, not everyone used
    them. Today, without the funds to pay for refuse pickup, there are no
    bins available. Consequently, the trash problem has increased.
    Volunteers help, but on many days I have observed Woodruff's program
    manager, Harold Morrow, picking up garbage himself. Not a very
    constructive use of his time, in my book. As a frequent visitor to Lake
    Woodruff, I cannot tell you how often I have picked up wads of fishing
    line, which pose an extreme danger to Lake Woodruff wildlife, including
    the Whooping Cranes.
        Currently, Mr. Morrow is planning to ask volunteers to help
    reforest an area of the refuge with native slash pine. He estimates he
    will need enough people to plant more than 20,000 seedlings. In
    addition, he hopes to improve the health of the forest bed with native
    plants which he now does not have the money or manpower to facilitate.
    Of course, dealing with invasive species and plants is an ongoing
    battle being fought largely, once again, by volunteers.
        Because we have a large population of new immigrants and illegal
    aliens in Volusia County, primarily from Mexico, it is important for
    the refuge to offer educational programs in Spanish to help these
    residents appreciate the importance of the refuge and its fragility. We
    simply do not have the money or manpower at this time to address that
    pressing issue.
        As a member of the Friends of Lake Woodruff, I respectfully request
    that you push for increased funding for the National Wildlife Refuge
    System in fiscal year 2008 to $451.5 million. I hope you support the
    Friends of Lake Woodruff and others across the country by securing
    strong funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Friends of the Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys
                           National Wildlife Refuges
        Honorable Feinstein, I would like to request an appropriation of
    $500,000,000 for the National Wildlife Refuge system. The House Report
    109-465 dated May 15, 2006 clearly identified the problems budget
    shortfalls have created for the National Refuge system. The trend to
    cut spending for our refuge system of 96 million acres is not an
    effective conservation strategy. In Florida alone, there has been a
    decrease of 14 positions from 2004-2006. With the current level of
    funding, there are expected to be another 21 positions cut in Florida
    by 2009. The H.R. 109-465 report stated that, ``Increased funding
    recommended for National Wildlife Refuge operating needs should be used
    to pay critical energy and other cost increases and to fill the most
    critical staffing vacancies.'' The problem with the proposed budget of
    $382 million is that it does not even keep pace with the normal
    increased cost of operations when compared to last year's budget.
        With an estimated $2.75 billion operations and maintenance backlog,
    the increased funding to $500,000,000 would be a positive step to
    reestablish the conservation health of our National Wildlife Refuge
    system. The $250,000 requested for the Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys
    NWR would help reinstate cut staff positions and help cover increased
    operational expenses for these refuges.
        As president of the Friends of the Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys
    National Wildlife Refuges, I represent over 190 members. The mission of
    the Friends of Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys NWF ``. . . is to provide
    active advocacy and physical support for the successful stewardship of
    the refuges.'' The Florida Wildlife Federation, a statewide
    organization of 50,000 members, strongly endorses this request for
    increased funding for the National Wildlife Refuge system. The mission
    of the FWF ``. . . is the restoration, protection, wise use and
    scientific management of natural resources in Florida.''
        The Lower Suwannee NWR comprises over 50,000 acres that is split by
    the historic Suwannee River for the last 20-25 miles where the river
    empties into the Gulf of Mexico. With the exception of a small
    community, Fowler's Bluff, there are no homes on this stretch of the
    river until one reaches the Gulf. The Cedar Keys NWR is comprised of
    some 727 acres on 13 islands in the Gulf of Mexico.
        The Lower Suwannee NWR is special and unique in the following ways:
      --The pristine natural condition of the refuge helps protect the
            environmental health of the Suwannee River and the surrounding
            area.
      --The Suwannee River is home to a wide variety of plant and animal
            life. The river is the most important spawning ground for the
            protected Gulf sturgeon. The river is also an important habitat
            for the endangered manatee.
      --The refuge contains a unique combination of upland hardwood,
            wetland/swamp, and saltwater marsh habitats. Of particular
            interest, one can find both temperate and tropical types of
            vegetation in the refuge.
      --The refuge provides habitat for a wide variety of birds including
            15 endangered or threatened species like the Bald Eagle. The
            refuge is an important nesting site for the short-tailed hawks
            of which there are only an estimated 200 mating pairs in the
            wild. The swallowtail kite once widespread, now is restricted
            to just the Southeastern portion of the United States with the
            refuge being a very important nesting site.
      --Combined with surrounding State Parks, the refuge will become an
            even more important conservation area as Florida's population
            increases.
      --With constructed bat houses, the refuge has successfully
            established a viable bat population that serves as a model for
            future bat projects.
      --Many important cultural heritage sites are also to be found in the
            refuge.
        The Cedar Keys NWR is special and unique in the following ways:
      --The 727 acre refuge composed of 13 islands is a major rookery for
            pelicans and a wide variety of shore birds.
      --As studied by the University of Florida's Florida Marine Center, of
            particular interest is the symbiotic relationship of
            cottonmouth moccasins and nesting birds on Seahorse Key. The
            moccasins provide protection from predators like raccoons and
            rats for the nesting birds. In return, the birds provide a
            steady diet of fish for the moccasins. According to Dr. Harvey
            Lillywhite, Director of the Center, this is the only place on
            earth that such a relationship between snakes and birds exists.
      --Historically, the refuge contains important historical structures
            including the Seahorse Key Lighthouse designed in the 1850s by
            Lieutenant George Meade, later to become General Meade of
            Gettysburg fame. It is also of interest that the lighthouse
            sits on a natural dune that is some 50+ feet above sea level.
            This makes it one of the highest points in the Big Bend area of
            Florida.
      --This refuge also provides a vital barrier island system.
        The biggest impact on the budget shortfall with the present
    proposed budget is that there has not been sufficient funding to
    maintain adequate staffing for the Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys NWRs.
    The lack of staffing presents the following difficulties:
      --Not having a designated position for a biologist makes it
            problematic to achieve the NWR mission of wildlife
            conservation.
      --Presently, there is only one law enforcement position with the
            refuges. The Suwannee River splits the Lower Suwannee NWR. To
            police both the Levy County and the Dixie County side of the
            refuge requires at least a 50-mile trip to go from one side of
            the refuge to the other. Last year, marijuana was discovered
            growing on the refuge, but clearly, it is problematic to patrol
            the entire refuge. Because the Cedar Key NWR is scattered over
            13 islands in the Gulf of Mexico, it is equally problematic to
            be patrolled by one law enforcement officer.
      --There are not enough personnel to adequately monitor such things as
            invasive species and generally monitor the conservational
            health of the refuges.
      --The cut back in staffing has made it increasingly difficult to
            provide adequate services for the 170,000 visitors to the
            refuges each year.
      --The Cedar Keys Refuge is a satellite refuge monitored by the staff
            at the Lower Suwannee NWR. Even with the University of Florida
            Marine Center on Seahorse Key, there is a real concern about
            adequately monitoring the refuge with so few personnel.
        With adequate staffing and operational funding, the refuge staff,
    with the help of the Friends of the Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys NWR,
    would be able to:
      --Provide better monitoring of the health of the refuges' habitat,
      --Consistently police the proper utilization of the resources of the
            refuges and to protect the habitat and its wildlife,
      --Conduct more programs for school children to learn about
            conservation,
      --Expand the conservation efforts across other public agencies as
            well as private stakeholders to deal with common problems like
            invasive species eradication and the protection of endangered
            species,
      --Upgrade and maintain public facilities like roads, docks,
            boardwalks, observation stations and signage,
      --Expand public access and use of the refuges, and
      --Monitor, manage, and protect the floral and fauna in the refuges.
        Thank you for considering these requests.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Tamarac National Wildlife
                              Refuge in Minnesota
        Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
    Tamarac Interpretive Association, the friend's organization of the
    Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota, I am submitting
    testimony for the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior,
    Environment and Related Agencies. We support a funding level of $451
    million in fiscal year 2008 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
    (FWS) National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
    account and adequate funding for Visitor Services.
        The National Wildlife Refuge System budget must increase by $15
    million each year in order to maintain services and programs from the
    previous year. The $15 million increase accounts for cost-of-living
    increases for FWS personnel, growing rent and real estate costs and
    other cost increases, while sustaining current levels of visitor
    services and wildlife management.
        As a result of several years of annual funding increases less that
    increases in costs, the Midwest region early this year was forced to
    cut 71 positions, including 27 in Minnesota--a 20 percent reduction.
    These Minnesota lost positions included nine managers/resource
    specialists, six park rangers, six biologists/biology technicians,
    three maintenance workers, and three administrative staff. Positions
    cuts included the Region Office management divisions. At the Tamarac
    National Wildlife Refuge there has been the loss of one of the
    station's maintenance positions that will result in creating a backlog
    of repairs and regular maintenance of facilities, vehicles, refuge
    roads, parking areas, and hiking trails. Since the remaining
    maintenance position is seasonal, the impacts will include reduced snow
    removal on refuge roads, parking areas and at the headquarters/visitor
    center. One staff position was lost at the nearby Detroit Lakes Wetland
    Management District causing the elimination of biological surveys used
    to influence wildlife habitat restoration and land protection
    activities. Several local partnerships will also likely be terminated
    due to lack of staff. In addition, local Hamden Slough National
    Wildlife Refuge has had its entire staff reassigned to Detroit Lakes
    Wetland Management District and has experienced the loss of the refuge
    manager position. The transfer of refuge staff will result in a
    diminished capacity to intensively manage Hamden Slough habitats.
    Without a local office, visitation is expected to decrease.
        Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1938 to serve
    as a breeding ground and sanctuary for migratory birds and other
    wildlife. Tamarac Refuge's nearly 43,000 acres lies in the heart of one
    of the most diverse vegetative transition zones in North America, where
    tall grass prairie, northern hardwood and boreal forests converge.
    These transitional habitats provide a haven for a diversity of wildlife
    species and some, such as the timber wolf, are at their extreme edge of
    their range in Minnesota. While the needs of wildlife are the first
    priority, Tamarac Refuge also provides many opportunities for visitors
    to enjoy and learn about our natural world through wildlife-compatible
    activities.
        Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge generated $880,500 in total
    economic activity related to refuge recreational use and six jobs for
    the nearby community Detroit Lakes, according to Banking on Nature
    2004: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife
    Refuge Visitation. The same report found that national wildlife refuges
    are major economic engines for communities, putting almost $1.4 billion
    into the U.S. economy. In 2004, over 35,000 visitors to Tamarac NWR
    enjoyed a variety of recreational activities, including non-consumptive
    activities, hunting, and freshwater fishing. Visitor recreation
    expenditures totaled $243,400 with non-residents accounting for 40
    percent. These expenditures generated $329,800 in final demand and
    $55,000 in tax revenue for our local Becker County. Nationally, the
    National Wildlife Refuge System created nearly 24,000 private sector
    jobs as the $1.4 billion flowed through the economy, generating about
    $454 million in employment income. Additionally, recreational spending
    on national wildlife refuges generated nearly $151 million in tax
    revenue at the local, county, State, and Federal level.
        In fiscal year 2006, there were 58,500 visitors representing 83,603
    visits to the Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge. Of these totals, 48,500
    came for wildlife observation, 6,625 for hunting, and there were 7,514
    visits to the visitor center. The lakes area in Northwestern Minnesota,
    like the areas around other refuges near populated areas, has been
    rapidly developing with lakeside and rural seasonal and year-round
    homes. With diminishing habitat, Tamarac's 43,000 acres are a key
    ``refuge'' for migratory bird and other wildlife production. Due to the
    same developmental pressures, the Tamarac NWR is also increasingly an
    island of relatively natural forests, lakes, marshes, and prairie.
    Development and ``No trespassing or hunting'' signs proliferating
    across the landscape also make Tamarac NWR an important remaining
    public hunting area. Several lakes on the refuge are open to fishing,
    providing a fishing experience on a more pristine lake. The Tamarac NWR
    also has an active visitor services and education program, with
    interpretive trails, observation decks, guided tours, special weekend
    interpretive opportunities, and a visitor center. Last year, Tamarac
    staff provided programs for over 4,000 students and adults--including
    many local schools. With a primary purpose of migratory bird and
    wildlife production, these additional and sometimes competing uses are
    managed well. Tamarac NWR, as all refuges, is completing a Refuge
    Comprehensive Conservation Plan with input from public hearings, to
    better balance public use while maintaining its first priority of the
    protection of wildlife and habitat. In just 2 years, visitation has
    increased significantly making the job of balancing wildlife and people
    evermore important; a critical time for needing staff and resources.
        The Tamarac Interpretive Association, the friends group of the
    Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge, was founded in 1992. Our mission is
    to facilitate activities and programs that interpret, protect and
    restore the natural and cultural resources of the refuge. We work to
    support the refuge in any way we can and that is requested. We have
    been involved in assisting with interpretive and educational programs,
    improving of visitor center exhibits, assisting with special events,
    developing a library of educational materials, and we support the
    refuge's volunteer program. We operate a giftshop of wildlife and
    nature themed books, clothing, and other items. All proceeds, along
    with friends' group dues and other contributions go to help us in our
    refuge supporting mission. With the mounting pressure on refuge budgets
    and staff, our friends group wrote a grant this last year that was
    funded that equips a friends office with needed technology, and along
    with training of our members, attempts to enable us to carry a heavier
    load.
        Our friends group has no paid employees; all our time is volunteer
    time. Collectively, last year 54 volunteers at the Tamarac National
    Wildlife Refuge donated over 3,900 hours. Individuals assist the refuge
    with biological field studies, environmental education, facility
    maintenance, visitor center hosts, leading tours, and many other
    functions. Last year, a FWS funded observation deck was totally
    constructed with volunteer labor. With the savings, binoculars and
    spotting scopes were purchased for the visitor services program. Last
    fiscal year, I was able to provide 1,009 volunteer hours and this
    fiscal year I have 530 to date. There are many individual stories of
    commitment from dozens of hours a year to hundreds a year. Across the
    refuge system, last year nearly 38,000 volunteers donated more than 1.4
    million hours. The value of this labor has been estimated to be more
    than $25 million.
        We as volunteers and we as refuge friends groups can only do so
    much. Refuge system funding that amounts to annual cuts have not only
    eliminated any slack, but has produced maintenance and program
    backlogs. The refuge system faces a crippling budget backlog of more
    than $2.5 billion. The refuge system categorizes its operational needs
    into tiers. Considered the most urgent and important of priorities,
    unfunded Tier-1 projects currently number more than 2,320 and sum to
    over $251 million. Of these, 919 backlogged projects are considered
    ``mission critical.''
        If Congress only funds the refuge system in fiscal year 2008 at the
    recent static rates--which are budget cuts in real dollars, an analysis
    by the Midwest Region of cost increases for salary (+3 percent per
    annum between 2007 to 2009, coupled with a management goal of hitting
    an 80:20 ratio of salary to management capability leads to the
    conclusion that absent positive changes in the funding trend, an
    additional 36 positions must be abolished by fiscal year 2009. At the
    Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge this will most likely lead to changes
    or reassignment in the duties of its staff. Such a change will have a
    crippling effect on the refuge's public services and educational
    programs (particularly school groups), its habitat management
    capabilities, its volunteer program, and its working with its friends
    group. Our friends group and volunteers could not even begin to make up
    the difference and programs would have to be significantly reduced.
    Static budgets would also mean a further deterioration of the refuge
    infrastructure of roads, trails, buildings, etc. This year's one full-
    time maintenance position loss has already left the refuge without a
    maintenance worker over the winter months. Static budgets would also
    lead to less wildlife and wildlife habitat management, as biology staff
    duties are spread out to neighboring refuges and Federal wildlife
    management areas.
        The funding pressures on our Nation's wildlife refuge system are no
    longer a matter for refuge staff doing more with less, simply, less
    will be accomplished. As volunteers and members of friends groups, this
    situation severely stresses us. Our role is not to fill in staff and
    budget shortfalls. Yet, we try and do what we can. We now need our
    elected representatives in Congress to do their part in funding in
    fiscal year 2008 the needed $451 million.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Friends of Virgin Islands National Park
        Madam Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of an
    important land acquisition funding need at Virgin Islands National
    Park. An appropriation of $4.5 million from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund is requested in fiscal year 2008 to begin Park
    Service acquisition of the unique Maho Bay property.
        I represent the Friends of VI National Park, a 501(c)(3) non-profit
    organization, dedicated to the protection and preservation of the
    natural and cultural resources of VI National Park and to promoting the
    responsible enjoyment of this national treasure. We have more than
    3,000 members--20 percent of whom live in the Virgin Islands and the
    balance represent every State in the union.
        We carry on the rich tradition of using private philanthropy for
    the betterment of this park as well as mobilize volunteers and
    community participation. In our 19 years of work in support of VI
    National Park we have been involved in many initiatives, projects and
    activities that help this park be a model of natural resource
    protection and cultural preservation--but none have been as important
    as our work in support of the acquisition of Estate Maho Bay and its
    incorporation within the park.
        We have played the important role of informing and motivating the
    community about the issues related to the preservation of Estate Maho
    Bay. But motivation was hardly needed; the preservation of Estate Maho
    Bay and ensuring unimpeded access to this spectacular area enjoys near
    unanimous support among native St. Johnians, residents who have moved
    here from mainland United States and visitors alike--no easy feat for a
    community that prides itself in its diversity of opinions.
        Virgin Islands National Park, located on the island of St. John, is
    a tropical paradise preserved for the enjoyment and edification of the
    public. Beautiful white sand beaches, protected bays of crystal blue-
    green waters, coral reefs rich in colorful aquatic life, and an on-
    shore environment filled with a breathtaking variety of plants and
    birds make St. John a magical place. More than 800 species of trees,
    shrubs, and flowers are found in the park, and more than 30 species of
    tropical birds breed on the island, which was designated an
    international Biosphere Reserve by the United Nations in 1976. St. John
    is also home to two species of endangered sea turtles, the hawksbill
    and the green. In addition, the park contains archeological sites
    indicating settlement by Indians as early as 770 B.C. The later
    colonial history of St. John is also represented by remnants of the
    plantations and sugar mills established by the Danes in the 18th and
    19th centuries.
        One of St. John's most popular eco-campgrounds sits on a cliff
    overlooking Maho Bay and its pristine white sand beaches. The bay's
    campgrounds create memorable vacations in the beautiful setting of St.
    John without sacrificing the delicate ecosystem of the island. Few
    places on earth match the breathtaking beauty of Maho Bay. A lush
    forested slope rising nearly 1,000 feet rims its crystal waters and
    soft white beaches. Hundreds of tropical plant species and more than 50
    species of tropical birds fill these lands on the island of St. John,
    at the heart of the American paradise of Virgin Islands National Park.
    Just offshore are seagrass beds, green turtles and magnificent coral
    reefs. This fragile area contains large nesting colonies of brown
    pelicans, as well as the migratory warblers and terns that winter on
    St. John. In addition to its natural treasures, the largest
    concentration of historic plantations and ruins on the island is found
    within this area. Several key properties at Maho Bay lie within the
    boundaries of the park and are high priorities for acquisition by the
    National Park Service (NPS).
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2008 is the first phase of
    a 211-acre acquisition of properties surrounding Maho Bay within the
    Virgin Islands National Park boundaries. The Maho Bay properties offer
    spectacular views of the bay and have more than a quarter-mile of
    beachfront. These properties are extremely important because of their
    relationship to the whole undeveloped area and its cultural resources.
    The land was historically used during the plantation era for
    agricultural activities such as sugar cane, coconut, and cotton
    cultivation. With increasing growth and investment throughout the
    Caribbean--including places not far from the unspoiled beauty of St.
    John--these vulnerable lands have become the focus of intense
    development threats. In recent years, more than one investor has
    envisioned private development along these shores, which would
    jeopardize the unique character of Maho Bay. Once this land is acquired
    by the park, future visitors will be treated to spectacular views of
    Maho Bay and some of the most accessible and scenic shoreline and
    waters on St. John.
        The total estimated fair market value of the 211 acres is at least
    $25 million. These properties are being made available to the National
    Park Service for a total of $9 million over 2 years, with the balance--
    approximately $16 million--to be provided through private donations of
    cash and land value. This year, an appropriation of $4.5 million is
    needed from the Land and Water Conservation Fund toward the purchase of
    the first phase (105 acres) of these valuable lands.
        Madame Chairwoman and distinguished committee members, I want to
    thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this important
    national protection effort in Virgin Islands National Park. On behalf
    of the Friends of Virgin Islands National Park and the over 1 million
    visitors to the Park each year, I appreciate your consideration of this
    funding request.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of Friends of the Wallkill River Refuges
        Madame Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony in support of the
    Friends of the Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuges for the
    proposed $451,500,000, to substantially increase the maintenance and
    operations budget for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Wallkill
    River and Shawangunk Grasslands National Wildlife refuges, which I am
    here to talk about today, exemplify the need for this increase in
    support of the extraordinary natural heritage that hangs in the
    balance.
        I grew up 10 miles from downtown Denver, Colorado, where grasslands
    spread for countless acres beyond my house. Now, for many miles in all
    directions, development upon development cover the plains and
    mountains. What was once unlimited waves of wind through the grass and
    immense forests are now gone, replaced by growing concerns over drought
    and water rights. For me, it is just too depressing to go home. For
    this reason, I work for open space preservation.
        Under the October 9, 1997, Congressional Public Law Act, 105-57
    section 5. Administration Generally, 4(a) (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)):
        (3) With respect to the System, it is the policy of the United
    States that--
              (A) each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission of
            the system, as well as the specific purposes for which that
            Refuge was established.
        (4) In administering the System The Secretary shall--
              (A) provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and
            plants and their habitats within the System.
              (B) ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
            environmental health of the System are maintained for the
            benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
              (C) plan and direct the continued growth of the System in a
            manner that is best designed to accomplish the mission of the
            system, to contribute to the conservation of the ecosystems of
            the United States, to compliment efforts of the States and
            Other Federal Agencies to conserve fish and wildlife and their
            habitats, and to increase support for the System and
            participation from conservation partners and the public.
        Through this act of Congress, Americans defined what the NWRS
    should be. Without this funding, the System cannot meet this mandate.
    While we will all be able to spend time pointing fingers, the wildlife
    and habitats and people that enjoy them will suffer.
        In 2004, the Wallkill River and Shawangunk Grasslands, two separate
    refuges in two States, had a combined core budget of almost $600,000,
    with six full time staff members. Today, both Refuges have two staff
    members with a core budget of about $310,000. As disparaging as this 48
    percent cut sounds, the refuges will have their manager position
    eliminated and suffer another $120,000 cut. That leaves just the
    biologist to address all the actions the System must fulfill. It simply
    is not possible. The Wallkill River and Shawangunk Grassland NWRs are a
    prime example of how the current budget crisis facing the system is
    playing out.
        The act states: ``monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife
    and plants of each refuge.'' The habitats cannot be managed with only
    one biologist and one soon to be lost manager for two refuges. Invasive
    plants grow unchecked, as the refuges do not have adequate manpower to
    constantly battle them. This gives rise to other problems such as loss
    of the foods and nesting sites that native species provide for
    migratory birds and native animals. It will be far more costly to come
    back years from now to reclaim these areas than it would be to simply
    provide the resources to keep invasive species in check.
        With one full time employee remaining and another scrambling to
    find a new place to live and work, the staff struggles to satisfy its
    more than 30,000 visitors a year, run one of the finest hunt programs
    in New Jersey, maintain trails, fix or demolish its decaying buildings,
    manage for endangered species and more than 200 species of songbirds,
    perform biological studies, fulfill an administrative workload that
    typically consumes 10 or more hours per week, and to generally maintain
    a 5,100-acre refuge and a 566-acre refuge. All of this is done to
    maintain the incredible wildlife habitat on the fringe of metropolitan
    New York and in the most congested State in the Union.
        To compensate the Service has ``complexed'' the refuges with the
    Great Swamp NWR in Morris County, N.J. The Complex has been designated
    ``stay strong'' by the Service. The end result is a shell game that
    would impress the most experienced carnival worker. Wallkill has seen
    its equipment reassigned, its staff positions eliminated, its budget
    gutted, its public programs reduced and its borders encroached, and its
    habitat management capability reduced. The Great Swamp NWR sends some
    staff to assist when it can, but the help is a pittance compared to
    what is needed, and all the while the Great Swamp's workload piles up.
    Getting a refuge law enforcement officer to the station usually takes
    more than an hour, 2-3 hours to get to the Shawangunk. And by then the
    damage is done and the perpetrator gone. If this is ``stay strong,''
    I'd hate to see what the status quo is.
        As a result of the lack of staff, the problems at the refuges
    bubble like a not-so-dormant volcano. ATVs regularly trespass on the
    Wallkill Refuge, ripping up trails, damaging gates and disturbing
    visitors, wildlife and habitats. People have broken into unused
    buildings causing damage and creating new safety hazards. Hunters are
    not checked as frequently as in the past and reports of hunting
    violations are all too common. Evidence of illegal drug and alcohol use
    in unpatrolled areas is on the rise
        One goal of the NWRS is to provide environmental education and
    interpretive programs. The Refuges rely on its Friends Group and
    volunteers more and more to address this requirement. The Friends Group
    supports the refuges wherever it can, but still core refuge operations
    require expertise, experience and clearance beyond the scope of Friends
    and Volunteers to help.
        The maintenance situation is perilous as well. Right now,
    nationally, there is a $1.5 billion backlog on maintenance. That is
    almost three times the entire operations budget requested for the
    system. Wallkill has 15 buildings that need to be demolished. The
    Wallkill has no maintenance staff. Great Swamp has lost one maintenance
    position; the staff there is unable to help except in dire emergencies.
    These buildings are hazards to the community, an invitation to vandals
    and drug users and a public eyesore. People are complaining.
        The cost to remove each building ranges from $5,000 to $25,000, for
    a total of about $160,000. The entire maintenance budget for the entire
    complex is about $190,000. When I speak of a backlog, this is merely
    the tip of the iceberg.
        Under subsection (C) above: ``plan and direct the continued growth
    of the system in a manner that is best designed to accomplish the
    mission of the System,'' as part of its required Comprehensive
    Conservation Plan, the Service is working to expand the Wallkill
    boundaries by almost 10,000 acres. In what is perhaps one of the most
    impressive coalitions of interested groups currently working on behalf
    of wildlife conservation in the Northeast, the refuge has taken a
    leading role in preserving almost 40,000 acres of New Jersey's best
    remaining valley habitats. Migratory birds, forests, wetlands stream
    side habitats and endangered species depend on this currently
    unprotected expansion corridor for homes and food. State, county, local
    and private organizations along with private citizens have banded
    together to bring this plan to the brink of approval. At the same time
    New Jersey's Highlands Conservation Act has made these same lands a
    prime focus for developers. The expansion area lands are in the area
    the Highlands Act directs the development into. Just in the last year,
    the Friends Group has seen the loss of some prime locations near the
    refuge as they are converted to become strip malls and McMansions. The
    Friends Group is even in an ongoing battle to protect the existing
    refuge from construction of a new high-density development and a sewage
    treatment facility 220 feet from refuge property.
        Obviously, a plan for a refuge that involves budget cuts and staff
    reductions does not seem to fit with an ambitious expansion plan.
    Clearly, the Service and the community recognize the need for an
    expanded refuge, as the alternative will mean a reduced quality of life
    for people and wildlife. Protected land is forever, and the refuge
    staff will be able to work with the land once more appropriate staffing
    levels come back to Wallkill. If the land is lost to development, no
    level of refuge staff will be able to compensate for its loss.
                           shawangunk grasslands nwr
        Even when Wallkill was fully staffed, there was little time for
    them to make the 50-minute trip up to the 566-acre Shawangunk
    Grasslands NWR. This refuge is a grassland gem. Between farming,
    development, and reforestation, habitats for grassland birds in this
    area of New York have dwindled to almost nothing. Providing one of the
    few grassland habitats for more than 200 species of grassland birds,
    the area is regionally renowned as grassland. As a result, Shawangunk
    Grasslands is the best hope for many species. Although the refuge
    manager at Wallkill has been relatively active in the area and has
    created some helpful partnerships, the Service's physical presence at
    the refuge is almost zero. This hurts the refuge and the community that
    visits the site. Vandalism, poaching and trespass can go unnoticed for
    long periods and then there is no budget for addressing these problems
    once discovered. The approved CCP for Shawangunk includes three staff
    positions for the refuge, but with only one person stationed at
    Wallkill to oversee the function of two refuges, there is little hope
    that the Shawangunk refuge will function as the Service is charged by
    law.
                                land acquisition
        Preserving land and conserving species is what the refuge system is
    all about. Without money for land acquisition, the ability of the
    service to fulfill its mission is compromised. Unique, valuable
    habitats can be lost to development very quickly. Subsection (F) of the
    1997 act states: ``assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity
    and water quality to fulfill the mission of the System and the purposes
    of the refuge.'' It is paramount that the Wallkill River's headwaters
    be preserved to fulfill the obligation of protecting the integrity of
    this north-flowing river. The Wallkill River has only limited State
    protection, and without this, it imperative that the Wallkill River and
    its tributaries be enveloped by the protection of the wildlife refuge.
    Water availability is a big red flag that should be limiting
    development across the region. Water supplies must be protected, which
    is exactly what the State and Federal Highlands legislation New Jersey
    Highlands Act help do. In order for the Wallkill River to get to
    accomplish this task outside of the Highlands, there must be funds to
    acquire lands for protecting the river, its water and the refuge. In
    the long run, watershed protection, aquifer recharge and buffering will
    save tax payers dollars and maintain our quality of life.
        Fragmentation and nearby development often threatens the integrity
    of our national wildlife refuges, and Wallkill is the poster child for
    this issue. Bringing new land into the system reduces local fiscal and
    labor burdens on taking care of these parcels, improves the quality of
    life for local residents, improves the visitor experiences and often
    increases the value of surrounding properties. We urge you to continue
    to invest in land acquisition funding for these refuges. It is critical
    to protecting the integrity of the existing refuge wildlife and
    ensuring natural landscapes for our citizens to use and enjoy.
                                     budget
        Many organizations are supporting an increase in refuge operations
    funds to $451.5 million. The Friends of the Wallkill River Refuges
    supports this figure as well. At current levels, the only thing the
    system can do is use a complex set smoke and mirrors to appear to be
    able to accomplish the charges in the Refuge Improvement Act.
        In the Northeast Region, the regional administration believe a 3-
    to-1 ratio should exist in terms of labor dollars to management
    dollars. While we support this goal, which would provide staff the
    ability to be more effective, the number of cuts proposed to reach this
    ratio underscore how underfunded the refuge system is.
        Unfortunately, the nature of government works against itself in
    this venue. Regional and Service administrators have performance
    standards based on showing increases and improvements that cannot be
    managed without creating a deficiency in another area. In order to
    effectively address this issue, the Service must be able to report
    truthfully on the condition of its facilities and the scope of its
    accomplishments. Until this changes, Service managers will have to
    continue to make sure no one notices that accomplishments and
    professionalism on paper do not constitute actual results. For example,
    the Service's own current literature on the downsizing plan and their
    fact sheets still report Wallkill as having a staff of 5, 6, or 7, and
    a budget of $1.4 million, depending on the publication. In actuality,
    the current budget is $310,000 for two staff members, with the
    management position being eliminated and the budget reduced to
    $190,000. The Service does not have the staff to keep documents and
    data updated. The downsizing explains of reducing business
    administrative staff to cut costs, that plays out with one person
    responsible for the accounting for six refuges.
        In summary, the National Wildlife Refuge System desperately needs
    to be funded at $451.5 million, or more. Without this increase in
    funding, the system and American people will lose many opportunities to
    maintain wildlife and wildlife habitat. With this funding, the System
    will have a better chance to retain its ability to manage its lands in
    a manner reflective of what is the world's most impressive system of
    lands set aside for wildlife.
        Thank you for your time and consideration.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Friends of Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge
        On behalf of the Friends of Wertheim NWR, I am submitting testimony
    for the Senate Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies. We
    support a funding level of $451 million in fiscal year 2008 for the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) National Wildlife Refuge System
    Operations and Maintenance (O&M) account, adequate funding for Visitor
    Services, $1 million for the Volunteer Invasive Monitoring Program and
    grants for invasive species work with Friends, and $5.7 million for the
    Long Island NWR Complex's Administrative/Visitor Center to be located
    at its headquarters, Wertheim NWR. The National Wildlife Refuge System
    budget must increase by $15 million each year in order to maintain
    services and programs from the previous year. The $15 million increase
    accounts for cost-of-living increases for FWS personnel, growing rent
    and real estate costs and other cost increases, while sustaining
    current levels of visitor services and wildlife management. Funding the
    O&M account at $451 million would allow the Refuge System, overall, to
    avoid additional employee layoffs and reductions in services that are
    important to our refuge. Hopefully this would restore at least one
    position recently eliminated at the Long Island NWR Complex which
    receives over 500,000 visitors each year.
        The Senate Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies should
    provide strong funding for Refuge System Visitor Services programs and
    Visitor Facility Enhancement Projects. Visitor Services funding pays
    for many Friends and volunteer programs. We depend on this funding for
    programs that allow us to remain effective stewards of our refuge.
        Recognizing invasive species as a top threat to our refuge lands,
    we also ask the subcommittee to continue their support by again
    providing $1 million ``for cooperative projects with Friends groups on
    invasive species control.'' This funding supports worthy programs like
    competitive grants for Friends groups and the Volunteer Invasive
    Monitoring Program. Utilizing the energy and enthusiasm of Friends and
    volunteers is a proven, effective and economical partnership for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        The $5.7 million for an Administrative/Visitor Center for the Long
    Island National Wildlife Refuge (LINWR) Complex to be located at
    Wertheim NWR is a key focal point of LINWR Complex's 15 year
    Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The Visitor Learning Center would
    serve as a catalyst for wildlife conservation partnerships and
    collaborative efforts, bringing together diverse audiences across Long
    Island and the region--from local school children to senior citizens,
    technical experts to dedicated volunteers and neighborhood groups to
    governmental agencies. In an effort to reduce cost, time and energy
    consumption, the Service has developed a standard conceptual design for
    the Administrative/Visitor Center. Designed with ``green technology''
    (the plans are consistent with LEED certification requirements) the
    Center will be a state-of-the-art energy efficient model. The $5.7
    million will include all phases of the project: planning, site design,
    construction, and interpretive exhibits.
        Friends of Wertheim feels this project deserves Federal funds
    because United States Fish and Wildlife is THE Federal agency charged
    with conserving, protecting, and enhancing the Nation's fish, wildlife
    and plants for the continuing benefit of the American people. Another
    top priority of the Service is connecting people with nature: ensuring
    the future of conservation. Therefore a priority of Federal funding
    must be to take action. While there is no doubt that our public lands
    need to be managed through community partnerships/community resources,
    the Federal Government should be the catalyst on Federal lands to make
    this happen.
        Additionally, we anticipate this Center will be one of the best
    locations in the Country for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services to
    achieve one of its highest priorities: Connecting People with Nature:
    Ensuring the Future of Conservation. The Long Island National Wildlife
    Refuge Complex has the opportunity to reach more neighbors and attract
    more visitors than any other national wildlife refuge in the country.
    This building will allow the refuge to accommodate the volume of
    visitors we anticipate both now and in the future.
        When the funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System is
    compared to the entire national spending it is not even a ``blip on the
    radar screen''. The National Wildlife Refuge System is one of our
    ``National Treasures'' and the dedicated Refuge staff, friends and
    volunteers do so much with so little. It is our hope that in 2008 and
    beyond there is increased funding that will do more than maintain what
    we had last year and will enable the refuge staff to address the O&M
    backlog. Only by being ``faithful stewards'' of the National Wildlife
    Refuge System will we ensure that all of the refuges will be here for
    our children and our children's children.
        The refuges in the Long Island Complex may be small compared to
    others; but they are so important! As a fifth grade science teacher in
    the local school district I took four science classes at Wertheim NWR
    each year. One year one of the boys was standing on the trail just
    looking up and he stayed this way for some time. I went over to him and
    asked what he was doing. He replied, ``Look--the trees make a tunnel--I
    can't see the sky!'' What a beautiful discovery!! This is why we must
    give our Refuge System adequate funding and why the LINWR Complex needs
    an Administrative/Visitor Center.
        Again, on behalf of the friends of Wertheim NWR we thank you for
    your consideration of our requests. If you have any questions, we would
    certainly be happy to help in any way.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Grand Valley Water Users Association
        I am requesting your support for appropriations in fiscal year 2008
    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, consistent with the President's recommended
    budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds to the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS to continue its essential
    participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program.
        2. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    within the $45,147,000 item entitled ``National Fish Hatchery
    Operations'' to support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray
    National Fish Hatchery in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $200,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet FWS's Region 2
    expenses in managing the San Juan Program's diverse recovery actions.
        We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request
    your assistance for fiscal year 2008 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
                                   Commission
     agencies--bureau of indian affairs and environmental protection agency
    1. BIA Treaty Rights Protection/Implementation--$4,266,000 ($391,000
            above fiscal year 2007 Continuing Resolution)
        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. s. 13; Indian Self-
    Determination and Educational Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. ss. 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. s. 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
    honors Federal treaty obligations to eleven Ojibwe Tribes and provides
    a wide range of associated public benefits. GLIFWC seeks an inflation-
    adjusted secure funding base to: (i) implement Federal court orders and
    intergovernmental agreements governing the exercise of treaty-
    guaranteed hunting, fishing and gathering rights and (ii) participate
    in management partnerships in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota.
                      elements of glifwc's funding request
        1. BIA Treaty Rights Protection/implementation: $4,266,000.--As its
    primary Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act
    funding base, GLIFWC seeks to:
        a. restore $166,000 in program operational costs lost to
    continually decreasing base funding over the last 4 years;
        b. preserve $92,000 in fixed pay costs that the Bureau has been
    providing;
        c. provide $150,000 to sustain enhancements in conservation
    enforcement and emergency services capabilities; and
        d. provide $75,000 to retain cultural infusion programs designed to
    sustain and foster inter-generational transfer of Chippewa language,
    lifeways and traditional ecological knowledge.
        2. EPA Environmental Programs and Management: $300,000.--As an EPA
    funding base for its primary environmental program elements, GLIFWC
    seeks to:
        a. Provide $190,000 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
    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 $110,000 to undertake three habitat and human health-
    related research projects regarding: (i) GLIFWC's fish consumption
    mercury advisory program; (ii) invasive species impacts on the Lake
    Superior food web; and (iii) a global climate change pilot project.
           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 to (1) ensure that its member Tribes are able to exercise
    their rights for the purposes of meeting subsistence, economic,
    cultural, medicinal, and spiritual needs and (2) 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.--With the requested funds GLIFWC would:
    (i) restore program operational costs lost to continually decreasing
    base funding over the last 4 years; \3\ (ii) retain the knowledgeable,
    experienced staff that are relied upon to conserve natural resources,
    protect public health and safety, and promote social stability in the
    context of tribal treaty rights; (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; \4\ and (iv) sustain cultural infusion programs designed to
    sustain and foster inter-generational transfer of Chippewa language,
    lifeways and traditional ecological knowledge.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \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\ 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.\5\  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.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ 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.
        \6\ With the requested fiscal year 2008 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) document the diet of important species of
    Lake Superior fish in order to understand potential changes over time
    due to invasive species or other causes; and (iii) identify climate
    variables that affect the presence, health and abundance of selected
    natural resources that are harvested by GLIFWC member tribes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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 the: (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.--GLIFWC seeks full
    funding of its contract support costs. It has experienced a $433,500
    shortfall since 1995. This shortfall cuts into program funding, and the
    lack of funding certainty throughout the year further compounds its
    effect.
        2. BIA Circle of Flight Tribal Wetland & Waterfowl Initiative.--
    Once again Congress should fully find this long-standing tribal
    contribution to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan that the
    administration again proposes to eliminate.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition
        Madam Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: I
    appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony in support of a $4.5
    million appropriation to the U.S. Forest Service from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund to help acquire a conservation easement on the
    Sun Ranch in Montana's famous Madison Valley. I am appearing here today
    as the former manager of the Sun Ranch and as Chairman of the Greater
    Yellowstone Coalition--a nationally acclaimed advocacy group that seeks
    to protect the lands, waters and wildlife of our first national park
    and the ecologically important lands that surround it.
        Before I go any further, I would like to take this opportunity to
    commend the Chair and committee members for supporting funding for land
    acquisition accounts such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF). The Sun Ranch conservation effort, which I am here to speak
    about today, is a perfect example of how programs like this can help to
    protect the critical wildlife and recreational values that make our
    Federal public lands so special.
        As most Americans know, the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) is
    a vestige of wild America--the birthplace of a global park movement and
    a natural benchmark for measuring our way of life.
        Embracing the mountain country in and around Yellowstone National
    Park, the GYE is home to some of our Nation's most cherished wildlife
    and landscapes. Roughly the size of West Virginia, the GYE includes the
    headwaters of the Yellowstone, Snake and Green river systems, which
    support a renowned trout fishery and provide the lifeblood for the
    region's economy and basic way of life. Yellowstone National Park--the
    region's heart and the world's first national park--holds our planet's
    most diverse and intact collection of geysers and hot springs, drawing
    visitors from around the world. The park and the lands that surround it
    also provide a refuge for hundreds of wildlife species, including rare
    trumpeter swans, wolves, one of the last viable grizzly bear
    populations in the lower 48 States and the largest elk and free-roaming
    bison herds in North America.
        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 fishermen 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.
        Drawn by the area's exceptional beauty, wildlife and abundant
    recreational opportunities, people from all over the country are moving
    into the GYE in ever increasing numbers. Some of our Nation's fastest-
    growing counties are located here. As newcomers build their homes
    further away from our urban cores, more and more of our most important
    agricultural lands and wildlife habitat are being lost forever.
        Virtually everyone agrees that the unprecedented growth in the GYE
    will continue unabated. People will continue to be drawn to the area
    due to its unparalleled wonder and high quality of life. The challenge,
    of course, is finding a way to channel and direct this growth so that
    it does not destroy the very qualities that draw people to the area in
    the first place. Developing ``smart growth'' strategies is part of the
    solution. Actively protecting and conserving critically sensitive areas
    is another. This is why I am testifying before you today.
        I came here today to champion the conservation of one of the GYE's
    true treasures. The 18,700-acre Sun Ranch is a wildlife paradise
    nestled in the southern end of Montana's Madison Valley, approximately
    20 miles northwest of Yellowstone National Park. Occupying almost 30
    square miles between the Madison River and the Lee Metcalf Wilderness
    Area, the ranch contains some of the most valuable wildlife habitat in
    the entire GYE. The ranch serves as critical big-game winter range for
    elk, mule deer, moose, pronghorn antelope, bighorn sheep, and mountain
    goats. Elk herds exceeding 2,500 in number are a common sight on the
    ranch during the winter and early-spring months. Grizzly and black bear
    routinely use the property, as do wolverine, Canada lynx, pine marten,
    beaver, bobcat, river otter, and mountain lion. In addition to almost
    nine miles of Madison River frontage, the ranch also includes long
    stretches of four important mountain-fed streams, which provide
    critical brood rearing habitat for various species of fish, including
    near-pure strains of westslope cutthroat trout.
        A recently completed and highly acclaimed conservation assessment
    by the Wildlife Conservation Society concludes that the Madison is one
    of the most ecologically intact valleys in the GYE. It also identifies
    the Madison Valley as playing a central role in ensuring wildlife
    linkages between the GYE and the other ecologically intact areas of the
    Central Rocky Mountains, specifically, the Northern Continental Divide
    Ecosystem and the wildlands of central Idaho. In particular, the report
    identifies the area where the Sun Ranch is located as being arguably
    the most important wildlife linkage zone in the GYE. Protection of this
    area, the report argues, is critical because it is one of the only
    places offering secure passage for forest carnivores such as grizzly
    bear, wolverine and lynx migrating between the Madison Range to the
    east and the vast area of interconnected mountain ranges to the west
    and north. Protection of the Sun Ranch and its immediate surrounds is
    absolutely vital to the long-term survival of these and other wide-
    ranging species.
        During my 4 years as the day-to-day manager of the Sun Ranch, I had
    the pleasure of watching Serengeti-sized elk herds work the landscape
    during their spring migration as they calved and headed for the high
    country. I remember walking the fence line, being startled and then
    gradually catching my breath after spotting a grizzly or wolf. While
    tending 1,600 cattle, I often rested my horse atop a high hill, looking
    down on the ranch's sheer beauty, marveling at the sight of the
    surrounding mountains and knowing what it must feel like to see the
    world as a red-tailed hawk does. As you imagine the Madison Valley,
    think openness, intactness and ecological abundance and know that the
    Sun Ranch lies at the heart of all this prosperity.
        As I mentioned earlier, the Sun Ranch encompasses around 18,700
    acres. Approximately 6,700 acres at the north end of ranch are already
    protected by a conservation easement. A total of 11,300 acres will be
    protected by two separate conservation easements, which will be
    purchased and conveyed to the U.S. Forest Service and Montana, Fish,
    Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) for long-term monitoring and enforcement. The
    easements, with a likely value in excess of $30 million, will protect
    extraordinary scenery and one of the most important wildlife corridors
    in the GYE--all while providing public hunting rights to some of the
    finest big game habitat in the West.
        The Forest Service has ranked the Sun Ranch project as its #1
    national priority this year and recommended it as part of the
    President's 2008 budget for $4.5 million through the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund.
        Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks has also ranked the Sun Ranch
    project as its highest statewide priority. Last summer, MFWP's five-
    member, volunteer commission authorized the agency to set aside up to
    $4.5 million from the State's Habitat Montana program to help pay for
    the proposed easement purchase. Funded with hunter license fees, the
    Habitat Montana program seeks to preserve and restore important habitat
    for fish and wildlife and to make prime fishing and hunting areas
    accessible to the sporting public. The sheer size of MFWP's funding
    commitment in this case is remarkable. Not only does the Habitat
    Montana program receive a mere $2.5 to $3 million per year, but it has
    never contributed more than $2 million to any given easement purchase
    in its entire 20-year history.
        The Sun Ranch project enjoys broad-based support at all levels.
    Sportsmen, in particular, are extremely excited by what the project has
    to offer because without it this remarkable property would be
    unavailable. Not only will it protect some of the best big game habitat
    in Montana, but it will also provide regulated public access during the
    general hunting season once the conservation easements are in place.
        Finally, it is worth noting that the Sun Ranch project is part of
    one of the largest landscape-level land conservation efforts in the
    American West. More than 40 percent of the private land in the valley
    (almost 120,000 acres) is already under conservation easement, and this
    doesn't even include the 114,000-acre easement that covers Ted Turner's
    Flying D Ranch just to the north. With so much private land already
    conserved, some might be tempted to call it quits. But I ardently
    believe that we must press on.
        The next few years will determine the fate of the Madison Valley
    and one of the most important wildlife corridors in the GYE. With
    development pressures at an all-time high, we must act now to protect
    the best of what is left. The contemplated easement purchase on the Sun
    Ranch would be a major step in the right direction.
        As a rancher and wildlife advocate, I strongly urge you to back
    this project and support the Forest Service's and administration's
    request for $4.5 million in fiscal year 2008 from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund. State and private funds, as well as a significant
    amount of donated land value, will make up the difference in the
    project's overall value, which is estimated to exceed $30 million.
        The Sun Ranch is a very special place. In my humble opinion, I do
    not think that you will ever find a better opportunity to help protect
    an American icon. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make this
    request.
                                     ______

                 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 2008
    Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill.
        Our top priorities for fiscal year 2008 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
      --$100 million for the Forest Legacy program, including $770,000 for
            Skiff Mountain--phase II (CT) and $5.7 million for Sparta
            Mountain South--phase II (NJ)
                 highlands conservation act--land conservation
        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 2008, President Bush has provided no
    funding 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. We strongly urge the committee to provide full funding for
    the HCA at $11 million. The Governors of the four Highlands States have
    jointly submitted land conservation projects totaling $10 million to
    the Department of the Interior for funding in fiscal year 2008,
    including:
    Litchfield Farms (CT)
        Cost--$8,400,000
        HCA Request--$2,500,000
        Size--670 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 2 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 and New Holland Waters (PA)
        Cost--$8,500,000
        HCA Request--$2,500,000
        Size--3,063 acres
        Description--Oley Hills.--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.
        New Holland Waters--Pennsylvania's 800-acre New Holland Waters
    project in Lancaster County's Welsh Mountains has been identified in
    the County's 2002 Open Space Plan and the County Growth Management Plan
    Update as high priority for protection. Lancaster County Conservancy
    ranks New Hollands Waters as a ``natural gem'', the highest ranking for
    evaluating priority lands, due to contiguous forests, proximity of
    other forested or protected areas, high quality wildlife habitat,
    unique geological features, presence of rare, threatened or endangered
    species, and water resources.
    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.
    Highlands Conservation Act--Technical Assistance and Study
        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: $770,000 for Skiff Mountain (phase II) in
    Connecticut and $5.7 million for Sparta Mountain South (phase II) in
    New Jersey. 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 $100 million in fiscal year 2008.
                        land and water conservation fund
        Finally, we are very concerned about the proposed cuts to the Land
    & Water Conservation Fund, which is slated to receive only $58 million
    in the President's budget, one of the lowest levels of conservation
    funding for LWCF ever. LWCF is a bedrock of conservation funding for
    both the Federal and State governments, and its impacts cascade from
    internationally important conservation projects to locally important
    ones. We are urging Congress to fund LWCF at $320 million.
        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 2008 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations
    bill.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Highlands Coalition
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments about the fiscal
    year 2008 appropriations for the Highlands Conservation Act.
        The Litchfield Garden Club and the League of Women Voters of
    Litchfield County both place the highest priority on securing--
      --$10 million full funding for Highlands land conservation
            partnership projects through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
            Service,
      --$1 million for USDA Forest Service technical assistance and
            research programs in the Highlands, and
      --Specifically, for $2.5 million in Highlands funding for the
            Litchfield Farms project.
                             why litchfield farms?
        Litchfield Farms has been designated as a top priority by the State
    of Connecticut because of its outstanding environmental importance.
    This large (670-acre) property, part of which has been farmed in
    Litchfield for nearly 300 years, is not only a rare property. It is a
    threatened property.
        Connecticut designated the Litchfield Farms as its Highlands
    project for fiscal year 2008 because of its special environmental
    values. In addition to prime agricultural soils, it also has large
    wetlands areas and 450 acres of diverse forests. It hosts a known
    State-listed endangered species and contains several vernal pools. It
    drains into both the Bantam and Naugatuck watersheds, and its Bantam
    waters are AA, the highest water quality level. Reaching elevations of
    1,300 feet, the farm is one of the highest points in Litchfield, and
    its ridgelines and 50-mile panoramic view scapes are unparalleled in
    the area.
        The threat to Litchfield Farms, unfortunately, is a perfect example
    of why Congress passed the Highlands Conservation Act (HCA) in 2004
    with bipartisan support. HCA responded to the realization that
    development and sprawl from the Northeast megapolitan population, if
    allowed to run its course, would quickly envelope and overwhelm the
    Highlands region and its fragile ecosystems, pristine waters, and
    recreational features.
        Litchfield is a case in point. Like other small towns in the
    northwest corner of Connecticut, Litchfield is starting to see an
    influx of population from the densely packed urban centers of the
    Northeast, principally from the New York City area. Farms, pastures,
    and woodlands are being sold for development. The huge Litchfield Farms
    acreage is a prime target currently on the market. Local and State-
    level public, private and nonprofit efforts are underway to put this
    extraordinary parcel into conservation status.
                          connecticut is taking action
        Connecticut is putting its substantial public and private money
    into preservation of endangered lands and open spaces.
      --In 2005, 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
            has been increased.
      --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
            last year on how we could work together to preserve high
            priority open spaces.
        Connecticut's Governor Jodi Rell designated the Litchfield Farms in
    her request to the Interior Department jointly submitted by the four
    Highlands States (Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania).
    She requested $2.5 million for the Litchfield Farms.
        A $10 million full-funding land acquisition 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.
        Thus our citizens 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.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Houston Audubon Society
        Madam Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: Thank you
    for the opportunity to testify in support of a Land and Water
    Conservation Fund request for $3 million to permit the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (USFWS) to acquire the 1,988 acre McGinnes property
    for the San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge in Texas.
        The San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1968 to
    provide quality habitat for wintering migratory waterfowl and other
    bird life. The nearly 35,000-acre refuge is located in Brazoria and
    Matagorda counties in southeastern Texas. The refuge consists of flat
    coastal prairie and salt marsh with numerous saltwater lakes, shallow
    freshwater lakes, associated marshlands, intermittent streams, and
    bottomland hardwood forest areas.
        Houston Audubon Society has partnered with the USFWS on four recent
    acquisitions to the refuge complex. Houston Audubon's shared goal with
    the USFWS is to protect high quality habitat along the Upper Texas
    Coast. The Texas Mid-Coast National Wildlife Refuge Complex serves as
    an end point of the Central flyway for migrating waterfowl in the
    winter months and as an entry point for neotropical songbirds migrating
    north from Mexico.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2008 is the 1,988-acre
    McGinnes tract located adjacent to the Linville Bayou Unit of the San
    Bernard National Wildlife Refuge. Comprised of old growth bottomland
    forest, wetland, and associated upland habitats, the McGinnes tract
    would serve as an important addition to the Linville Unit by
    consolidating over 1,400 acres of old-growth bottomland forest, making
    it one of the largest old-growth bottomland forests in public ownership
    in the State.
        Madame Chairwoman, thank you for this opportunity to testify for
    this important project at the San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge in
    Texas.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Houston Regional Group and Lone Star Chapter
                               of the Sierra Club
        Madame Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: The
    Houston Regional Group and Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club (Sierra
    Club) appreciate this opportunity to testify in favor of the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund. The Sierra Club supports the request for $3
    million which will allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to
    acquire 1,988 acres of Columbia Bottomlands, called the McGinnes tract,
    which will be added to the San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)
    in Texas.
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund is the most important source
    of continuous, U.S. congressional funding for the acquisition of public
    lands in the United States. The Sierra Club supports full funding for
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund so that the backlog of important
    ecological, biological, archeological, historic, scenic, and other
    sensitive lands that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land
    Management, National Park Service, Forest Service, and countless State
    and local entities have identified and prioritized can be acquired.
        The Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club consists of about
    5,000 members and works for the protection of wildlife habitat as well
    as the reduction of environmental pollution in Houston and its
    surrounding counties. The Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club is the
    State Sierra Club entity and has about 25,000 members. I serve as the
    Forestry Chair for the Houston Regional Group and the Forest Management
    Issue Chair for the Lone Star Chapter.
        The Sierra Club supported the original FWS proposal to protect
    Columbia Bottomlands in the early 1990's. We have supported acquisition
    efforts ever since. Each year the Sierra Club conducts visits to San
    Bernard and Brazoria NWRs to see and enjoy the beauty of protected
    Columbia Bottomlands.
        The Columbia Bottomlands are forested wetlands unique to Texas and
    found only along the lower Colorado, San Bernard, and Brazos Rivers in
    Fort Bend, Brazoria, Wharton, and Matagorda Counties. These forests
    have magnificent Live Oak, Pecan, Sugarberry, American Elm, Green Ash,
    Palmetto, Water Hickory, Water Oak, and other trees; many other plant
    species; and important wildlife species like migratory songbirds,
    white-tailed deer, gray squirrel, waterfowl (wood duck and mallard),
    egrets (common, cattle, and snowy), herons (great blue, tri-colored,
    little blue), amphibians, reptiles, and fish (bass, sunfish, catfish).
        Columbia Bottomlands have been incorporated in the Texas Mid-Coast
    NWR Complex, which includes the Brazoria, Big Boggy. and San Bernard
    NWRs. These NWRs are about an hour to an hour and a half south of 2
    million people in Houston, Texas, the Nation's fourth largest city.
    Houstonians and others in surrounding counties use the Columbia
    Bottomlands and other habitats found in the NWRs for hunting, fishing,
    birding, environmental education, photography, canoeing and kayaking,
    boating, wildlife observation, nature study, and many other low impact
    and compatible recreational, educational, and scientific activities.
        Over 300 species of birds can be found in the Columbia Bottomlands
    and nearby coastal prairies and wetlands, in the midst of the Central
    Flyway on the Texas Coast. The San Bernard NWR was established in 1968
    and currently has about 35,000 acres. Most of the acres protected in
    San Bernard NWR consist of coastal prairie and fresh, brackish, and
    saltwater marshes that host incredible numbers of Canada and white-
    fronted geese, ducks (pintail, teal, gadwall, widgeon, and mottled),
    ibis, sandpipers, stilts, hawks, owls, vultures, kites, blue crabs,
    shrimp, spotted sea-trout, redfish, black drum, sheepshead, oysters,
    and flounder.
        For fiscal year 2008, the 1,988 acre McGinnes tract, located in the
    Linville Bayou Unit, is available for acquisition. The McGinnes tract
    has 1,400 acres of old-growth bottomland forest, along with other
    wetlands and upland habitats, and will connect and consolidate tracts
    of Columbia Bottomlands that have already been acquired by FWS.
        Madame Chairwoman, the Sierra Club very much appreciates this
    opportunity to testify and requests your help in this matter. Thank
    you.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Housatonic Valley Association, Inc.
        Madam Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: The
    Housatonic Valley Association (HVA) appreciates the opportunity to
    present this testimony in support of a $770,000 appropriation to the
    State of Connecticut from the Forest Legacy Program for the Skiff
    Mountain project. HVA is a non-profit watershed conservation
    organization for the Housatonic River valley. Skiff Mountain sits in
    the heart of the Highlands region of this scenic valley, framing the
    nationally ranked Housatonic River corridor.
        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. These parcels
    total approximately 765 acres of Skiff Mountain Forest in northwestern
    Connecticut and are part of the newly legislated Upper Housatonic
    National Heritage Area. They form a network of forested properties in
    Litchfield County straddling the Kent-Sharon town line, an area under
    tremendous large-lot development pressures. Located among 6,000 acres
    of existing conservation lands, and immediately adjacent to the
    Federally protected and world-renowned Appalachian National Scenic
    Trail, the Skiff Mountain property has been identified by the State as
    its top priority for Forest Legacy funding this year.
        In fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $1.182 million in Forest
    Legacy Funding for the protection of the first 473 acres of the Skiff
    Mountain assemblage. In fiscal year 2008, $770,000 is needed from the
    Forest Legacy program to help preserve the remaining 292 acres of Skiff
    Mountain, and keep intact this conservation corridor of the Housatonic
    River Watershed and four-State Highlands region. These funds will be
    matched by local funding and land value donation. We hope that you will
    provide $770,000 to ensure the success of this effort in the fiscal
    year 2008 Interior appropriations bill.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Huachuca Hiking Club
        Madam Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony in support of a
    $500,000 request from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to protect
    the 38.5-mile San Pedro Rail-Trail property (containing approximately
    470 acres of fee land) at the Bureau of Land Management's San Pedro
    Riparian National Conservation Area in Arizona.
        The Huachuca Hiking Club is based in southern Arizona with members
    from Sierra Vista, Benson, Bisbee, and Tucson. Our members are outdoor
    enthusiasts who enjoy hiking, camping, backpacking, volunteer trail
    maintenance, and conserving Arizona's outstanding natural resource
    heritage. We enjoy hiking not only to experience the beauty of
    Arizona's outdoor landscapes, but also to sustain and improve our
    physical fitness. We strongly support the acquisition and protection of
    a rail-trail corridor within the San Pedro Riparian National
    Conservation Area. Trails close to local communities foster wholesome,
    outdoor recreation that can be done by families close to their homes.
    This is increasingly becoming important as society grapples with the
    problems of obesity and lack of physical fitness that are so prevalent
    in young people today. The proposed San Pedro rail-trail would fill a
    critical need for a family friendly place to hike, mountain bike, ride
    horses, watch birds and other wildlife, or explore the beauty of a rare
    desert riparian area. The attraction of a rail-trail would also bring
    significant economic benefits to our local communities through nature-
    based tourism and opportunities for visitors to experience an
    outstanding recreational destination. Finally, the rail-trail would
    help protect the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area by
    improving awareness of this rare and critical resource and by
    eliminating non-compatible uses.
        An fiscal year 2008 appropriation of $500,000 from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund would assist the Bureau of Land Management in
    acquiring and protecting this corridor and all of its natural resources
    for public use and enjoyment for generations to come.
        Madame Chairwoman, thank you for this opportunity to submit
    testimony.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Humane Society of the United States, Humane
             Society Legislative Fund, and Doris Day Animal League
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on items of importance
    to our organizations with a combined membership of more than 10 million
    supporters nationwide. We urge the subcommittee to address these
    priority issues in the fiscal year 2008 budget.
                             polar bear protection
        We urge the subcommittee to restrict the use of funds by U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service for the issuance of import permits for sport-
    hunted polar bear trophy hides and heads. Throughout their range, polar
    bears currently face unprecedented threats from climate change,
    environmental degradation, and hunting for subsistence and sport. The
    IUCN (World Conservation Union) Polar Bear Specialist Group announced
    that polar bear populations could drop 30 percent in the coming 35-50
    years and that they may disappear from most of their range within 100
    years.
        While long-term action is required to address the significant
    environmental factors negatively affecting polar bear survival,
    immediate action should be taken to minimize all human-caused
    mortalities, especially from trophy hunting. Following 1994 amendments
    to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the importation of polar bear
    trophies including bear pelts and parts (excluding organs) into the
    United States from Canada was allowed. This is a precarious time for
    polar bear populations. The United States should take a leadership role
    in protecting polar bears and stop allowing the importation of these
    magnificent animals killed for sport and entertainment.
            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 2008 proposed budget for
    the maintenance of this herd was reduced by $4.7 million from the
    previous year. While we support a reduction in the number of gathers,
    allowing the herd to grow without a humane, non-lethal management plan
    is a recipe for cruelty and disaster. 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 BLM's roundup and adoption program has resulted in an
    increasing number of wild horses being permanently warehoused in BLM
    hold centers at a significant cost to taxpayers. Studies show that
    costs could be significantly decreased by treating more mares with the
    immunocontraceptive PZP (porcine zona pellucida) and returning them to
    the range, rather than continuing current practices.
        We urge the subcommittee to restore and direct these funds to
    development and research of PZP and further ask that the subcommittee
    facilitate and encourage greater cooperation between BLM, EPA and The
    HSUS to expedite implementation of this very promising alternative
    solution for wild horse management.
           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. The United States
    remains one of the world's largest markets for legal and illegal trade
    in wildlife and wildlife products. 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
    are disappointed with the administration's $1.4 million decrease for
    the Law Enforcement Division in fiscal year 2008. We are hopeful that
    proposed user fee increases will make up the difference. We strongly
    support an additional increase of $2.7 million over the
    administration's request for USFWS Law Enforcement Operations and
    Maintenance, to better house and equip the Wildlife Forensics
    Laboratory and to hire and train additional Special Agents for
    enforcement of the Captive Wildlife Safety Act.
        The Captive Wildlife Safety Act was signed into law in December of
    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 and urge USFWS to implement these regulations and enforce
    the Captive Wildlife Safety Act.
      environmental protection agency--office of research and development
        In 2000, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation
    of Alternative Methods, 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. 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 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, thanks to the leadership of Representatives James
    Walsh and David Price, 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 under-funded validation
    studies of non-animal and other alternatives.
        For several years, the budget for the Office of Research and
    Development (ORD) has hovered at approximately $500 million. We have
    consistently supported a request for 1-2 percent of this budget to go
    for research, development, and validation of non-animal test methods.
    While we are greatly appreciative of this 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
    respectfully request the following report language be included in the
    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.''

        Additionally, finalization of the MOU between the EPA and the FDA,
    under which the EPA will assume the primary authority to review and
    register therapeutic and other products geared toward humane methods of
    population control, should be expedited in order to allow PZP to be
    utilized in a management capacity, rather than an investigational one.
                    multinational species conservation fund
        We join 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 in the past couple years, the funding has been
    consistently considerably less than the amounts necessary to carry out
    these valuable missions. We ask that you continue to support these
    highly threatened mammals and birds in fiscal year 2008 by
    appropriating $2 million each for the African Elephant Conservation
    Fund, the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund, and the Great Ape
    Conservation Fund, and $1.5 million for the Marine Turtle Conservation
    Fund. We further request $2.5 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.
        While we wholeheartedly support 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, and entertainment for public
    display industry--under the guise of conservation for these animals.
    Grants made to projects under the MNSCF must be consistent with the
    spirit of the law.
                            protection for walruses
        We urge this subcommittee to appropriate $500,000 in fiscal year
    2008 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.
                          endangered species programs
        While the fiscal year 2008 budget for the FWS endangered species
    program has been increased by over $5 million from fiscal year 2007,
    this amount still falls short of the funding level of fiscal year 2006.
        Candidate Conservation.--This portion of the budget is being
    increased by almost $600,000 from fiscal year 2007 to slightly exceed
    fiscal year 2006 funding. However, these increases are primarily
    focused on coordinating energy development and species conservation
    actions across areas of mixed land ownership specifically in the Green
    River Basin of Wyoming. Thus, it is doubtful that these additional
    funds will actually serve to conserve candidate species as a whole but
    rather to act as incentives to mitigate the effects of energy
    development in this one discreet area.
        Additionally, general program funds have been cut by $178,000
    suggesting that candidate conservation as a whole is experiencing
    funding declines. Considering that the pre-emptive protection of rare
    species is the best way to ensure their survival and avoid the dire
    population reductions that lead to listing it behooves the DOI to
    increase funding towards this program.
        Listing.--Although the funding of this element has been increased
    by about $500,000 from fiscal year 2007, additional funds are
    desperately needed. Of the 586 listed animals, only about 181 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, yet, a substantial portion is to provide for expedited
    energy consultations in the Green River Basin. 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, while increased from fiscal year 2007,
    still falls short of the fiscal year 2006 budget by nearly $5.5
    million. While funds for grizzly bear and wolf conservation and
    monitoring have been transferred to the ESA program from other sources,
    there were no increases in funding for the recovery of any imperiled
    species.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Imperial Irrigation District, Imperial, CA
        This testimony is in support of funding for the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture (USDA) with respect to its on-farm Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Program for fiscal year 2008. This program has been
    carried out through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
    (Public Law 93-320), since it was enacted by Congress in 1974. With the
    enactment of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act
    (FAIRA) in 1996 (Public Law 104-127), specific funding for salinity
    control projects in the Colorado River Basin were eliminated from the
    Federal budget and aggregated into the Department of Agriculture's
    Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) as one of its program
    components. With that action, Congress concluded that the salinity
    control program could be more effectively implemented as one of the
    components of the EQIP.
        The Program, as set forth in the act, benefits both the Upper Basin
    water users through more efficient water management and the Lower Basin
    water users, hundreds of miles downstream from salt sources in the
    Upper Basin, through reduced salinity concentration of Colorado River
    water. California's Colorado River water users are presently suffering
    economic damages in the hundreds of million of dollars per year due to
    the River's salinity.
        The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is
    the State agency charged with protecting California's interests and
    rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River system.
    In this capacity, California along with the other six Colorado River
    Basin States through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
    (Forum), the interstate organization responsible for coordinating the
    Basin States' salinity control efforts, established numeric criteria in
    June 1975 for salinity concentrations in the River. These criteria were
    established to lessen the future damages in the Lower Basin States of
    Arizona, California, and Nevada, as well as assist the United States in
    delivering water of adequate quality to Mexico in accordance with
    Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission.
        The goal of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program is to
    offset the effects of water resources development in the Colorado River
    Basin after 1972 as each State develops its Colorado River Compact
    apportionments. In close cooperation with the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) and pursuant to requirements of the Clean Water
    Act (Public Law 92-500), every 3 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 salinity
    concentrations (measured in Total Dissolved Solids--TDS) at or below
    the levels measured in the Colorado River system in 1972 at Imperial
    Dam, and below Parker and Hoover Dams. The latest report was prepared
    in 2005 titled: 2005 Review, Water Quality Standards for Salinity,
    Colorado River System (2005 Review). The plan necessary for controlling
    salinity and reducing downstream damages has been captioned the ``Plan
    of Implementation.'' The 2005 Review includes an updated Plan of
    Implementation.
        Concentrations of salts in the River annually cause about $330
    million in quantified damage in the United States (there are
    significant unquantified damages as well). 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, and 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; and
      --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. Although the Program, thus far, has been able to
    implement salinity control measures that comply with the approved plan,
    recent drought years have caused salinity levels to rise in the River.
    Predictions are that this will be the trend for the next several years.
    This places an added urgency for acceleration of the implementation of
    the Program.
        Enactment of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
    provided an opportunity to adequately fund the Salinity Program within
    EQIP. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council has
    taken the position that the USDA portion of the effort be funded at 2.5
    percent of the EQIP funding but at least $20 million annually. Over the
    past few years, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has
    designated 2.5 percent of EQIP funds be allocated to the Colorado River
    Salinity Control program. The Forum suggests that this is an
    appropriate level of funding as long as it does not drop below $20
    million. Funding above this level assists in offsetting pre-fiscal year
    2003 funding below this level. The Colorado River Board supports the
    recommendation of the Forum and urges this subcommittee to support
    funding for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program for 2008
    at this level.
        These Federal dollars will be augmented by the State cost sharing
    of 30 percent with an additional 25 percent provided by the
    agricultural producers with whom USDA contracts for implementation of
    salinity control measures. Over the past years, the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control program has proven to be a very cost effective
    approach to help mitigate the impacts of increased salinity in the
    Colorado River. Continued Federal funding of this important Basin-wide
    program is essential.
        In addition, the Colorado River Board recognizes that 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
    continue to be honored, it is essential that in fiscal year 2008, and
    in future fiscal years, that Congress continues to provide funds to
    USDA to allow it to provide needed technical support to agricultural
    producers for addressing salinity control in the Basin.
        The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
    water resource to the 18 million residents of southern California as
    well as throughout the Colorado River Basin. As stated earlier,
    preservation and improvement of the Colorado River water quality
    through an effective salinity control program will avoid the additional
    economic damages to users of Colorado River water in California,
    Arizona, and Nevada.
                                     ______

         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 2008 Budget Request for the
    Office of Surface Mining (OSM) within the U.S. Department of the
    Interior. In its proposed budget, OSM is requesting $60.5 million to
    fund Title V grants to States and Indian tribes for the implementation
    of their regulatory programs and $52.8 million to fund discretionary
    spending for the Title IV abandoned mine land (AML) program, which
    includes some State grants. Our statement will address both of these
    budgeted items.
        The Compact is comprised of 24 States that together produce some 95
    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 $60.5 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 several fiscal years, the amount for State Title
    V grants has been flat-lined. (See figure 1) What this graph does not
    show is that these grants have been stagnant for over 12 years. The
    appropriation for State Title V grants in fiscal year 1995 was $50.5
    million. Essentially, we have attempted to operate effective, high
    performance programs with a meager $6 million increase spread over 12
    years. By most standards, this is remarkable, and clearly a bargain for
    the Federal Government. Over this same period of time, coal production
    has risen substantially and OSM's own budget for Federal program costs
    has increased by over $25 million. Given the fact that it is the States
    that operate the programs that address the environmental impacts of
    coal mining operations, a similar increase would have been expected.
    But instead, State regulatory grants have remained flat-lined.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        This year, in an attempt to reverse this trend, OSM has proposed a
    modest increase for State Title V grants. However, it may be too little
    too late, especially for some States such as Virginia and Utah. In
    Virginia, for instance, coal production and operating costs have
    increased, while Federal funding for State-based coal regulatory
    programs has consistently decreased. The rise in costs associated with
    wages, employee benefits, and transportation fuels have risen
    approximately 15 percent over the past 4 years. Due to the loss of
    Federal funds, Virginia is unable to fill many staff postings,
    including that of the critical field inspector. Without a full staff of
    reclamation inspectors, Virginia may not meet Federal inspection
    guidelines. Virginia is also unable to fill technical support staff
    positions. This will limit the assistance the Commonwealth can offer to
    coal companies and significantly delay the review and approval process
    for surface mining permits. Virginia's situation is symptomatic of what
    other States are facing--or will soon face--if the debilitating trend
    for Title V grant funding is not reversed.
        It must be kept in mind that State coal regulatory program
    permitting and inspection workloads are in large part related to coal
    mine production. In general, as coal production increases, the need for
    additional permitting and operational inspections also increases. State
    programs must be adequately funded and staffed to insure that
    permitting and inspection duties are both thorough and timely as States
    experience the reality of accelerating coal mine production and
    expansion activities. As program funding shortfalls continue, States
    risk the possibility of delayed production and negative impacts to the
    environment. The situation in Colorado exemplifies this reality. From
    2002 to 2006, Colorado production increased approximately 10 percent.
    Permit revision activity increased nearly 50 percent during the same
    period. This reality has stressed existing program resources and caused
    the delay or elimination of lower priority program functions.
        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. And, just like the Federal
    Government, State personnel costs are increasing. (See figure 2) 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.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Looking again at figure 1, another disturbing trend is evident. The
    gap between the States' requests, which are based on anticipated
    expenditures, and what States are receiving in annual grants, is
    widening. The numbers in this chart are taken from OSM budget
    justification documents, OSM's website, and estimates provided to OSM
    from the States. Please note that these numbers have not been adjusted
    for inflation--which means the situation is actually more bleak. There
    is no disagreement about the need demonstrated by the States. In fact,
    in OSM's own budget justification document, OSM States that: ``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 grants results is 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.'' (Page 71 of OSM's Budget
    Justification)
        The enormity of this funding challenge will become increasingly
    clear 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. In Virginia alone, for instance, the cost of OSM running the
    program would likely amount to $8-10 million based on what it currently
    costs OSM to run the comparable Federal program in Tennessee. For
    perspective, Virginia has been offered $3.175 million in Federal
    funding to operate its program (although actual needs amount to $3.6
    million--an overall shortfall of nearly $1 million when the State match
    is factored in). In the end, the increasing gap between the States'
    anticipated expenditures and actual Federal funding is compounding the
    problem caused by inflation and uncontrollable costs, undermines our
    efforts to realize needed program improvements and enhancements, and
    jeopardizes our efforts to minimize the impact of coal extraction
    operations on people and the environment. For all these reasons, we
    urge Congress to increase funding for State Title V regulatory grants
    in OSM's fiscal year 2008 budget to $67 million, as fully documented in
    the States' estimates for actual program operating costs.
        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 (as in the case of
    Virginia) or, in other cases, will face potential lawsuits for failing
    to fulfill mandatory duties in an effective manner (as has occurred in
    Kentucky and West Virginia in the past). 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 given the recent reauthorization and revitalization of the Title
    IV AML program.
        With regard to funding for State Title IV Abandoned Mine Land (AML)
    program grants, recent congressional action to reauthorize Title IV of
    SMCRA has significantly changed the method by which State reclamation
    grants are funded. Beginning with fiscal year 2008, State Title IV
    grants are funded primarily by permanent appropriations. The only
    programs that continue to be funded through discretionary
    appropriations are high-priority Federal reclamation programs, State
    and Federal emergency programs and OSM operations. As a result, the
    States will receive mandatory funding in fiscal year 2008 of $288.4
    million for AML reclamation work. OSM also proposes to continue its
    support of the Watershed Cooperative Agreement program in the amount of
    $1.6 million, a program we strongly endorse.
        Assuming that permanent appropriations for State AML grants do, in
    fact, become a reality (and we trust they will), there are three
    remaining discretionary funding priorities for the States: minimum
    program funding; Federal emergency programs; and Clean Streams funding.
    With respect to minimum program States, under the new funding formula,
    all of the States and tribes will receive funding increases except for
    minimum program States. They remain stagnant for the next 2 fiscal
    years at $1.5 million, a level of funding that greatly inhibits the
    ability of these States to accomplish much in the way of substantive
    AML work. It is both unfair and inappropriate for these States to have
    to wait another 2 years to receive funding increases when they are the
    States most in need of AML moneys. We urge Congress to fund these
    States at the statutorily authorized level of $3 million in fiscal year
    2008 so as to level the playing field and allow these States to get on
    with the critical AML projects awaiting funding.
        We also urge Congress to approve continued funding for emergency
    programs in those States that have not assumed these programs. Funding
    the OSM emergency program should be a top priority for OSM's
    discretionary spending. This funding has allowed OSM to address the
    unanticipated AML emergencies that inevitably occur each year in States
    without State-administered emergency programs. Without this funding, it
    will be up to the States to address the emergencies that occur. In
    States that have Federally-operated emergency programs, the State AML
    programs are not structured or staffed to move quickly to address these
    dangers and safeguard the coalfield citizens whose lives and property
    are threatened by these unforeseen and often debilitating events.
    Finally, we urge Congress to approve continued funding for the Clean
    Streams Initiative. OSM has chosen to eliminate funding for this
    worthwhile program in fiscal year 2008. We believe this is a mistake.
    Significant environmental restoration of impacted streams and rivers
    has been accomplished pursuant to this program, to say nothing of the
    goodwill that the program has engendered among local communities and
    watershed groups. For the small investment of money that is
    appropriated for this program each year (approximately $3 million), the
    return is huge.
        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. 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 2008 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. We support
    continued funding for this vital initiative.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative
                          introduction and 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, Environment and Related Agencies. ITBC is a
    Native American non-profit organization, headquartered in Rapid City,
    South Dakota, comprised of 56 Federally recognized Indian Tribes within
    an 18 State region. On behalf of these members of ITBC, I would like to
    address the following issues: (1) request an appropriation of $4
    million for fiscal year 2008, to continue bison restoration efforts, to
    continue with ITBC's health care initiative, utilizing bison to treat
    and prevent diet related diseases among Native Americans, to facilitate
    marketing opportunities for ITBC member Tribes, and to continue
    providing technical assistance to ITBC member Tribes; (2) explain to
    the committee ITBC's unmet funding need of $12,344,163, and (3) update
    the committee on ITBC's present initiatives.
        Bison 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, bison were critical to survival of the
    American Indian. Bison 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 bison that has not diminished with the
    passage of time.
        Numerous Tribes committed to preserving the sacred relationship
    between Indian people and bison informally organized the ITBC as an
    effort to restore bison to Indian lands. ITBC formally organized as a
    corporation in 1992 and began actively restoring bison to Indian lands
    after receiving funding that same year as an initiative of the first
    Bush administration. At its inception, ITBC had an aggregate of 1,500
    bison between seven Tribes. Since 1992, ITBC has been consistently
    funded by Congress and with these funds has successfully restored over
    17,000 bison to Indian Country.
        Restoration of bison to Indian Reservation lands preserves the
    sacred relationship between Indian people and bison. Further, Indian
    lands that have not been productive for mainstream agricultural efforts
    were and still are suitable for bison. Since Indian Tribes have
    maintained a historical reverence and respect for bison, they have
    demonstrated a serious commitment for successful bison herd
    development. With healthy, viable bison herds, opportunities now exist
    for Tribes to utilize bison for treatment and prevention of diet
    related diseases among Native American populations and for tribal
    economic development efforts. A primary focus of ITBC, upon successful
    restoration efforts, is the development of economically sustainable
    bison herds. Further, ITBC actively promotes bison as a healthy food
    source specifically for Native American populations, resulting in
    Tribes utilizing a culturally relevant resource to promote health and
    economic self-sufficiency.
                                funding request
        The InterTribal Bison Cooperative respectfully requests an
    appropriation for fiscal year 2008 that restores funding to the
    previous fiscal year 2006 level of $4 million ($3 million that came
    from congressional actions and $1 million within the BIA's existing
    Fish and Wildlife budget). This amount will allow ITBC to continue with
    restoration efforts as well as insure successful maintenance of current
    Tribal herds. Without a restoration of the previous level of funding,
    ITBC will be unable to assist Tribes with new bison restoration efforts
    or effectively maintain existing herds. Restoration of the $4 million
    funding level will also allow continuation of the successful health
    care initiative to prevent and treat diet related diseases among Native
    American populations, and implement Tribal marketing initiatives that
    will allow Tribes to achieve economically sustainable bison projects.
                        funding shortfall and unmet need
        ITBC has been consistently funded by Congress since formal
    organization in 1992. Initially, ITBC was included in the President's
    budget until fiscal year 2000 when it was written out of the base
    budget. Since 2000, ITBC funding has been restored/appropriated by
    Congress on an annual basis.
        In fiscal year 2006, ITBC was awarded $4 million. In fiscal year
    2007, the Interior Appropriations bill, as reported by the full
    Appropriations Committee, recommended $2.7 million in funding for ITBC.
    However, as this committee is aware, that bill never became law and the
    fiscal year 2007 long term Continuing Resolution did not include much
    direction to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. ITBC was essentially zeroed
    out, but we were able to secure $1 million of base funding for direct
    support to Tribes for on-going tribal herd projects. Thus, in fiscal
    year 2007, ITBC has no Federal funding for the health initiative,
    Tribal marketing efforts, technical services to Tribes, job training,
    or ITBC administration. At the current $1 million level of funding,
    many ITBC member Tribes will not receive funding to begin or continue
    bison restoration efforts. If congressional funding is not available in
    fiscal year 2008, many ITBC member Tribes will be forced to liquidate
    their herds. Congress has invested a significant amount of funding in
    the Tribal bison restoration efforts, over a 15 year period, and to
    discontinue funds before herds reach self-sufficiency would result in a
    loss of invested funds for Congress and for Tribes.
        ITBC, while formally incorporated, is structured as a member
    cooperative and 100 percent of the appropriated funds are expended on
    the development and support of Tribal bison herds and bison product
    business ventures. A significant portion of awarded funds are
    distributed to ITBC member Tribes via a project proposal process
    developed by the consensus of members. Funds are also utilized to
    assist Tribes with technical services such as the development of herd
    management plans, identification of assured markets and the health care
    initiative.
        ITBC surveys member Tribes on an annual basis to determine unmet
    project needs and currently the total unmet need for ITBC member
    projects is approximately $12,400,000. These needs include fencing,
    supplemental feed, equipment, land management plans, veterinary
    services, and herd management staff. Thus, even the $4 million of
    funding for bison restoration we have requested will fall far short of
    the actual needs of member Tribes, but we are trying to be realistic in
    making a budget submission that indicates an understanding of budget
    realities the Interior subcommittees are faced with.
                           itbc goals and initiatives
    Restoration Efforts
        ITBC's primary goal is to restore bison to Indian Country in a
    manner that is compatible with the Tribe's cultural and spiritual
    practices. ITBC remains committed to the concept that a restoration of
    bison to Indian lands under the management of Tribes will provide the
    Tribe with cultural, spiritual, economic, and health benefits. ITBC
    member Tribes have varying sizes of herds and varying goals for
    entering into bison herd development. Some Tribes have large land bases
    that allow free-ranging bison herds that may achieve sustainability as
    agricultural efforts. Other Tribes have small land bases that sustain
    small herds but have spiritual and cultural significance for the Tribe.
    Upon achieving restoration of bison to Indian country, ITBC assists
    Tribes with herd maintenance and promotes the goal of eventual self-
    sufficient herds, or herds that will generate sufficient income to
    offset costs of maintenance.
    Herd Maintenance and Sustainability
        In 1991, only seven Tribes had bison herds on their lands in
    varying herd sizes and the bison provided little economic benefit to
    the Tribal owners. Since then, ITBC has proven extremely successful at
    bison restoration during its relatively short 15-year history. Today,
    with the support and technical assistance of ITBC, 54 Indian Tribes are
    engaged in raising bison or developing plans to raise bison, with
    approximately 17,000 animals currently owned and managed by ITBC member
    Tribes.
        Upon the successful restoration of bison to Indian country, a new
    reservation industry has resulted that positively impacts reservation
    economies. Bison production has created jobs, directly and indirectly,
    related to herd management. As a result, a significant amount of
    revenue derived from bison products is beginning to circulate through
    Indian reservation economies.
        ITBC provides technical assistance and a job training curriculum to
    member Tribes to enter into this new emerging industry. Specifically,
    ITBC has assisted nine (9) member Tribes in the past year with
    developing comprehensive business plans that include Tribal specific
    research, data collection and tribal membership meetings. Additionally,
    ITBC has conducted four (4) herd management training sessions in
    various locations throughout Indian country. ITBC additionally
    routinely assisted member Tribes with herd roundups, on-site bison
    vaccination, ear tagging and disease treatment.
    Preventive Health Care Initiative
        ITBC is committed to providing bison meat to Indian reservation
    families both as an economic development effort for Tribal bison
    producers and, more critically, as a healthy food source for Native
    Americans. 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. The epidemic rate of diabetes among Native
    American populations is well known. Bison meat, a former mainstay of
    the Native American diet, has been identified as a healthy food source
    for the prevention and treatment of diabetes.
        In April 2006, ITBC began implementation of a Health Care
    Initiative that provided bison meat to Tribes that had identified a
    specific population, through coordination with health care
    professionals, which would benefit from bison meat consumption. ITBC
    has since purchased 137,000 pounds of bison meat from member Tribes,
    processed the meat and redistributed it to 54 of the 56 member Tribes
    for health care purposes. In turn, Tribes utilized reservation based
    diabetes programs or the Indian Health Service to identify tribal
    members who would benefit from the bison meat.
        In addition to the purchase and distribution of bison meat to ITBC
    member Tribes, ITBC plans to develop an educational component to the
    health care initiative that will educate Native American families of
    the health benefits of range fed bison meat in their daily diets.
    Tribal Bison Marketing Initiative.
        Numerous ITBC Tribes have expressed an interest in seeking assured
    markets for their bison as an economic development effort and to move
    toward raising self-sustaining herds. ITBC intends to provide funding
    to assist Tribes with specific projects to market their bison including
    labeling, packaging, advertising and negotiation of specific contracts
    with purchasers. Additionally, ITBC hopes to provide technical
    assistance in areas of meat processing, cold storage facility
    development, development of distribution systems for bison meat and by-
    products. In addition to these goals of assisting individual Tribes,
    ITBC intends to develop an ITBC cooperative brand name with standards
    and labeling guarantees for Native American produced bison.
                                   conclusion
        ITBC has demonstrated success over the years by assisting its
    member Tribes in restoring bison to their native lands for cultural
    purposes, to address health needs and for economic development. ITBC
    will continue to provide technical assistance and funding to its member
    Tribes to facilitate the development of sustainable bison herds.
        ITBC and its member Tribes have created a successful new Indian
    reservation industry, tribal bison production, resulting in new money
    for reservation economies. In addition, ITBC continues to implement the
    health care initiative, provide marketing opportunities, and assist
    Tribes with achieving economically self-sufficient bison herds.
        ITBC and its member Tribes are appreciative of past and current
    support from the Congress and the administration. I urge the committee
    to consider a restoration of previous funding at the fiscal year 2006
    level to continue, without interruption, the important and successful
    efforts of bison restoration and the above discussed related benefits.
        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 bison projects and experience first hand
    our successes.
        Questions and/or comments regarding any of the issues presented
    within this testimony may be directed to Mr. Ervin Carlson, President
    or to Ms. Ivy Allard, Executive Director at (605) 394-9730.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Intertribal Timber Council
                                    summary
        Mr. Chairman, I am Nolan Colegrove, Sr., President of the
    Intertribal Timber Council. I am a member of the Hoopa Tribe and serve
    as the Hoopa Tribal government's Forest Manager. I am pleased to submit
    the following recommendations for fiscal year 2008 Indian forestry-
    related activities in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Office
    of the Special Trustee (OST):
        (1) In BIA Forestry Projects, restore the $1 million cut from the
    Timber Harvest Initiative,
        (2) In BIA Natural Resources Management, provide $4 million for ESA
    unfunded mandates, including $2.2 million designated for Northern
    Spotted Owl and marbled murrelet surveys,
        (3) In BIA Forestry Projects, increase Forest Development by $5
    million,
        (4) In BIA Natural Resources Management, direct that Integrated
    Resource Information Program funding be retained in the BIA Division of
    Trust,
        (5) Support common cost accounting practices for Wildland Fire in
    Interior and the Forest Service, and
        (6) In OST, restore Land Consolidation at the fiscal year 2007
    $59.5 million level, and direct consolidation priority for acquisition
    of Youpee interests and forest and other high value lands.
                     intertribal timber council background
        The Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) is a 31 year old organization
    of seventy forest owning tribes and Alaska Native organizations that
    collectively possess more than 90 percent of the 18 million acres of
    timberland and woodland that are under BIA trust management. These
    lands provide vitally important habitat, cultural and spiritual sites,
    recreation and subsistence uses, and through commercial forestry,
    income for the tribes and jobs for their members. In Alaska, the
    forests of Native corporations and thousands of individual allotments
    are equally important to their owners. To all our membership, our
    forests and woodlands are essential to our physical, cultural, and
    economic well-being, and their proper management is our foremost
    concern.
    (1) In BIA Forestry Projects, Restore the $1 Million Cut From the
            Timber Harvest Initiative
        For fiscal year 2008, the ITC urges that the subcommittee reject
    the administration's proposed cut of $1 million from the BIA Forestry
    Timber Harvest Initiative and maintain funding at least at the fiscal
    year 2007 level, adjusted for inflationary and salary cost increases.
    The Forestry Timber Harvest Initiative provides additional Forestry
    personnel on reservations where harvest falls short of planned levels
    under forest management plans. Harvesting a tribe's annual allowable
    cut pursuant to its forest management plan is an integral part of the
    trust responsibility of the United States for managing Indian forests.
    The National Indian Forest Resources Management Act requires Indian
    forests to be managed for sustained yield and harvest is vital to
    protect the health of our forests from threats of catastrophic loss
    from insects, disease, and wildfire. Because these Harvest Initiative
    funds are targeted primarily at harvest and build upon existing forest
    program infrastructure, these funds are particularly efficient at
    moving additional timber out of the woods in the BIA's Northwest and
    Pacific Regions. The administration's proposed $1 million reduction to
    the program would affect ten or twelve reservations, would reduce the
    BIA's annual harvest level by about 52 million board feet (about 10
    percent of the total harvest from Indian land nation-wide), and would
    result in a loss of approximately $7.7 million in revenues to tribal
    governments, as well as jobs in logging and processing which are
    important to local communities.
        Indian forest lands remain the most productive of Federal forest
    lands. The Timber Harvest Initiative is a key element in maintaining
    that productivity and supports forest health. Without it, harvest
    levels will fall significantly, hazard fuels will build up, and Federal
    trust responsibility to effectively manage Indian forests for the
    benefit of the tribes will be compromised, tribal revenues will suffer,
    and rural jobs and the communities they support will be further
    strained. The cutting of the $1 million is imprudent, and the funds
    must be restored.
    (2) In BIA Natural Resources Management, provide $4 million for ESA
            unfunded mandates, including $2.2 million designated for
            Northern Spotted Owl and marbled murrelet surveys
        As part of its trust responsibility to manage Indian forest land,
    the BIA must consult with the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries under the
    Endangered Species Act (ESA). The administration's fiscal year 2008
    request for ESA-related funding covers just two Central Office
    personnel. But the ESA affects many activities that must be carried out
    in the field at the reservation level. In BIA's Pacific Region, for
    example, there are over 290 federally listed species and 102 federally
    recognized Indian tribes, but there are no funds provided for surveys
    or other required ESA field work. To correct this, the ITC requests
    that BIA ESA funding be increased to $4 million. Within the range of
    the NSO and murrelet, ESA funding is needed to harvest timber and
    conduct other forest management activities. At least $2.2 million
    should be designated in BIA ESA funding to support NSO and murrelet
    impact assessments. The balance of the $4 million should be available
    for additional BIA ESA priorities.
        BLM gets slightly more than $.08 an acre for threatened and
    endangered species management on its 262 million acres. At similar
    funding levels, BIA should receive $4 million a year for the 50 million
    acres under its management.
    (3) In BIA Forestry Projects, increase Forest Development by $5 million
        In two reports over the past 12 years, independent national reviews
    by blue ribbon groups of forestry professionals have recommended that
    per acre Federal funding for Indian trust forests should be comparable
    to that provided for the USDA Forest Service (USFS).\1\ Both reports
    estimate that an additional $120 million would be required. In
    recognition of the fiscal constraints confronting Congress, we
    recommend that efforts to reduce the funding gap be directed first at
    increasing support for the Forest Development budget in Forestry
    Projects in the Operation of Indian Programs Natural Resources
    Management budget activity. Forest Development funding is a dedicated
    national program. Currently, about one-sixth of the 6 million acres of
    Indian trust commercial forest is in need of either replanting or
    thinning. This backlog must be reduced to improve the productivity of
    Indian forest lands.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Indian forests receive only about one third of the level
    provided for U.S. Forest Service. (Fiscal year 1991 BIA per acre:
    $4.14, USFS per acre: $11.69. See IFMAT 1 Report, November 1993, Table
    11, page V-4. fiscal year 2005 BIA per acre: $2.83, USFS per acre:
    $9.51. See IFMAT 2 Report, December 2003, Table 2, page 9.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The BIA's fiscal year 2005 Forest Development budget provided
    treatment on 58,000 acres. For fiscal year 2008, the goal is just
    52,000 acres, a reduction of more than 10 percent over 3 years. In the
    face of a million acre backlog, more acres must be treated, not less. A
    $5 million increase to the fiscal year 2008 request will treat an
    additional 30,000 acres.
        Compared to almost any other Federal forest resource, Indian trust
    forest lands continue to generate significant timber production and
    should be supported. Investing an additional $5 million to start
    reducing the BIA Forest Development backlog will help fulfill the
    Federal trust responsibility by narrowing the funding gap between BIA
    Forestry and the U.S. Forest Service. Nationally, Forest Development
    will increase timber harvest and value, improve forest health by
    reducing the threat of fire, infestation and disease, and, through
    reforestation, contribute to carbon sequestration. An additional
    benefit is that this effort will produce woody biomass to advance the
    Nation's renewable energy initiatives.
    (4) In BIA Natural Resources Management, direct that the Integrated
            Resources Information Program budget be retained in the BIA
            Division of Trust
        ITC asks the subcommittee to direct that the $1.25 million
    requested by the administration for the Integrated Resources
    Information Program in BIA Natural Resources Management be retained in
    the Division of Trust and that those funds not be transferred to the
    Information Technology budget and the new National Geospatial Resource
    Center in Albuquerque. These funds are essential for the Division of
    Trust to retain personnel who can process and apply GIS and remote
    sensing data for BIA Trust programs--Forestry, Agriculture and Range,
    Water, Minerals. IT personnel at the new National Geospatial Resource
    Center (NGRC) simply do not have that capability, yet for the past few
    years, the Trust Division's Integrated Resource Information Program
    funding has been stripped from the Division of Trust and transferred to
    the NGRC. If those funds continue to be stripped from the Trust
    Division's GIS and remote sensing experts for Forestry and other Trust
    programs and shipped off to the NGRC, the BIA overall is in danger of
    losing its capability of processing and applying modern GIS and remote
    sensing data to trust programs serving tribes.
        While some larger tribes are able to establish their own GIS/remote
    sensing capabilities, the BIA is in danger of losing essential GIS/
    remote sensing capacity it needs both to serve tribes without that
    capability and to conduct the BIA's own trust management
    responsibilities. The ability for tribes and BIA programs to receive,
    understand and use modern land management data is critical to the trust
    responsibility, and the new NGRC simply hasn't that capability.
    Assuring that Integrated Resource Information Program funds stay where
    they are budgeted and needed will help address this problem.
    (5) Support common cost accounting practices for Wildland Fire in
            Interior and the Forest Service
        The ITC supports establishment of common and consistent cost
    accounting practices and business principles for fire budget
    administration and tracking by the Department of Interior (DoI) and
    USFS. Standardization will provide more accurate and consistent costs
    for all wildland fire activities and would also allow Congress to
    appropriate fire budgets equitably between all Federal agencies.
        Currently, the USFS funds hotshot crews from Suppression Accounts
    while DoI funds its hotshot crews out of Preparedness accounts. The DoI
    practice distorts and underestimates actual suppression costs while
    placing a severe burden on agency Preparedness budgets, and, as a
    consequence, many DoI agencies are having difficulty attracting,
    training and retaining the next generation of fire fighters.
    (6) In OST, restore Land Consolidation to the requested $59.5 million
            level, and direct consolidation priority for acquisition of
            Youpee interests and forest and other high value lands
        The ITC urges that funding for the Land Acquisition program be
    restored to the fiscal year 2007 request of $59.5 million. Land
    fractionation is a root cause for many of the Interior Department's
    difficulties and high costs in trust fund and asset administration.
    Fractionation must continue to be aggressively addressed. We disagree
    that funding should be reduced to just $10 million under the
    administration's rationale that a ``pause'' in the program is
    warranted.
        The ITC urges that consolidation focus not only on highly
    fractionated properties, but also on (a) purchase of the so-called
    Youpee interests to avoid the enormous cost of un-doing the previous
    acquisition of highly fractionated interests through escheat; and (b)
    consolidation of high value lands, including forest lands, prior to
    ownership becoming so severely fractionated that productive use of the
    property becomes problematic. Consolidating high value lands can
    generate immediate savings in administrative costs and will enable the
    United States to fulfill its trust obligations to manage the Indian
    trust estate.
        That concludes the ITC fiscal year 2008 testimony. Thank you.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Kent Land Trust
        Madam Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: The Kent
    Land Trust (KLT) appreciates the opportunity to present this testimony
    in support of a $770,000 appropriation to the State of Connecticut from
    the Forest Legacy Program for the second phase of the Skiff Mountain
    project. KLT is a non-profit land conservation organization with a
    mission to preserve the rural character of the Town of Kent,
    Connecticut. Founded in 1989, the KLT owns over 1,000 acres and manages
    another 941 acres under conservation easement.
        Skiff Mountain is our organizations top priority for conservation
    because of its unique ecological and scenic attributes, and the
    recurring threat of development on the mountain. In 2003, the KLT
    purchased over 250 acres of property adjacent to the Appalachian Trail
    that was slated for residential development and is now managing it for
    conservation purposes. We have been encouraging private landowners on
    Skiff Mountain to pursue conservation of their private lands and we are
    very supportive of the current initiative to manage and protect
    hundreds of acres of forested land on Skiff Mountain in perpetuity
    through the Forest Legacy Program.
        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; this would complete the second and final phase of
    this outstanding conservation effort. This network of forested
    properties, totaling 765 acres, straddles the Kent-Sharon town line in
    Litchfield County, an area under tremendous large-lot development
    pressures. The protection of Skiff Mountain--part of the newly enacted
    Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area--would conserve a large
    tract of unfragmented forest that provides linkages to over 7,000 acres
    of other protected land.
        In fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $1.182 million in Forest
    Legacy funding for the protection of the first 473 acres. In order to
    complete the project in fiscal year 2008, $770,000 is needed from the
    Forest Legacy Program to help preserve the remaining 292 acres and keep
    intact this conservation corridor of the Housatonic River Watershed and
    four-State Highlands region. These funds will be matched by local
    funding and land value donation. We hope that you will provide the
    $770,000 to ensure the success of this effort in the fiscal year 2008
    Interior appropriations bill.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this 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 2008 Budget.
        Congress this year passed a number of new rules aimed at reducing
    ``earmarks,'' and there is concern among tribal leaders about how these
    changes might affect tribal programs. We are especially concerned after
    the fiscal year 2007 budget was passed without any earmarks, and
    several critical tribal programs did not receive funding. As you know,
    many tribal programs are funded each year in the Interior budget only
    because Congress recognizes their importance an elects to restore them.
    This is true both for nationwide programs that the Bush administration
    seems intent on eliminating--like the Johnson O' Malley program--and
    for the base budgets of smaller regional programs--such as Circle of
    Flight--that used to be part of the BIA base budget but were
    inexplicably dropped. These programs are not ``earmarks'' of the kind
    Congress and the American people want to see eliminated. They are
    proven, important programs for which stable funding is critical. Many
    of these programs will fold entirely if they lose funding for one year.
    I hope that Congress chooses to exercise its ``power of the purse'' and
    does not simply allow the administration's cuts to go unchallenged in
    the name of earmark reform.
                            bureau of indian affairs
        Education.--We understand that education funding has been increased
    in some areas, but the increases are all targeted at improving BIA
    schools. To balance the increases, the administration proposes to cut
    education programs that benefit students outside of BIA schools, such
    as JOM and higher education scholarships. Because the Band's member
    children attend public schools, this funding forms the core of the
    Band's education program.
        For the second year in a row, the administration has proposed to
    eliminate JOM funding. The JOM program provides funding for
    supplemental education programs for Indian students attending public
    schools, such as academic support programs, counselors or cultural
    education. The administration attempts to justify this by saying that
    the Department of Education provides enough funding for all youth
    attending public school, including Indian children, so JOM funding is
    ``duplicative.'' This is not true.
        There are two types of funding available from the Department of
    Education, and neither one ``duplicates'' JOM funding. First, Title I
    grants are provided to schools based on the number of low-income
    students. Those funds may be used either for school-wide improvement
    projects or for targeted programs for children identified as at-risk of
    failing. Title I funds are directed at services for low-income or low-
    performing students. These services are important and, like all other
    public school resources, qualifying Indian students would have access
    to them on the same basis as other students. However, these grants do
    not support programs specifically aimed at supporting Indian students.
    The Department of Education provides some funds for Indian students
    under Title VII, but the Department has not increased for Indian
    student programs for several years. If the JOM program were eliminated,
    the net result would be that less money would be available for Indian
    student programs.
        At Lac du Flambeau, JOM money funds a staff counselor position at
    the local high school. Most of our children attend an elementary school
    that is over 90 percent Indian, and transition to a high school in
    which they are a minority. The counselor provides academic support and
    assistance with this transition. Without JOM money, this position would
    be eliminated. The high school provides no comparable services for
    Indian students and has no money available to fund the position if the
    Tribe cannot do so.
      --We urge the subcommittee to restore full funding ($16.3 million) to
            the JOM program and to reject the proposed $5.3 million cut to
            higher education scholarships.
        Natural Resources.--Tribes are leaders in natural resource
    protection and this funding is essential to maintain these programs.
    The Tribe 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. We support the administration's proposal to fully fund the
    Wildlife and Parks budget, and we thanks the subcommittee for its
    support of this funding in the past. Lac du Flambeau depends on this
    funding to conduct wildlife and fisheries management activities, such
    as to electrofishing and wildlife surveys, and to collect data to
    support the fish and wildlife populations on the Lac du Flambeau
    Reservation. However, we strongly oppose any attempts by the
    administration to further cut back on natural resource funding.
        We are especially concerned about the administration's proposal to
    eliminate the Circle of Flight program. 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.
        We also ask the subcommittee to restore funding for Water
    Management, Planning & Development to fiscal year 2006 levels ($7.4
    million). This funding supports tribes in their efforts to establish
    Clean Water Act standards. The Band is now in the process of applying
    for ``Treatment as a State'' status under the Clean Water Act, and this
    funding is essential to us.
      --We strongly urge the subcommittee to restore $600,000 for the
            Tribal Wetland and Waterfowl Enhancement Initiative (Circle of
            Flight).
      --We ask the subcommittee to provide $7.4 million for Water
            Management, Planning & Development.
      --We urge the subcommittee to reject the administration's proposal to
            cut $1 million from the Forestry program.
        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.--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. 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. This inequity threatens to undermine tribal self-
    determination.
      --We urge the subcommittee to restore full Public Law 93-638 pay cost
            funding for tribes in fiscal year 2008 and to restore pay cost
            funding not received in fiscal year 2002-2007 through a special
            appropriation.
      --The Band also requests an appropriation of $70,600 to provide a 5
            percent cost of living increase for its employees.
        Law Enforcement. Conservation law enforcement officers are a
    significant part of the Tribe's police force. These officers are
    primarily responsible for enforcing hunting and fishing regulations
    related to the exercise of treaty rights, but in reality they have a
    much larger role in law enforcement. They are often first to respond to
    an emergency situations, and would be the first line of defense for any
    meth labs found on or near the Reservation. After overall law
    enforcement funding was cut in fiscal year 2006, the Department of
    Justice limited eligibility for tribal law enforcement grants,
    excluding conservation officers. As a result, our officers are now 100
    percent dependent on tribal funds. We appreciate the BIA's proposal to
    increase law enforcement funds, and we hope that some of this increase
    can go to conservation law enforcement officer fighting meth on
    Reservations like Lac du Flambeau.
      --We ask that the subcommittee direct a portion of the BIA's proposed
            law enforcement increase to conservation officers.
                        environmental protection agency
        Clean Water Program.--The Clean Water Program provides grants to
    tribes under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act to protect water
    quality and aquatic ecosystems. The Lac du Flambeau Clean Water program
    maintains and improves water quality as development continues for the
    tremendous amount of surface water within the exterior boundaries of
    the Reservation. According to the 2000 Census, the Lac du Flambeau
    Reservation, with 27.09 square miles of water area, includes nearly
    one-half of all of the water area (56.34 square miles) within Wisconsin
    Indian Reservations. The Band's GIS Program indicates that there are
    260 lakes covering 15,600 acres within the Reservation. Additionally
    there are 71 miles of streams, and wetlands cover 24,000 acres. Surface
    waters cover nearly one-half of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation. We
    received $171,000 in fiscal year 2005, the minimum required to support
    the Band's program. In fiscal year 2006, the administration reduced
    this to $150,000. Continued operation of the program requires
    restoration of this $21,000 cut.
      --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.
        Indian Environmental General Assistance Program.--We also request
    that the committee increase funding for the Indian Environmental
    General Assistance Program (GAP). 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. Unfortunately, GAP
    funding has steadily decreased over the past several years. 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.''
      --The Band requests that the subcommittee increase funding for the
            Indian Environmental General Assistance Program (GAP) to $68.3
            million.
                             national park service
        Historic Preservation.--In 1995, Congress began encouraging tribes
    to assume historic preservation responsibilities as part of self-
    determination. There are currently 64 tribes in the United States--
    eight 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 2006 there were 58 THPOs, and Lac du
    Flambeau received $57,374. 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.
      --The Band requests that $10.4 million be allocated within the
            Historic Preservation Fund for Tribal Historic Preservation
            Officers (THPOs).
                             indian health service
        Contract Health.--Federal funding for health services has fallen
    dramatically behind the rising cost of health care over the past 5
    years. In fiscal year 2000, The Band's shortfall for health care was
    $1.2 million. We anticipate the fiscal year 2008 shortfall to be in
    excess of $3 million. This deficit has increased 27 percent annually.
    Despite rising costs, the administration proposes an increase of only
    $49 million for contract health service. A much more substantial
    increase is needed to address the need across Indian county.
      --We urge the subcommittee to significantly increase funding for
            Contract Health Services.
        Service Expansion.--In order to offer expanded dental services to
    tribal members, the Tribe is now working to open our doors to Medical
    Assistance patients for dental services in the surrounding four-county
    area. Financial support ($600,000) is needed for new equipment. We also
    request $200,000 funding to increase availability of on-site optical
    services in connection with our new clinic, scheduled to be opened in
    June of 2008. All optical services for tribal members are now
    contracted to outside vendors.
                                   conclusion
        We come before the committee as we have in past years to underscore
    the importance of these tribal programs and great need at Lac du
    Flambeau and across Indian country. We would also like to thank the
    subcommittee for your past support, especially for your support of the
    Lac du Flambeau Boarding School Project. With help from this
    subcommittee, our efforts to restore the old BIA boarding school and
    create a cultural and educational center are well underway, and we have
    raised additional funds from several outside sources to help with the
    project.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Mason Township Residents
        Madam Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of a request
    for a $550,000 Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriation in fiscal
    year 2008 to permit the U.S. Forest Service to acquire the 664-acre
    Haystack Notch property in the White Mountain National Forest in Maine.
        I would also like to commend the chairman and other subcommittee
    members for your support for Federal land acquisition and urge you to
    increase funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is so
    vital to protecting critical resource and recreation lands nationwide.
        The citizens and landowners of Mason Township wish to support this
    acquisition to the White Mountain National Forest. Over the last 2
    years, we have collaborated with conservation groups to protect the
    Haystack Notch Property. As new comers and 4th generation residents
    alike, we value the remote and aesthetic qualities of the National
    Forest and surroundings. Many of us have fond memories of trout
    fishing, hunting and hiking adventures. We wish for future generations
    to have the same opportunity. We believe the uniqueness of our rural
    township, characterized by the rugged mountains, is best suited for
    Federal ownership and conservation. Preserving acreage for public
    access is paramount to secure recreational opportunities, which in
    turn, support our local economy. The White Mountain National Forest
    will ensure the aquatic and terrestrial habitats are managed and
    protected in an exemplary fashion.
        With 770,000 acres of endless great granite stretching from New
    Hampshire to Maine and located just over an hour and a half drive north
    of Boston, the White Mountain National Forest is one of the most
    popular recreation areas in the highly developed Northeastern area of
    the United States. The forest contains the majestic Presidential Range,
    which includes Mt. Washington, one of the highest and most visited
    mountains in the United States. In addition, the heavily traveled
    Appalachian Trial runs throughout the forest. Moose, black bear, bald
    eagles and American peregrine falcons find home in the White Mountains,
    and a thorough network of trails provides easy access to the forest for
    the 6.5 million campers, hikers, hunters, fishermen, swimmers, boaters,
    skiers and other outdoor enthusiasts who annually visit the forest.
    Over 184 species of birds find habitat in the forest and numerous
    aquatic species such as the Eastern Brook trout and Atlantic salmon are
    found in the many pristine rivers that run throughout the forest. A
    small portion of the WMNF is located in Maine and includes the Caribou-
    Speckled Mountain Wilderness Area, designated by Congress in 1990 and
    covering 12,000 acres of public land on the WMNF. It is the largest and
    one of only two Wilderness areas in Maine, located south of Route 2
    near the small town of Gilead.
        Immediately adjacent to the Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness
    Area and surrounded on three sides by U.S. Forest Service ownership is
    the 664-acre Haystack Notch property available for acquisition in
    fiscal year 2008 that will provide significant public access into the
    wilderness area. The property is located in Mason Township in western
    Maine, where recently a large amount of timber company lands are being
    disposed of and turned over to development and subdivision. The local
    public desires that opportunities continue for traditional uses such as
    hiking, sightseeing, fishing, hunting, trapping and snowmobiling. In
    particular, the Miles Notch and Haystack Notch trailheads are located
    on this property and link to other trails, including the Red Rock and
    Great Brook trails, which also pass through the Caribou-Speckled
    Wilderness. From a recreational perspective, this acquisition would
    solidify access to these trails, trailheads, and this part of the
    wilderness and these opportunities could be lost if the tract is sold
    to another private entity and the property is subdivided.
        This property also provides important wildlife values and has
    natural wetlands and two key perennial streams, the West Branch of the
    Pleasant River and Miles Brook, which are tributaries of the
    Androscoggin River, along with several intermittent streams. The WMNF
    recently evaluated the West Branch of the Pleasant River and found it
    to be eligible for Wild and Scenic designation. Lower reaches of the
    West Branch are believed to have important habitat for the wood turtle,
    a Regional Forester's Sensitive Species. The river also offers
    significant fishing opportunities as it contains runs of wild rainbow
    trout and brook trout. Purchase of the property will provide additional
    protection for the watershed and the fisheries and aquatic species
    dependent on high water quality.
        The White Mountain National Forest is one of most intensively used
    national forests in the country and is within a day's drive of over 70
    million people. If this land is not acquired and protected by the U.S.
    Forest Service, it is likely that it will be developed and subdivided
    soon. Thus, the recreation, watershed, wildlife and fisheries, and
    vegetation management values would be foregone. The acquisition has
    support from the community in and around the town of Mason.
        An appropriation of $550,000 in fiscal year 2008 from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund is needed to ensure the addition of this
    critical public access property to the forest.
        Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, for this opportunity to provide
    testimony.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Middlesboro Intermediate School
        Madame Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a
    $1.9 million appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to
    allow the National Park Service to acquire the final 1,922 acres of the
    Fern Lake Watershed property within the Cumberland Gap National
    Historical Park in Kentucky.
        I am a fourth grade social studies teacher at Middlesboro
    Intermediate School in Middlesboro, Kentucky. As part of our fourth
    grade curriculum my students study local and State history, including
    the importance of National Parks and how they help preserve our
    environment and our past. We are fortunate to be located within five
    blocks of the Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. As a school, we
    visit the park often to gain insight into nature, pioneer life and
    Westward Expansion. The park is often used to enhance our study of
    social studies. When we found out that the park was attempting to
    acquire additional land for the park we wanted to offer our support.
    Immediately my students expressed a desire to assist with the effort to
    protect this natural resource that is vital to our community. The fact
    that the new property included Fern Lake, our only water source for the
    city of Middlesboro, strengthened our commitment to this project. The
    results of their efforts were letters they produced and sent to our
    elected officials. This opportunity has allowed us to be active
    citizens and support our community in protecting a priceless natural
    resource and national treasure. We are very grateful to Senator Mitch
    McConnell and Congressman Hal Rogers for their leadership on this
    project, and we strongly support their efforts to secure additional
    funding for Cumberland Gap so that we can protect this tremendous
    natural resource that we benefit from in so many ways.
        Cumberland Gap National Historical Park stretches for 20 miles
    along Cumberland Mountain and contains 20,000 acres of historical,
    cultural, and natural resources. Located where the State borders of
    Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia meet, this significant break in the
    Appalachian Mountain chain provided the first transmountain opening to
    the Mississippi Valley frontier. For thousands of years, large game
    animals moved through the Gap in their migratory journeys and created
    well-defined traces. Native Americans followed these trails and in the
    17th century established Warrior's Path, which looped southward through
    the Cumberland Gap and connected the Ohio Valley with the Shenandoah
    and the Potomac. These rich hunting lands became known to a handful of
    European settlers and in 1775, Daniel Boone was commissioned to blaze a
    road through the Gap.
        Boone's Trace evolved into Wilderness Road and marked his place in
    history as a frontiersman and pioneer. Immigration through the Gap
    began immediately, and during the Revolution, Boone and other settler's
    secured claim to western lands for the young Nation. From 1775 to 1810,
    between 200,000 and 300,000 men, women, children crossed the Gap into
    Kentucky, which concomitantly became the Union's 15 State. Cumberland
    Gap, the ``door to the West,'' funneled more than a third of a million
    people from the East to the new lands of the interior.
        In addition to its rich history, Cumberland Gap possesses the
    natural beauty of Appalachian mountain country and supports diverse
    animal life, including black bear, fox, and wild turkey. The park's
    resources provide habitat for the endangered Indiana bat and the
    threatened blackside dace, a small fish found solely in this area. In
    autumn, hawk migration takes place and as many as 50 to 100 hawks and
    other birds of prey can be seen lifting off at the Gap on their way to
    the Gulf States. Lush with vegetation, the Gap also hosts 59 state-
    listed rare plant species. Further, with 50 miles of hiking trails,
    visitors can experience spectacular views and trace the footsteps of
    early settlers.
        In 2003, Congress approved the Fern Lake Conservation and
    Recreation Act. The legislation's goal was to protect Fern Lake and its
    surrounding watershed lands in order to ensure the drinking water
    supply for the City of Middlesboro, Kentucky. Among other actions, the
    act authorized the acquisition of Fern Lake watershed lands and
    expanded the Cumberland Gap NHP boundary to incorporate the lake and
    the watershed.
        This year, an opportunity exists to implement the goals of the act
    and take a critical step towards permanent protection of the Fern Lake
    watershed by acquiring the bulk of the watershed area. Available for
    acquisition in fiscal year 2008 is the final 1,922-acre parcel of the
    Fern Lake watershed property acquisition, encompassing all of the
    ridgelines that surround Fern Lake and containing numerous streams that
    flow directly into the lake, including over two miles of river frontage
    along both sides of Little Yellow Creek. This acquisition would also
    protect the vista from Pinnacle Overlook, one of the park's most
    valuable scenic resources and popular attractions, and enhance
    recreational opportunities at the park. This funding would augment
    previous LWCF appropriations for the project, including $1 million in
    fiscal year 2005 and $900,000 in fiscal year 2007. Full funding in
    fiscal year 2008 will result in the completion of this important
    project and the protection of the entire 3,795-acre Fern Lake Watershed
    property.
        I thank you, Madame Chairwoman, for the opportunity to submit this
    testimony and I respectfully request that the subcommittee provide an
    appropriation of $1.9 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    account to complete this important acquisition at Cumberland Gap
    National Historic Park.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Montana Water Trust
        The Montana Water Trust is respectfully requesting that the Senate
    Interior, Environment and Appropriations Subcommittee to increase
    funding for endangered species conservation, especially incentive-based
    ESA conservation programs such as the Landowner Incentive Program (LIP)
    and the Private Stewardship Grants Program (PSGP). The Federal Budget
    for fiscal year 2008 submitted to Congress by the Bush administration
    allocated no funding for either the LIP or PSGP (fiscal year 2006
    funding was $6.9 million for PSG and $19 million for LIP). We strongly
    urge the subcommittee to increase funding in fiscal year 2008 for both
    the LIP and PSPG conservation programs to aid landowners in voluntary
    recovery efforts for ESA-listed species.
        The LIP and PSGP allow private landowners to voluntarily protect
    critical habitat, which aids in the recovery and protection of
    endangered and threatened species. In Montana, these voluntary,
    incentive-based conservation efforts on private lands are essential for
    providing connectivity for fish, wildlife, and our celebrated natural
    resources. The PSGP and LIP programs have successfully contributed to
    enhancing the economic and ecologic health of Montana's last best
    places, such as the Rocky Mountain Front and the Big Hole River.
    funding from programs like the lip and psgp help montana ranchers keep
                         fish wet and watersheds whole
        The Montana Water Trust applied to the USFWS Private Stewardship
    Grant Program in 2007 for cost-share of our project: Streamflow
    Restoration in the Clark Fork Watershed. We currently manage 20
    instream flow agreements in six of Montana's watersheds, restoring over
    45 million gallons of water each day to streams important for fish,
    wildlife, and recreation. We recognize that water is not only vital for
    fish and wildlife, but is also essential to the success of agricultural
    communities. That's why we use a variety of incentive-based agreements
    that benefit landowners, streamflows and communities.
        The Montana Water Trust requested that the PSGP provide $40,000 of
    the total project cost of $288,250. This project will restore and
    protect streamflows in dewatered tributaries important for spawning and
    migration of:
      --bull trout (``threatened'' under the ESA)
      --westslope cutthroat trout (a listing candidate for the ESA, a
            ``sensitive'' species with BLM and USFS, and a Montana
            ``species of concern'')
        The PSG grant will allow the Water Trust to sign long-term
    contracts with willing landowners that transfer senior water rights
    from consumptive (irrigation) use to instream flow. If funded, our PSG
    project will keep fish wet and streams flowing in the following
    prioritized tributaries:
      --Middle Clark Fork Basin: Ninemile Creek;
      --Bitterroot Basin: Lolo Creek;
      --Blackfoot Basin: Keep Cool Creek and Stonewall Creek; and
      --Flathead Basin: Dayton Creek and Ronan Creek.
        Water is the backbone of a healthy, wild landscape. Yet over 4,000
    miles of Montana's streams and rivers are ``chronically or periodically
    dewatered,'' according to Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. Dewatering
    refers to a reduction in streamflow beyond the point where habitat is
    adequate for fish. Since over 90 percent of surface water is diverted
    for irrigation, MWT partners with willing landowners to transfer water
    rights to instream flow. We focus on re-watering small tributaries,
    during the hottest, driest months of the year, which coincides with the
    time most irrigators are diverting water from streams.
    voluntary endangered species conservation programs, like the psg, allow
     the montana water trust to partner with private landowners to protect
         and restore imperiled stream habitat using a win-win approach
        Please consider increasing funding for ESA core and conservation
    programs, especially the PSG and LIP, to allow private landowners the
    chance to engage in voluntary habitat protection. These programs have
    provided funding for many excellent cooperative conservation projects
    in the past. We sincerely hope the subcommittee will create future
    opportunities for Montanans and all American landowners to protect our
    Nation's land, water, and wildlife resources. Thank you for your time.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club
        The Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club supports an
    appropriation of $2.5 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    to the U.S. Forest Service to purchase lands along the Middle Fork
    American River and the Middle Yuba River in Tahoe and Eldorado National
    Forests, California.
        The Chapter also urges the subcommittee to recommend total
    appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund much larger
    than the miniscule appropriations in the President's budget. Increased
    appropriations are urgently needed to reduce the enormous nationwide
    backlog of critical private inholdings that should be acquired.
        Land grants to the Central Pacific Railroad created an irrational
    square-mile checkerboard pattern of public and private lands around the
    railroad's route across the Sierra Nevada. The checkerboard pattern of
    ownership makes efficient and effective management of public lands in
    the checkerboard to enhance forests, water quality, wildlife habitat,
    and recreation impossible. There are numerous areas in the checkerboard
    with exceptional wildlife, recreation, and scenic values. Consolidation
    of public ownership in these exceptional areas will prevent degradation
    of their values by development on the intervening private lands.
        Consolidation of public ownership in the checkerboard areas with
    exceptional values has been a high priority of the Mother Lode Chapter
    for decades.
        Thanks to the foresight of past Congresses, thousands of acres of
    private land in checkerboard areas with exceptional values--the Castle
    Peak area and the North Fork American Wild River--have been acquired by
    LWCF appropriations. The Chapter urges you to build on these
    achievements by recommending the requested appropriations for fiscal
    year 2008.
        Checkerboard parcels along the Middle Fork American River and the
    Middle Yuba River are available for acquisition in fiscal year 2008.
                           middle fork american river
        The Middle Fork American parcels, with a total area of about 2000
    acres, are located along the river's 25 miles of deep, very rugged,
    remote, and highly scenic canyon between the French Meadows and Oxbow
    Reservoirs of the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA).
        Most of the canyon is in relatively unspoiled condition because it
    is so rugged and remote. The pure waters of the Middle Fork American
    River are a major source of high quality water for the rapidly
    expanding Sacramento metropolitan area and support an excellent trout
    fishery maintained by natural reproduction. The canyon provides
    opportunities for high quality hiking, hunting, camping, swimming, rock
    climbing, and wildlife observation to the Sacramento and San Francisco
    metropolitan areas.
        Since the river is the boundary between Tahoe and Eldorado National
    Forests, the parcels available for acquisition lie in both national
    forests. The Forests manage the public lands along the Middle Fork to
    maintain old forest habitat, protect the canyon's unique biological and
    water quality values, and provide recreation. Inconsistent management
    of the public and private lands in the canyon could significantly
    degrade the canyon and the Middle Fork's excellent water quality.
    Consolidation of public ownership in the canyon would promote
    protection of the Middle Fork's forests, riparian ecosystem, and water
    quality.
                               middle yuba river
        Four parcels in Tahoe National Forest, with an area of nearly 1,000
    acres, are available in fiscal year 2008 in the vicinity of the Middle
    Yuba River in Sierra and Nevada Counties. According to Forest Service
    biologists, there have been bald eagle sightings near these parcels,
    and the area has historically served as spotted owl territory. The
    proposed acquisitions include parcels along and adjacent to the Middle
    Yuba River in the first 4 miles downstream from Milton Reservoir.
    Acquisition of these parcels would help protect the riparian corridor
    and ensure public access to almost all of this stretch, which is
    recognized as a good to excellent trout stream. Acquisition of a 640-
    acre parcel in the Milton Creek watershed north of the Middle Yuba
    would protect a segment of the Pacific Crest Trail and views from the
    trail, riparian habitat along Milton Creek, and forest lands in the
    Milton Creek watershed.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust
        Madam Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: Thank you
    for this opportunity to testify in support of a fiscal year 2008 Land
    and Water Conservation Fund appropriation that will make possible a big
    leap forward in protecting a valuable wildlife ecosystem and recreation
    area in Washington's Central Cascades. This appropriation will permit
    the U.S. Forest Service to acquire three critical properties with
    multiple public benefits and further consolidate land-protection
    investments already made in this region. These properties include three
    full sections of forestland in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie and Wenatchee
    National Forests at Dandy Pass, Big Creek, and Jim Creek.
        I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairwoman
    and subcommittee members for their leadership in supporting ample
    funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund account, which
    provides critical Federal support for projects of importance to
    communities across the Nation.
        My name is Nancy Keith, I am the executive director of the
    Mountains To Sound Greenway Trust, located in Seattle, Washington. The
    Greenway is a broad landscape corridor that stretches along 100 miles
    of Interstate 90 in Washington State from the waterfront in Seattle and
    through the Central Cascades to the edge of desert grasslands in
    Central Washington. The Greenway includes hundreds of outdoor
    recreation trails, parks and campgrounds, spectacular alpine scenery,
    critical high country wildlife habitat, historic towns, lakes, rivers
    and over 700,000 acres of publicly-owned working farms and forests,
    just outside the Seattle Metropolitan Area.
        The Greenway Trust is an award-winning, non-profit coalition that
    has brought business, government and citizen interest groups together
    to protect this connected green corridor. Through the Trust's work,
    today, most of the landscape not already developed along I-90 is
    protected in public ownership as the Mountains to Sound Greenway.
    Because the Greenway provides a wide array of public benefits, from
    habitat, recreation and cultural and environmental values, it is a
    Federally-designated National Scenic Byway.
        By uniting hikers, corporate executives, government leaders,
    environmentalists and community advocates around shared conservation
    and quality of life goals, the Trust has built a strong program to
    encourage public land acquisition along I-90 and support environmental
    stewardship and educational activities. We provided a visible example
    of the way cooperation among diverse interests can combine careful
    planning for growth balanced with preservation of forested open spaces,
    and clean air and water, for ourselves and for future generations.
        The proposed acquisitions in the Greenway are all within the
    boundaries of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie and Wenatchee national forests,
    which share a common border that runs north and south along the crest
    of the Cascade Mountains. The Pacific Crest Trail that runs from Mexico
    to Canada, traverses this area between these two national forests and
    near the lands we recommend to you for Land and Water funding.
        Public acquisition of these lands will bring significant benefits.
    Most importantly, these acquisitions will continue a decades-long
    effort by both public and private foresters to consolidate fragmented
    ownerships and eliminate the checkerboard pattern left on this
    landscape by railroad land grants that are almost a century old. The
    original railroad through the Cascades was built by the Northern
    Pacific Railway, which received land grants from the Federal Government
    in alternating square miles along the route.
        This ownership pattern creates problems for both private and
    Federal land managers as they work to protect wildlife habitat, water
    quality and recreation and manage efficient, productive forestry.
    Fragmented forestlands present difficulties for both public and private
    forest managers with respect to fire suppression, containment and
    eradication of invasive species, limits on public access, and
    protection of watersheds.
        Without protection, further fragmentation is likely. The rising
    cost of housing in King County and the increasing traffic congestion
    caused by a growing population makes the Cascades attractive for those
    seeking less expensive first homes and more extravagant second homes,
    exacerbating the challenges presented by checkerboard ownership.
        Acquisition of parcels in this area is part of an ongoing program
    of consolidating lands in the central Cascades has long been a Forest
    Service priority. Forest land and Resource management plans for both
    the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie and the Wenatchee national forests address
    the need for significant land acquisition for recreation and ecosystem
    protection. This program seeks to consolidate Federal land management
    and prevent future fragmentation due to subdivision and other
    development. Major land exchanges and previous investments of Land and
    Water Funds have demonstrated the necessity and broad support for
    consolidating public ownership in this region.
        The 640-acre Dandy Pass property lies predominantly in the Mt.
    Baker Snoqualmie NF, just south of the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT). Two
    tributaries of the Green River flow through the area, East Creek to the
    north and Sunday Creek to the south. The property, which is vegetated
    with second-growth forest, is available at its appraised price of
    $725,500 and will complement the 2006 acquisition of two other Dandy
    Pass parcels, further consolidating public lands in the area and
    providing additional protection for the landscape visible from the PCT.
        The Big Creek and Jim Creek parcels are further south and east of
    the Pacific Crest Trail in the Wenatchee NF. The Big Creek and Jim
    Creek parcels are named for the Yakima River tributaries, which flow
    respectively through each parcel. These properties are not yet
    appraised, but a total fiscal year 2008 LWCF appropriation of $3
    million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund should permit Forest
    Service acquisition and protection of all of these critical properties
    in the Central Cascade Ecosystems.
        By way of background, the Mount Baker Snoqualmie and Wenatchee
    national forests are part of the majestic forests of Washington's
    Central Cascades. The Central Cascade Ecosystems project area is
    located amid several key landscapes. To the north lie the Alpine Lakes,
    Glacier Peak, and Pasayten Wilderness areas, providing connectivity as
    far as Canada. To the south lie the Norse Peak, William O. Douglas, and
    Goat Rocks Wilderness areas, which connect to Mount Rainier National
    Park and on down to the Oregon Cascade Range. The snowpack in these
    mountains is critical to water supplies for Puget Sound metropolitan
    areas and Central Washington agriculture.
        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 is rich in
    diversity with glacier-covered peaks, volcanoes, old-growth stands of
    timber, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness, and a multitude of plant,
    animal, and fish species.
        The Wenatchee, situated in the heart of Washington State,
    encompasses 8,000-foot volcanic peaks of basalt, pumice, and ash. These
    mountains simultaneously shelter secluded alpine lakes and glacier
    cirques that resemble giant cathedrals of granite and ice. Its shrub-
    steppe habitat bridges the lush ecosystem of Puget Sound with the
    rugged high desert of eastern Washington. Sagebrush at lower elevations
    surrenders to pine-covered slopes and eventually to the sparse
    vegetation atop the Cascade's volcanic summits. The Yakima, Chinook,
    and Wenatchee Indians inhabited the forest before they were forced off
    the land by the gold rush of the 1880s and 1890s.
        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. A number of threatened or endangered
    species inhabit the area, including grizzly bear, wolf, spotted owls,
    marbled murrelets, steelhead, wild salmon, and bull trout.
    Additionally, the area provides habitat for an abundance of other
    wildlife--elk, deer, cougar, coyote, bobcat, and an occasional moose.
    The high wildlife connectivity value of this landscape has been
    recognized by new Department of Transportation plans that will make
    major, innovative investments to improve wildlife passage as Interstate
    90 is expanded in the next decade.
        Because a healthy and accessible ecosystem in the Central Cascades
    provides such a wide range of benefits that should be protected under
    public ownership and because private landowners here are willing
    sellers, we believe these parcels are ideal properties for purchase
    with Land and Water Conservation Funds.
        Madame Chairwoman, we appreciate your long-standing leadership in
    supporting Federal acquisition and protection efforts for Washington's
    Central Cascades. Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the National Alternative Fuels Training
                                   Consortium
        Chairman Feinstein and Members of the Interior, Environment and
    Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations: I am Al Ebron,
    executive director of the National Alternative Fuels Training
    Consortium (NAFTC). With this written testimony, the NAFTC requests
    funding of $2.5 million for fiscal year 2008 to carry out the important
    work of this organization to improve air quality and decrease U.S.
    dependence on foreign oil. The NAFTC was recommended for funding in the
    Senate Report (S. Rept. 109-275) of H.R. 5386, the fiscal year 2007
    Department of Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations
    Bill for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the Science and
    Technology Account for $2 million under Programs of National or
    Regional Significance.
        The NAFTC, headquartered at West Virginia University, is a
    consortium currently consisting of 29 academic institutions known as
    National Training Centers, or NTCs, located in 26 States (listed in the
    attached table). The NAFTC is the only nation-wide organization that
    develops curricula, provides training and conducts education and
    awareness events for technicians, fleet managers, local & State
    government officials, industry representatives, and many other current
    decision makers as well as our future decision makers such as high
    school teachers and students. Alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) and
    advanced technology vehicles are viable alternatives to current
    gasoline and diesel vehicles and play a vital role in our Nation's
    quest for cleaner air and energy independence.
        The NAFTC has recently been called upon to provide First Responders
    (firemen, police officers, EMTs and others) with training to handle
    accidents and extrications involving alternative fuel and advanced
    technology vehicles. This has become a national safety and training
    concern for most First Responders. The NAFTC is beginning to develop
    and provide this training and is the only national organization poised
    to provide these services in a comprehensive nationwide manner. There
    is a huge need to expand the NAFTC to provide these services (and
    existing services), not reduce its role.
        The NAFTC's work with consumers who need to understand the growing
    mix of alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles is another
    critical mission for the NAFTC. Rising gasoline prices, energy
    independence, additional AFVs on the road, climate change concerns and
    many newer fuels coming online have all contributed to the increased
    need for the NAFTC. The NAFTC's efforts are directly aligned with
    President Bush's goal ``to reduce gasoline usage in the United States
    by 20 percent in the next 10 years'' as stated in his State of the
    Union Address, January 23, 2007 and again during the Alternative Fuel
    Vehicle Demonstration at the White House on February 23, 2007. This is
    also a truly bipartisan issue in Congress with many congressional
    members supporting this issue and the NAFTC's efforts.
        In the transportation sector, important options include alternative
    fuel vehicles (AFVs) and advanced technology vehicles. According to the
    Energy Information Administration, 20 percent of the vehicles sold over
    the next 20 years will be AFVs and advanced technology vehicles, such
    as hybrid vehicles. Traditional AFVs 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 increase in the
    United States, the need for trained AFV/advanced technology vehicle
    technicians and other industry representatives 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.
        The NAFTC has developed the Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV)/Advanced
    Technology Vehicle training to support the President's and Congress'
    initiatives on Hybrid, Fuel Cell, Biodiesel, Ethanol, Electric and CNG
    vehicles as the means to ensure a clean and affordable diversity of
    fuels for our future energy supply, as well as other alternative fuels
    and vehicles. Our training and education activities help train and
    inform Americans on how to reduce our addiction to oil. Trained
    technicians will ensure the continued use of these vehicles rather than
    shunting them aside when service or repairs are needed.
        The training conducted by the NAFTC and its National Training
    Centers is directly impacting the shortage of trained technicians to
    maintain this country's vehicles. Therefore, the NAFTC training
    programs provide workforce development opportunities in the regional
    areas of the member National Training Centers. Many in the automotive
    industry predict a shortage of between 250,000 and 300,000 technicians
    over the next 10 years.
        The NAFTC is making a difference. Since its inception in 1992, the
    NAFTC has developed over 20 major curricula and workshops, delivered
    over 775 courses, training almost 8,000 technicians. The NAFTC has
    conducted over 900 education and awareness events with over 200,000
    attendees. The NAFTC, and its NTCs, has nearly a 100 percent placement
    rate of its graduates due to the demand for technicians being greater
    than what they can provide.
        During the NAFTC's third National AFV Day Odyssey nationwide event
    conducted on October 12, 2006, the NAFTC reached nearly 40,000 people
    directly at 60 sites in 34 States and 3 international sites in Canada
    and Germany. Odyssey 2006 reached over 30 million people through media
    coverage at all of the events. Odyssey is the largest AFV event in the
    country to build awareness and promote the use of AFVs and advanced
    technology vehicles so that we may reduce our dependence on foreign
    oil, increase our energy security and help protect our environment.
        In the next year, the NAFTC plans to:
        a. Continue to conduct training on AFVs and advanced technology
    vehicles across the country. Additional educational institutions will
    be added to the Consortium to increase access for technicians, and
    others, to NAFTC training.
        b. Continue to develop training for hybrid vehicles highlighting
    the changes in hybrid technology and providing technicians and others
    information on the new vehicles available.
        c. Continue to develop First Responders Safety Training Course(s)
    and Workshop(s). Coordinate with Homeland Security, Fire and Rescue
    Organizations, Police Departments and other organizations for
    dissemination of this vitally important training.
        The funding for fiscal year 2008 will be used to:
        a. Continue to build the program's success, conducting AFV and
    advanced technology vehicle training across the United States.
    Additional NTCs will be added to the Consortium.
        b. Develop new curricula and revise existing curricula in support
    of AFV and advanced technology vehicle needs. For example, heavy-duty
    hybrid vehicles are being introduced into cities. Training for these
    vehicles needs to be developed for the large group of municipal fleet
    technicians.
        c. Conduct the fourth biennial National AFV Day Odyssey in 2008.
    Preparations will build upon past events. Continued consumer education
    and awareness of AFVs and advanced technology vehicles is needed to
    ensure the continued use of these technologies in improving air quality
    and decreasing U.S. dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy
    security.
        Next year, these funds will support between 35 and 45 schools, as
    new schools continue to join the NAFTC. The NAFTC's activities are at
    the forefront of helping to improve air quality and decrease U.S.
    dependence on foreign oil. The NAFTC is a strong organization that has
    developed and can provide the training, education and awareness about
    AFVs and advanced technology vehicles to the general public, those who
    work on these vehicles, those who purchase these vehicles, and those
    First Responders who are exposed to these vehicles during critical
    situations. This program should be allowed to continue and flourish so
    the efforts of the past are maximized.
        The NAFTC and all of its current and future members respectfully
    ask that you support a continued appropriation of $2.5 million in the
    fiscal year 2008 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science and
    Technology Account.
        Thank You.

                        CURRENT NATIONAL TRAINING CENTERS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Edducational
                 State                    Institution             City
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Arizona.......................  Gateway Community       Phoenix
                                     College.
    California....................  Rio Hondo College.....  Whittier
    Connecticut...................  Gateway Community       North Haven
                                     College.
    Florida.......................  Traviss Career Center.  Lakeland
    Illinois......................  Morton College........  Cicero
    Indiana.......................  Ivy Tech Community      Gary
                                     College of Indiana.
                                    Ivy Tech Community      Lafayette
                                     College of Indiana.
    Iowa..........................  Des Moines Area         Ankeny
                                     Community College.
    Louisiana.....................  Louisiana Technical     Baton Rouge
                                     College.
    Maryland......................  Com. Col. of Baltimore  Baltimore
                                     County (Catonsville).
    Massachusetts.................  Wentworth Institute of  Arlington
                                     Technology.
    Michigan......................  Lansing Community       Lansing
                                     College.
                                    Kalamazoo Valley        Kalamazoo
                                     Community College.
    Missouri......................  Ranken Technical        St. Louis
                                     College.
    Nebraska......................  Central Community       Columbus
                                     College.
    Nevada........................  Community College of    North Las Vegas
                                     Southern Nevada.
    New York......................  Onondaga Community      Syracuse
                                     College.
    North Carolina................  Wake Technical College  Raleigh
    Ohio..........................  University of           Lima
                                     Northwestern Ohio.
                                    Ohio Technical College  Cleveland
    Oregon........................  Portland Community      Portland
                                     College.
    Rhode Island..................  New England Institute   Warwick
                                     of Technology.
    South Carolina................  York Technical College  Rock Hill
    Tennessee.....................  Nashville Auto-Diesel   Nashville
                                     College.
    Texas.........................  Tarrant County College  Ft. Worth
    Virginia......................  Northern Virginia       Alexandria
                                     Community College.
    Washington....................  Shoreline Community     Shoreline
                                     College.
    West Virginia.................  West Virginia           Morgantown
                                     University.
    Wisconsin.....................  Madison Area Technical  Madison
                                     College.          POSSIBLE NATIONAL TRAINING CENTERS IN NEAR FUTURE \1\Alaska........................  University of Alaska..  Anchorage
    Utah..........................  Salt Lake Community     Salt Lake City
                                     College.
    Vermont.......................  Vermont Technical       Randolph Center
                                     College.
    California....................  San Diego Miramar       San Diego
                                     College.
    California....................  Shasta Collage........  Redding------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Additional training centers are being recruited in Alabama,
      California, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma,
      Pennsylvania and other States.

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies
        The National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (NASAA), representing
    the State and special jurisdictional government arts agencies of the
    United States, is pleased to submit testimony in support of funding at
    $176 million for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in fiscal
    year 2008. Current NEA funding at $124.4 million for fiscal year 2007
    amounts to just 41 cents per capita, compared to 69 cents per capita in
    fiscal year 1992. A total appropriation of $176 million for fiscal year
    2008 would restore the agency to its 1992 level.
        In addition, NASAA supports the administration's budget proposal to
    streamline partnership grants to State arts agencies and regional arts
    organizations by allocating the 40 percent of NEA grantmaking funds to
    basic plan support and underserved grants, consolidating funds for
    Challenge America and American Masterpieces. This proposal would give
    each State greater flexibility in funding projects to address local and
    statewide artistic and cultural initiatives, and would improve
    administrative efficiencies for the NEA and the State arts agencies.
                             appropriations request
        In supporting a budget of $176 million for the NEA, NASAA and the
    member State arts agencies believe that a steady Federal commitment is
    important, as a foundation for funding the arts, to help communities
    maintain their artistic resources. Appropriations at $176 million would
    enable the NEA to expand its core mission to support and promote the
    creation, preservation and presentation of the arts, to fund the
    Challenge America initiative, and to increase funds to the State arts
    agencies--identified among his priorities by NEA Chair Dana Gioia in
    recent testimony before the subcommittee. New funding would also
    support the American Masterpieces initiative, aimed at broadening the
    availability of America's acknowledged masterpieces through touring,
    presentation and arts education.
                         the federal-state partnership
        NEA funds granted to State arts agencies ensure that every State
    receives a significant share of Federal funds. NEA grants to State arts
    agencies, representing 40 percent of NEA program money, combine with
    State legislative appropriations and other dollars to ensure that
    Federal funding reaches far, broadening access to the arts for
    communities throughout the State and strengthening the State's arts
    infrastructure. This partnership ensures for each State a stable source
    of arts funding and policy.
        The principles of public support for the arts which State arts
    agencies work to address are a good fit with the objectives of the NEA.
    State arts agencies help government to achieve broad public policy
    goals, such as promoting education excellence, stimulating economic
    growth and strengthening communities. State arts agencies depend on the
    NEA as a full partner in projects to promote the arts around the
    country. State arts agencies use Federal funds to increase access to
    the arts and support the programs of arts organizations and artists in
    communities. With the level of increase we propose in NEA funding, the
    State arts agencies, and indeed all arts organizations, can expand on
    the possibilities to bring to Americans in every corner of the country
    full opportunities to experience the arts.
        In 2007, State arts agencies will manage nearly $426 million in
    Federal, State, and non-governmental funds for distribution through
    State arts agency-funded projects. Each year, State arts agencies fund
    approximately 18,000 organizations, schools and artists in more than
    5,300 communities across the United States. Funding from the NEA is an
    essential form of support for State arts agencies.
        We are encouraged that Congress in recent years has voted to
    support the arts with modest increases in NEA funding. We urge Congress
    to support a budget of $176 million for the NEA in the fiscal year 2008
    Interior Appropriations bill to restore funding for the creation,
    preservation, and presentation of the arts in America through the NEA's
    core programs and to build upon the work of the special initiatives,
    such as American Masterpieces, which serve to highlight the best in
    American creativity.
                         state arts agency grant making
        State arts agencies, enabled by Federal dollars, provide a wide
    array of citizen services, including public information, partnership
    building, technical assistance, research and planning. Among the most
    important of these services is grant making designed to foster:
      --educational success, by investing in arts education opportunities
            for students;
      --arts participation and accessibility, by supporting programs that
            widen the availability of the arts, especially in rural areas
            and among underserved populations;
      --cultural infrastructures, by investing in operating support for
            cultural organizations and by supporting the development of
            grassroots arts networks;
      --innovation, by supporting individual artists and development of new
            creative programs; and
      --artistic heritage, by investing in the preservation of cultural
            traditions.
                               arts in education
        All State arts agencies, with assistance from the NEA, support arts
    education programs, aiming to incorporate the arts into learning, for
    example, through artist residencies, curriculum development, and
    teacher training. Communities demand that schools promote higher
    student achievement, reform the teaching process and improve the
    environment in which students are expected to learn. The arts address
    all these needs. Educational research shows that instruction in the
    arts improves student achievement and arts in education produces the
    kind of creative problem solvers sought by employers.
        The California Arts Council, recognizing the importance of
    sequential arts instruction in California's schools, supports its
    Artists in Schools program to integrate community arts resources--
    artists and professional arts organizations--into a comprehensive,
    standards-based program that underscores the critical role that the
    arts play in shaping a student's overall well-being and academic
    achievement. The North Dakota Council on the Arts supports Schools and
    Artists as Learning Teams (SALT) with grants for professional
    development that builds partnerships between North Dakota schools and
    artists and arts organizations to provide meaningful learning
    experiences through the arts aimed at improving student achievement.
    The Arts Learning in Schools Artist Residency program of New Mexico
    Arts supports guest individual artists teamed with teachers to create
    programs that promote learning in and through the arts, with a
    preference given to underserved schools.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Ruppert, Sandra S. (2006). Critical Evidence: How the Arts
    Benefit Student Achievement. National Assembly of State Arts Agencies,
    Washington, D.C.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               access to the arts
        State arts agencies use their funds to broaden, deepen and
    diversify participation in a wider variety of art forms through support
    for touring and presentation of exhibits and performances within their
    States, arts festivals and fairs, and distribution of information and
    artwork through various channels, including broadcast and internet.
    Public arts spending is especially important, for example, in rural
    areas which are often artistically underserved due to their geographic
    and economic isolation. NEA funds to State arts agencies for grants to
    underserved areas are an important source of this support.
        The North Dakota Council on the Arts provides Community Access
    Grants to nonprofit organizations that present arts programming in
    small and rural communities in North Dakota, as well as for support of
    programming that makes a deliberate and focused effort to serve a
    special constituency or an underserved audience in that community. The
    Alaska State Council on the Arts through its Community Arts Development
    Grants, designed to stimulate grassroots arts activity and to encourage
    arts participation throughout Alaska, helps small nonprofit Alaskan
    organizations in developing art programs in underserved areas of the
    State. The West Virginia Commission on the Arts offers Accessibility
    Services grants to nonprofit arts organizations to support acquisition
    and installation of ramps, assistive listening equipment, and alternate
    formats for materials such as large print programs, Braille, cassette
    tapes, and captioning to improve access to arts and cultural
    programming in the State. The Tennessee Arts Commission offers support
    through a variety of programs to improve access to the arts for its
    citizens, including Arts Access grants, with NEA funds, to support
    projects of arts organizations of color and organization whose arts
    programs primarily benefit persons of color; its Rural Arts Project
    Support which funds quality arts projects located outside a
    metropolitan area; and Student Ticket Subsidy to supplement student
    attendance at arts events.
                     supporting the cultural infrastructure
        Public spending on the arts is a good investment in the economic
    growth of every community. State arts agencies recognize that cultural
    development is a vital part of economic development strategies,
    attracting businesses and new residents and generating jobs.
        The Kansas Arts Commission provides grants for operational support
    to arts and cultural organizations for programming and administrative
    costs based on the expense budget of the organization, with a
    requirement for matching funds. The New York State Council on the Arts
    Capital Projects offers support for the improvement, expansion, or
    rehabilitation of existing nonprofit cultural facilities, for such
    needs as roof replacement, accessible bathrooms, theatrical lighting
    and sound systems, dance floors, and facade restoration. The Virginia
    Commission for the Arts offers general operating support to arts
    organizations, major arts institutions, and local arts agencies with
    the aim of providing funds to maintain stability and allow
    organizations to strengthen and expand their programs. The Washington
    State Commission on the Arts offers financial support to nonprofit arts
    organizations through operating and project grants for organizations
    intended to reduce the cost of producing or presenting artistic events
    for the general public, making them more accessible to the State's
    residents.
                               individual artists
        State arts agencies recognize the vital role that professional
    artists and traditional artists have in their communities, and the
    importance of supporting the creativity offered by individual artists
    in their States. Through fellowship grants and residencies, State arts
    agencies fund activities to help artists further their work, encourage
    the excellence of individual artists in their States, promote and
    showcase the artistic creations of their artists, and acknowledge the
    diversity of cultural and artistic expression throughout their States.
        The Idaho Commission on the Arts offers support through its Writer-
    in-Residence award, the highest literary recognition and largest
    financial award accorded an Idaho writer. It carries an obligation to
    share the literary work at community public readings throughout the
    State over the 3-year term and seeks to encourage an appreciation for
    excellence in literature throughout Idaho. The Kentucky Arts Council's
    support for individual artists includes the Craft Marketing Program
    which enables craft artists and craft businesses in Kentucky to reach
    regional, national, and international markets through State-sponsored
    wholesale and retail promotional venues. The Kansas Arts Commission
    through its visual arts program provides grants to Kansas arts and
    cultural organizations to develop new public exhibitions of works by
    Kansas visual artists. The Mississippi Arts Commission's All Write!
    Initiative promotes the South's rich literary heritage as a resource to
    improve literacy and the opportunities for writers, hiring creative
    writers to work with adult literacy programs in community centers,
    colleges, prisons, libraries, or other literacy program, with an effort
    to reach rural and underserved areas.
                         cultural heritage preservation
        State arts agencies help to document and preserve cultural heritage
    by supporting: the work of master folk artists; apprenticeships in the
    traditional arts; supporting festivals, on-line sites, and heritage
    trails; and the work of State folklorists.
        The Folk Arts Program of the Washington State Commission on the
    Arts includes the Apprenticeship Program designed to help communities
    preserve their traditional arts by offering stipends to master artists
    to instruct students in their culture and artistic skill. Recent
    recipients have included masters in Salish hide tanning, Cambodian
    music, the Egyptian oud, and Haida basketry. The California Arts
    Council, with American Masterpieces program funding from the NEA,
    highlights California's heritage through residencies and touring
    performances of jazz tap dance masters to revisit the great dance
    performances in film of the 1930s and 40s, as well as the African-
    American roots of the tap dance art form; and Musica Festiva de las
    Misiones, presenting the choral music of the Mexican-Hispano era, to
    increase the public awareness of California's culture and history. The
    Maryland State Arts Council in cooperation with the Maryland Historical
    Trust, and with funds from the NEA, supports Maryland Traditions,
    enabling communities, cultural institutions and individuals to preserve
    and sustain the State's traditional arts and culture and to encourage
    the vitality of living traditions and folk arts.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
        The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)--formerly
    known as STAPPA and ALAPCO--represents the state and local air
    pollution control agencies in 54 States and territories and over 165
    metropolitan areas across the country. The association appreciates this
    opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 2008 proposed budget for the
    United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), particularly
    Federal grants for State and local air pollution control agencies under
    sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act, which are part of the State
    and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) program. Congress has vested State
    and local agencies with ``primary responsibility'' for the control of
    air pollution through the Clean Air Act (section 101(0(3)) and found
    that ``Federal financial assistance is essential for the development''
    of State and local air pollution control programs (section 101(a)(4)).
    NACAA is extremely concerned that the proposed fiscal year 2008 budget
    calls for a reduction of $35.1 million (nearly 16 percent) in grants to
    State and local air pollution control agencies, compared to fiscal year
    2006 levels. Worseyet, this reduction would come on the heels of a
    $20.5-million decrease that State and local air agencies suffered in
    fiscal year 2007, and at a time when these agencies, which are already
    severely underfunded, need additional resources to protect the Nation's
    air quality and public health. NACAA recommends that grants within the
    STAG program for State and local air pollution control agencies under
    sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act be increased in fiscal year
    2008 by $80.5 million above the President's request, for a total of
    $265.8 million. Additionally, NACAA recommends that grants for the
    particulate matter monitoring program not be shifted from section 103
    authority to section 105 authority.
                  air pollution is a significant health threat
        Tens of thousands of people die prematurely every year as a result
    of air pollution. In addition, millions more are exposed to unhealthful
    levels of a variety of air contaminants. In fact, more than 150 million
    people in this country live in areas that violate at least 1 of the 6
    health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). For
    example, fine particulate matter, just one of these pollutants, is
    responsible for most of the premature deaths each year and results in
    many 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.
        In addition to the pollutants covered by the. NAAQS, there are many
    others that threaten public health. EPA's most recent National-Scale
    Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) provides extensive data about toxic air
    pollution across the country. According to NATA, when the cancer risks
    from all toxic air contaminants listed as known, probable or possible
    human carcinogens are combined, more than 270 million people are
    estimated to live in census tracts where the combined upper-bound
    lifetime cancer risk exceeded 10 in 1 million risk (1 in 1 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 clean air programs has declined
                                 significantly
        Section 105 of the Clean Air Act authorizes the Federal Government
    to provide grants for up to 60 percent of the cost of State and local
    air quality programs, while states and localities must provide a 40-
    percent match. In reality, however, the Federal Government provides
    only about 25 percent of the total (not including income from Title V
    permit fees, which State and local agencies collect from major sources
    and can use to fund only permit-related activities). In a time of
    limited resources, when State and local agencies face dramatically
    increasing responsibilities and are straining to maintain existing
    programs, additional Federal funding is needed to meet the ever-growing
    challenges and costs associated with implementing the Federal Clean Air
    Act and achieving and sustaining clean, healthful air.
        The total amount needed to fund State and local efforts to
    implement the Clean Air Act is estimated to be in excess of $1 billion
    each year. If the Federal Government were to provide 60 percent of that
    amount, as the Clean Air Act envisions, federal grants would amount to
    approximately $600 million annually. However, Federal grants have
    fallen far short of this level--amounting only to about one-third of it
    in recent years--and are now being cut even more. Further, over the
    past 15 years, Federal grants for State and local air pollution control
    agencies to operate their programs (not including the separate fine
    particulate monitoring program) have decreased by approximately one-
    third in terms of purchasing power.
       further funding reductions in fiscal year 2007 have increased the
                                    hardship
        Notwithstanding the fact that Federal grants to State and local air
    pollution control agencies were already insufficient in fiscal year
    2006, there are further devastating reductions this year. For the
    proposed budget in fiscal year 2007, EPA requested a reduction of $35.1
    million in grants. Additionally, EPA's budget request proposed shifting
    funds for the fine particulate monitoring network from Clean Air Act
    section 103 authority to section 105 authority, which means that state
    and local agencies would have to provide additional matching funds in
    order to accept the grants, pursuant to section 105 requirements.
        NACAA was extremely concerned about the adverse effects such a
    decrease in fiscal year 2007 would have on air quality programs and
    urged Congress to restore grants to fiscal year 2006 levels. The
    association was pleased, then, that the Continuing Resolution that was
    finally adopted for fiscal year 2007 generally called for funds to
    remain steady at fiscal year 2006 levels. Unfortunately, in its
    operating plan for distributing the funds that Congress provided
    through the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution, EPA included a
    reduction, from fiscal year 2006 levels, of $20.5 million in the State
    and local air quality grant program under the STAG account. Since this
    significant reduction must be absorbed over only a 6-month period, the
    impact is even more devastating than the original budget cut the
    administration had recommended for fiscal year 2007.
     proposed fiscal year 2008 reductions would severely hamper clean air
                                    efforts
        For fiscal year 2008, the administration has again requested $185.2
    million, which is a reduction of $35.1 million compared to fiscal year
    2006 levels and would be extremely detrimental to State and local air
    pollution control progams. If this proposed budget cut is enacted, on
    average, each State will lose $700,000 compared to fiscal year 2006
    amounts (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, virtually all agencies will suffer adverse
    effects.
        NACAA analyzed the impacts of the proposed fiscal year 2008 budget
    cuts, which the association shared with the members of the Senate and
    House Appropriations Committees in February 2007. The analysis,
    detailed in the report: Impacts of the President's Proposed Fiscal Year
    2008 Budget on State and Local Clean Air Programs, is available at
    www.4cleanair.org/documents/FY2008budgetanalysisfinal022607.pdf. The
    severity of the cuts is so substantial that, in many cases, state and
    local air agencies would have to lay off existing personnel and/or not
    fill empty positions. Many agencies would have to cease operating
    existing monitors or otherwise curtail their monitoring programs. The
    reductions would impair their ability to inspect sources and carry out
    enforcement activities, making clean air requirements less effective.
    Additionally, permits for smaller sources will take longer to process
    and customer service will diminish.
        The funding cuts could seriously impair the ability of State and
    local air pollution control agencies to prepare new plans for
    implementing ozone and particulate matter 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, some areas
    currently meeting the standards may no longer attain them. Not only
    would such areas experience degraded air quality, they would also be
    subject to the more rigorous requirements applicable to nonattainment
    areas.
        Finally, some smaller agencies might even have to cease operations
    entirely, posing a terrible loss for those local areas. Overall, these
    reductions in State and local air quality programs would be extremely
    detrimental to efforts to reduce air pollution and maintain the
    improvements that this country has already worked so hard to achieve.
        The cuts would be further exacerbated by the administration's
    proposal to shift grants in the particulate matter monitoring program
    from section 103 authority (which does not require a 40-percent match
    from state and local recipients) 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. Some agencies
    do not currently have additional resources for the match and could be
    forced to turn away some much-needed grant funds.
        NACAA urges the subcommittee to review its analysis to learn about
    the very real adverse effects the proposed fiscal year 2008 reductions
    would have on state and local efforts to protect public health. This
    information will make it clear that increases--rather than cuts--are
    necessary for these programs. Also, the subcommittee may wish to review
    a report NACAA prepared when similar reductions were proposed for
    fiscal year 2007. The document, Impact of Proposed fiscal year 2007
    Budget Cuts on State and Local Air Quality Agencies (March 14, 2006),
    provides state-by-state accounts of the serious impacts of such deep
    cuts on air quality programs. The association shared this report with
    members of the Appropriations Committee last year. It is also available
    at www.4cleanair.org/StateandLocalExamplesoflinpactsofCuts.pdf.
       broad coalition supports increase in clean air grants and diesel
                                retrofit funding
        NACAA is not alone in seeking increases for State and local air
    grants. The association is a member of a broad coalition of over 150
    organizations, ranging from public-interest groups, such as the
    American Lung Association, to business organizations, such as the U.S.
    Chamber of Commerce. This coalition recognizes the importance of
    adequate funding for State and local air pollution control agencies and
    has also requested that Congress provide increases to these grants.
    Additionally, the coalition supports the appropriation of $49.5 million
    in fiscal year 2008 for programs authorized by the Diesel Emissions
    Reduction Act (DERA). These programs are designed to reduce the
    prevalence of harmful microscopic particles in the ambient air. Studies
    indicate that exposure to these particulates greatly increases the risk
    of asthma and other respiratory disorders. Initiatives under DERA
    provide incentives to retrofit the approximately 11 million diesel
    engines on trucks, buses, locomotives and agricultural vehicles with
    technologies to limit their emissions. NACAA urges Congress to provide
    this funding to these important DERA, efforts.
                                   conclusion
        Significant increases in Federal grants to State and local air
    pollution control agencies are necessary if they are to continue
    efforts to improve and maintain air quality and protect public health.
    However, NACAA recognizes that Congress faces many competing funding
    priorities. Therefore, the members are asking for only a fraction of
    what is really needed. When the President issued the fiscal year 2008
    budget request for EPA, NACAA originally recommended an increase of $25
    million above fiscal year 2006 levels for State and local air grants
    under sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act--for a total of $245.3
    million. Since EPA unexpectedly reduced fiscal year 2007 grant levels
    by $20.5 million, a cut that State and local air agencies must absorb
    over a mere 6-month period, NACAA is now recommending that those funds
    be restored in fiscal year 2008 as well. Therefore, the association
    recommends that fiscal year 2008 grants within the STAG program for
    State and local air pollution control agencies under Sections 103 and
    105 of the Clean Air Act be $265.8 million (an increase of $80.5
    million above the fiscal year 2008 request). Additionally, NACAA
    recommends that grants for the particulate matter monitoring program
    not be shifted from section 103 authority to section 105 authority.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of 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 $90 million, including specific report language directing that
    the funds be utilized only for the Energy Star program. We were
    extremely disappointed with the $43.5 million fiscal year 2008 request
    and the $45 million funding level established in fiscal year 2007. At
    the present time, Congress is seriously considering new energy
    legislation and is also intending to address climate change. The Energy
    Star program is successful and cost-effective. It should be expanded,
    not reduced.
        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 40 States are Energy Star Partners. In 2005, EPA and NASEO
    announced a new Clean Energy and Environment State Partnership program,
    which already has 15 State members, including California, Colorado,
    Hawaii, New Mexico and Utah. We are working closely with EPA on the new
    National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, the Energy Star Challenge,
    Home Performance with Energy Star, etc. 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.
        Energy Star focuses on energy efficient products as well as
    buildings. In 2006, 300 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 9,000
    company partners. More than 750,000 families now live in Energy Star
    homes, saving $170 million annually. The ``Home Performance'' with
    Energy Star activity 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, Texas and Wisconsin. We are also working closely with
    EPA in the implementation of the Energy Star Challenge, which is
    encouraging businesses and institutions to reduce energy use by 10
    percent or more, usually through very simple actions. We are working
    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. A variety of ``benchmarking'' tools
    have been developed by EPA, which have now been used to evaluate energy
    use in 30,000 buildings, representing 5 billion square feet. 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 Alaska, there are 22 companies and public entities participating
    in Energy Star. Investments already made will save more than $200
    million and will prevent the emissions of 720,000 metric tons, which is
    equivalent to eliminating the vehicle emissions from 480,000 cars.
        In California, businesses and residents will save more than $14
    billion through investments already made in Energy Star products. This
    will prevent the emissions of 30 million metric tons. Over 750
    companies and public entities participate in Energy Star. Over 110,000
    homes in the State have earned the Energy Star.
        In Colorado, over $2 billion will be saved through Energy Star
    investments thus far. Colorado has focused on investments in building
    energy efficiency, with a robust energy performance contracting
    program. More than 240 companies and public entities have been Energy
    Star participants.
        In Idaho, more than 190 companies and public entities have been
    actively involved in Energy Star. The investments thus far will save
    $300 million for consumers and will reduce emissions of 790,000 metric
    tons. The State energy office has been working to expand the Energy
    Star program for homes.
        In Maryland, residents will save more than $2 billion through
    Energy Star investments made thus far, which will prevent emissions of
    8 million metric tons. With State legislation passed this year,
    additional State and utility investment in energy efficiency and
    renewable energy should allow the expansion of the program beyond 140
    public entities and companies.
        In Massachusetts, businesses and residences will save $3 billion in
    Energy Star investments that have already been made, which will also
    reduce emissions by 9 million metric tons. Energy Star products are
    sold at 870 locations within the State, 12,000 homes have earned Energy
    Star and 260 companies and public entities directly participate in the
    program.
        In New Hampshire, over 70 companies and public entities are
    participating in the program. There are already 6 manufacturers of
    Energy Star products within the State. Emissions reductions from
    investments made thus far will exceed 1.5 million metric tons.
        In New Mexico, businesses and residents will save more than $500
    million through Energy Star investments that have already been made.
    This will reduce emissions by 1 million metric tons. Thirty companies
    participate in Energy Star and over 3,300 homes are Energy Star
    compliant.
        New York has been one of the most aggressive States in implementing
    Energy Star, tailored to the unique needs of the State. Residents and
    businesses in the State will save more than $9 billion through Energy
    Star investments that have already been made. These investments will
    prevent the emissions of 24 million metric tons of greenhouse gases
    (equivalent to eliminating 16 million vehicles). Within the State,
    9,000 homes have earned Energy Star ratings, and 670 companies and
    public entities participate in Energy Star. The New York State Energy
    Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), the State energy office,
    has contributed more than $12 million to promote Energy Star within the
    State. NYSERDA's unique air-conditioning bounty and buy-back program in
    New York City, utilizing Energy Star air-conditioners, resulted in a
    complete market transformation. Approximately 200,000 high efficiency
    air-conditioners were sold, with the disposal of older, inefficient
    units. This produced a measurable drop in peak demand. Companies with
    extremely active Energy Star programs in the State include Canon
    U.S.A., Eastman Kodak, Starwood Hotels and Verizon Communications.
        Over 60 manufacturers of Energy Star products are located in
    Pennsylvania. The State and EPA have been focusing efforts on improving
    the energy performance of schools. Over 900 retail locations throughout
    the State carry Energy Star qualified products. Recent developments
    have included evaluation of the energy performance of almost 800
    buildings in order to facilitate the implementation of energy
    improvements.
        In Rhode Island, more than $390 million will be saved with the
    Energy Star investments already initiated, which is equivalent to
    eliminating 1 million metric tons of emissions and 700,000 vehicles.
    Thirty-nine companies are involved and 1,900 homes have already earned
    Energy Star.
        In Tennessee, more than 120 companies and public entities are
    involved in the program. More than 8 million metric tons of emissions
    will be reduced through these efforts.
        In Utah, H.B. 351, passed by the State legislature this year, will
    create a $5 million revolving loan fund for energy efficiency
    investments in schools. The State also reauthorized residential and
    commercial energy tax credits.
        In Vermont, over 600,000 metric tons of emissions will be reduced
    and customers will save $200 million from Energy Star investments that
    have already been made. Fifty-eight companies and local governments are
    involved in the program and 4,600 buildings have earned the Energy
    Star.
        In Washington State more than 320 companies and public entities are
    participating in Energy Star, with significant small business
    participation. The State energy office, working with the Northwest
    Energy Efficiency Alliance, businesses and utilities throughout the
    region, has been promoting market transformation activities focused on
    Energy Star. In 2002 alone, the savings attributed to improved
    residential lighting was 45 megawatts.
        In West Virginia, over $400 million will be saved through Energy
    Star investments. Over 1.5 million metric tons of emissions will also
    be avoided through the program.
        In Wisconsin, almost 500 companies and local governments (including
    42 manufacturers) are involved in Energy Star. This will lead to
    emissions reductions of 5 million metric tons. Over 8,000 Wisconsin
    homes have earned the Energy Star.
        We can provide a myriad of other State examples at your request.
                                   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
        The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) supports
    sustainable forests managed for the public interest.\1\ We are pleased
    to submit the following testimony on the proposed fiscal year 2008 U.S.
    Forest Service Budget for the programs that fund the State and Private
    Forestry programs. NASF recommends that the fiscal year 2008 budget for
    the State and Private Forestry programs of the USDA Forest Service be
    increased by $230.9 million from the fiscal year 2007CR of $351.7
    million to $582 million in fiscal year 2008. One-third of the Nation's
    landscape is forested and 57 percent of these forests (290 million
    acres) are privately owned and over 7 percent are owned by State and
    local governments. These programs are directed at that ownership.
    Working collaboratively with Federal, State, and private forest
    landowners improves the effectiveness of forest conservation and
    management programs and provides substantial environmental, economic
    and social benefits to society.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NASF is an association that represents the State Foresters of
    the 50 States and the 9 directors of forestry in the U.S. territories
    and the District of Columbia.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Over 200 million acres of Federal forests are at increased risk for
    catastrophic wildfire caused by the buildup of biomass fuel loads which
    pose a significant increased threat to adjacent private forestlands,
    air and water quality, and wildlife habitat. Insect epidemics and
    invasive plant species have now covered millions of acres of forests,
    which create additional risks to private forestlands, increase
    catastrophic wildfire risks, and if left unmanaged could virtually
    eliminate the carbon sequestration capacity of the United States.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Fearing the effects of forest fires and tree-destroying insect
    infestations, the Canadian Federal government has decided against using
    Canada's forests in its calculations for totaling up Canada's
    greenhouse gas emissions. In fact forests could become a net source if
    projections for 2008-2012 are realized. In contrast, the United States
    takes a 13 percent reduction in its emissions due to sequestration with
    93 percent of this sequestration from forests. From 1990 to 2004 the
    total sequestration in forests has declined by 14 percent. Source: EPA
    Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004, 2-20-
    2007.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fragmentation and parcelization of private forest ownership
    increase the challenge of effectively addressing these threats to
    sustainable forest resource management. More importantly, adequate and
    necessary resources through the State and Private Forestry Programs
    need to be provided to focus on active management strategies to
    maximize the public benefits, such as air and water quality, wildlife
    habitat, carbon sequestration, timber and fiber, and human health and
    well being, of this critical natural resource.
        While the President has proposed a 26 percent reduction in the
    State and Private Forestry Program from the 2007 CR budget level, the
    NASF endorses a 38 percent increase in these essential programs. For
    the State and Private Forestry programs within the Wildland Fire
    Management budget, the President has proposed reducing these programs
    by 14 percent from the 2007 levels, and the NASF recommends a 59
    percent budget increase to address the ever increasing risks from
    growing fuel loads and insect infestations. The President's proposal
    offsets a 10 year running average increase in the wildland fire
    suppression costs of $220 million by slashing other program areas.\3\
    This budgeting requirement necessitates a fundamental reform in the
    budget rules and the resultant budget structure and priorities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ The Forest Service wildfire suppression budget over the last 16
    years has increased from 13 percent of the total agency's budget to 45
    percent, and it is predicted to increase.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Efficiency gains in management can provide funds for some of the
    program enhancements discussed below. At the national office, regional
    offices, and fire management level there are opportunities to improve
    productivity without jeopardizing program deliverables. The current
    effort to ``Redesign'' the State and Private Forestry Programs led by
    the USDA Forest Service and the National Association of State Foresters
    represents a significant effort to achieve these opportunities.
        State Fire Assistance (SFA) is the primary program that delivers
    Federal funding to States to support local firefighting preparedness,
    capacity building, and fire mitigation for wildland fire management.
    This program aids in initial attack success and helps reduce overall
    Federal fire costs. It's effective. Ninety-four percent of wildfires
    are suppressed during the initial attack and another 4 percent are
    suppressed during extended initial attack. Funds are used to assist
    communities prepare Community Wildfire Protection Plans and SFA is the
    only Federal program that targets the wildland-urban interface issues,
    which is a large component of the 10-year National Fire Plan. There are
    11,000 communities adjacent to Federal forestlands and another 45,000
    communities at risk to wildfires. SFA has only helped a fraction of
    these at-risk communities and drastic cuts in these programs only
    increases their risk to catastrophic fires. Federal funds are also
    matched dollar-for-dollar from States and other sources, including
    businesses at the local level. While wildfire risks are increasing,
    public policy should not reduce the preparedness capacity to address
    these risks or reduce programs that focus on mitigating these risks.
        NASF recommends funding SFA at $50 million under State and Private
    Forestry and $95 million under Wildland Fire Management. An exclusive
    focus on Federal lands is an incomplete solution and will ultimately
    undermine success by not taking a landscape-scale approach to planning
    and implementation of hazardous fuels reduction projects.
        Forest Stewardship is the program that provides technical,
    educational and related services to family forest landowners to help
    them better protect, maintain, restore and preserve forest lands.
    Funding has been relatively consistent for the past 9 years but
    significantly lags demand. To date, the program has assisted over 2.5
    million landowners and fostered the development of 272,677 Stewardship
    Plans covering 31.2 million acres.
        There are 290 million acres non-industrial private forest lands
    owned by 9.6 million private owners in the U.S. Stewardship Plans
    assist these landowners to manage their forests in a sustainable way
    which maximizes public benefits for air and water quality, wildlife
    habitat, carbon sequestration, timber, recreation, and open space. NASF
    recommends funding this program at $45 million which is a $3.1 million
    increase over the 2007 budget level and $25 million more than the
    President's proposed 2008 budget.
        Forest Health.--Cooperative Lands serves to minimize the spread of
    established invasive species and lessen the damage of native insects
    and diseases. Over 27 million acres of non-Federal lands are at risk of
    insect and disease damage. There are now more than 400 non-native
    insects and 24 non-native pathogens permanently established in North
    American woodlands. With no specialized predators or resistant hosts to
    keep them under control, these pests can spread aggressively and raise
    havoc with our forests. Damaged, unhealthy forests increase the
    corresponding risks for wildland fires. Dead or damaged trees don't
    sequester carbon. State and Private Forestry funding provides States
    with support for prevention, detection, and suppression of harmful
    insects and diseases. Funds from Wildland Fire Management are used
    primarily for forest insect and disease mitigation in high hazard
    areas. NASF recommends a total of $66 million for this program, divided
    between S&PF ($53 million) and WFM ($13 million). This represents a $9
    million increase over the 2007 CR budget and $17.9 million over the
    President's budget proposal.
        Urban and Community Forestry provides technical assistance and
    cost-share grants to States, local governments, and non-profit
    organizations to enhance environmental services provided from urban
    trees (energy cooling and flood protection, for example) and the
    quality of life for citizens in urban and rural communities. Projects
    can include funds to plant and maintain urban forests, disease and
    insect mitigation, tree ordinance development, drought resistance
    studies, riparian restoration and many more. Demand for these programs
    exceeds the available funding. Cities and particularly towns do not
    have the ability to fund full time urban forestry expertise and rely on
    the State forestry agencies with Federal funding to provide technical,
    education, and financial assistance. These programs efficiently reach
    the vast majority of a State's residents. Urban forests account for
    over 11 percent of the total carbon sequestered in the U.S. NASF
    recommends that this program be funded at $36 million, a $5.9 million
    increase over the 2007 CR budget, and $18.6 million more than the
    President's proposal.
        Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) is the ongoing census of America's
    forests. Using current ecosystem data to project how the forests will
    appear 10-15 years in the future, FIA reports on the status and trends
    in forest area using a variety of indicators over time. These data are
    critical to provide the metrics to assess the effectiveness of resource
    management programs and provide important information on current and
    emerging threats to this natural resource which is vital to human
    health. FIA funding is managed by the USFS Research and Development
    branch with additional funds provided by States which support State
    inventory crews and work with forest landowners to participate in these
    inventories. NASF recommends total funding of FIA at $73.4 million and
    maintaining the State and Private Forestry component at $5 million to
    ensure an all-lands approach to this program. The President's proposed
    budget is $62.3 million.
        The Forest Legacy program identifies and protects important private
    forestlands that are threatened by conversion to non-forest uses.
    Fragmentation of the ownership base is not only a significant
    management challenge for sustainable forest resource management, but
    this growing trend severely impacts eco-system regimes for wildlife,
    water quality, and air quality. This program promotes the use of
    conservation easements from willing landowners to sustain the integrity
    and traditional uses of private working forestlands that provide
    substantial public benefits. Until a robust eco-system benefits market
    trading system is in place, the Forest Legacy program provides a
    critical means to continue the production of public benefits absent an
    alternative compensation system. Currently 46 States and territories
    qualify for Forest Legacy funding and 5 other States are in the process
    of qualifying. In fiscal year 2007, 31 projects were submitted for
    Federal funding of over $61.5 million and their total project costs of
    almost $220 million. Of those, 24 projects were selected with $57.2
    million funding made available. NASF supports fully funding this
    program at $75 million compared with the 2007 CR level of $56.5
    million. The President's proposal is $29.3 million.
        Volunteer Fire Assistance and the related Rural Fire Assistance
    (DOI's related program) is targeted at assisting rural communities with
    populations of 10,000 or less to establish new fire departments and to
    upgrade fire suppression capabilities of existing departments. As
    industrial forestlands have been sold or transferred to other owners,
    the fire fighting infrastructure supported by those industrial owners
    has disappeared but the need has not gone away. Rural communities apply
    for cost-share grants to aid them in purchasing firefighting equipment,
    training personnel, or supported related needs. Requests for funding
    every year exceed available resources. This program is one of the
    Federal Government's most cost effective programs. NASF proposes
    funding this program at $35 million. The 2007 CR level is $13.7 million
    and the President proposed an increase to $17 million.
        The Watershed Forestry Assistance Program seeks to maximize the
    benefits of sound forestry for the improvement of water quality in
    priority watersheds. Forested watersheds produce high quality water and
    active forest management can resolve a variety of environmental
    problems associated with agricultural and developed land uses. Riparian
    forests can be a cost effective solution to thermal impacts on aquatic
    wildlife, particularly when compared to capital intensive technology
    alternatives. NASF recommends funding this program at $30 million.
        Budget reform for wildfire suppression costs is critical. There is
    a need to meet this Nation's wildland fire protection needs in a
    reliable, consistent, and cost effective manner without decimating
    other active forest management programs that address threat reductions
    and optimization of public benefits of forests. The rising costs of
    fire suppression exacerbate this conundrum.
        Conclusion: NASF appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony
    to the Senate subcommittee regarding the fiscal year 2008 budget. Non-
    industrial private forestland is invaluable to the economic, social,
    and environment quality of our country providing more fish and wildlife
    habitat, more watershed protection, and produces more direct economic
    benefits than all of the other forest ownerships combined.
        For more information, please contact: C.T. Kip Howlett, Executive
    Director, NASF, 202-624-5976, khowlett@stateforesters.org
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians
        On behalf of the tribal nations of the National Congress of
    American Indians, we are pleased to present written testimony on the
    fiscal year 2008 Interior and related agencies appropriations bill. We
    include our funding recommendations for programs in the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs, Office of Special Trustee, and the Indian Health
    Service.
        Tribal leaders, through consultation with various agencies and
    through NCAI convenings, have identified the following areas for
    meaningful Federal investment in Indian Country: public safety and
    justice, health care, education, and natural resources. However, NCAI
    would like to emphasize that, although tribal leaders have developed
    the above priority areas for fiscal year 2008, the unconditional
    underpinnings for all of the funding recommendations in this testimony
    are tribal self-determination and self-governance. NCAI's support for
    areas in the Federal budget that support self-determination and self-
    governance is uncompromising.
        Although tribal people in the United States have inherited the
    challenges stemming from centuries of unjust policies and broken
    agreements, a promising resurgence in self-government and self-
    determination has allowed tribes to flourish in ways unimaginable 50
    years ago. When tribes are able to operate as governments responsible
    for their own people and resources, which is the essence of tribal
    sovereignty, the resulting achievements have led to reversing the poor
    conditions created by centuries of injustice. Accordingly, before
    addressing our various programmatic funding recommendations, we would
    like to call attention to the very alarming proposal for reductions to
    the very category at the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) that directly
    supports tribal self-determination and represents the Federal trust
    responsibility to tribes: Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA).
        NCAI understands that the administration and Congress must make
    difficult budget decisions this year and must support the most
    efficient and worthy programs in the Federal budget while taking into
    account efforts to reduce the national deficit. While tribes will
    advance the priorities detailed in this testimony, the priority
    initiatives cannot come at the expense of Tribal Priority Allocations.
    In the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget request, TPA would be reduced by
    $20.5 million from the fiscal year 2007 CR amount, which constitutes
    the majority of the cuts proposed to the BIA Operation of Indian
    Programs. TPA has long been one of the most important funding areas for
    tribal governments, as they have the flexibility to use these funds to
    meet the unique needs of individual tribal communities, making TPA the
    main resource for tribes to exercise their powers of self-governance.
    The current proposed reductions undermine the very self-determination
    policy that has driven Indian Country's success in addressing the long
    enduring socio-economic disparities.
                           public safety and justice
        A primary role of tribal government is to ensure the security and
    safety of Indian communities and families, tribal lands and resources,
    and the United States through law enforcement, detention, and strong
    judicial systems. Tribal governments serve as the primary instrument of
    law enforcement for the more than fifty million acres of land that
    comprise Indian country. On April 24, 2007, Amnesty International
    issued a report, ``Maze of Injustice: The failure to protect Indigenous
    women from sexual violence in the USA,'' which detailed
    disproportionately high rates of rape of Native women due, in addition
    to the complex maze of jurisdiction, to chronic under funding of law
    enforcement and the Indian Health Service. This report highlights the
    results of under resourced tribal justice systems that tribal leaders
    have been attempting to address for years.
        Law Enforcement.--Current funding for tribal law enforcement and
    first responders lags well behind that for non-tribal law enforcement.
    According to a gap analysis the BIA performed in 2006, Indian Country
    has 2,555 law enforcement officers, yet needs a total of 4,409,
    resulting in a gap of 1,854 officers, or a 42 percent unmet staffing
    need. This gap in police to service population is based on the FBI's
    2004 Uniform Crime Report (UCR) and recent BIA preliminary data.
    Excluding tribal policing, BIA has 358 officers overall, yet needs
    1,153, resulting in a gap of 759 officers, or a 69 percent unmet
    staffing need. This gap is based on the UCR rate of 3.3 officers/1,000
    inhabitants for rural areas under 10,000. The current police force of
    358 officers provides 0.9 officers/1,000 inhabitants. In any attempt to
    bring law enforcement officers up to par with non-Indian communities'
    coverage, it's also important to consider that the Community Oriented
    Policing Services grants at the Department of Justice are expiring.
    These grants have provided direct funding to tribes on a government to
    government basis, but between 2004 and 2006, more than 700 officer
    positions expired. On the ground at Standing Rock, for instance, this
    shortfall means there are six or seven patrol officers and two
    investigators to patrol 2.3 million acres of land. Sometimes there is
    only one officer on duty for the whole reservation.
        Tribal Courts.--Tribal judicial systems are the primary and most
    appropriate institutions for maintaining order in tribal communities.
    However, tribal court systems frequently are overburdened due to lack
    of Federal funding. A recent Wall Street Journal article highlighted
    some of the issues resulting from inadequate resources.\1\ The front
    page article illustrated how the laws that protect the rights of Indian
    people cannot be effectively enforced due to lack of funding. The
    article included an example from the Tohono O'odham Nation. After the
    attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Federal Government clamped down on
    illegal immigration in the urban areas of the Mexican border. As a
    result, the Tohono O'odham reservation saw a huge increase in illegal
    immigration, drug smuggling, and related crime. Tribes, including the
    Tohono O'odham Nation, have repeatedly asked for additional Federal
    resources to help them govern their international borders. Yet, Indian
    tribes are not eligible to directly receive any of the billions that
    the Federal Government distributes to State governments to help them
    patrol the borders and combat drug-trafficking. Thus, these tribes are
    forced to allocate their scarce resources among many competing
    priorities. Any discussion of public safety in Indian Country is
    inextricably tied to the strength of tribal courts to maintain order in
    tribal communities. Although police and detention centers have received
    funding increases in recent years, tribal court funding has remained
    flat or decreases, which poses a significant obstacle to truly
    improving the safety of Indian people on tribal lands.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ``Native Americans on Trial Often Go Without Counsel,'' Wall
    Street Journal, February 1, 2007.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Detention Facilities.--In September 2004, the U.S. Department of
    Interior Inspector General's Office issued a report, `` `Neither Safe
    Nor Secure': An Assessment of Indian Detention Facilities,'' which
    outlined the deplorable and life-threatening conditions of Indian
    jails.
        Funding Recommendations.--NCAI commends the Secretary of Interior's
    departmental Safe Indian Communities Initiative which includes a $16
    million increase for public safety programs at BIA. This initiative is
    congruent with the tribal leaders' priority to strengthen public safety
    and justice in Indian Country. Tribal leaders have prioritized public
    safety and justice, which includes tribal courts, as the top priority
    for fiscal year 2008. NCAI urges Congress to help Indian Country law
    enforcement resources reach levels comparable to non-Indian
    communities. NCAI supports sustained 10 percent annual increases for
    Indian Country public safety program and especially urges this increase
    for tribal courts as part of making Indian communities safer.
                                 indian health
        Poor health continues to inhibit the economic, educational and
    social development of all of Indian Country. A vast range of public
    health indicators show that American Indians continue to suffer
    disproportionately from a variety of illnesses and diseases. Indians
    have a shorter life expectancy and have higher rates of disease than
    the general population. One of the key recommendations from the Amnesty
    International report ``Maze of Injustice,'' was to permanently increase
    funding for the IHS to ensure adequate levels of medical attention. The
    fiscal year 2008 budget request for IHS is contrary to tribal
    consultation and would not maintain current services for basic health
    programs.
        Fund the Urban Indian Health Program.--President Bush has proposed
    the elimination of the Urban Indian Health Program within the Indian
    Health Service. Health problems associated with the Indian population
    can only be successfully combated if significant funding is directed at
    the urban Indian population as well as the reservation population.
    Rather than the President's proposal, NCAI recommends increased funding
    for Urban Indian Health Programs by 10 percent. This increase will
    elevate the Urban Indian Health Program funding from $32.7 million to
    $36 million and represents a necessary step towards closing the funding
    gap for urban programs. While this in no way addresses the total need,
    it will make a difference in access to and quality of care for American
    Indians/Alaska Natives living in urban areas.
        Maintain Existing Service.--American Indians and Alaska Natives
    receive life or limb service under current conditions, meaning funds
    are only available to treat the most life threatening illnesses leaving
    other serious health needs unaddressed. Failing to fund mandatory costs
    for pay costs, inflation, and population growth results in lost
    purchasing power and in even less services for Indian people. The
    administration reports a $212 million increase for mandatory costs in
    its justification, however, the increase is financed at the expense of
    the Urban Indian health program, a loss which tribes resoundingly
    oppose. The President's fiscal year 2008 budget would not fund $350
    million in mandatory costs. NCAI urges Congress to fund IHS at least to
    maintain current services.
        $150 Million for Contract Support Costs.--In 2005, the United
    States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Cherokee Nation and
    Shoshone-Paiute Tribes v. Leavitt lawsuit, which powerfully reaffirms
    the enforceability of government contracts between Indian Tribes and
    agencies such as IHS and BIA. The Court's ruling compels corrective
    action from Congress, where historically insufficient funds have been
    appropriated to pay government contracts with Tribes, while all other
    government contracts are fully paid.
                                indian education
        Effective and culturally relevant educational systems are critical
    for nurturing strong, prosperous tribal youth and lay the foundation
    for healthy communities. A dangerous pattern has developed in recent
    years where Indian programs receive smaller increases in years where
    overall funding is up and bigger cuts in years when overall funding is
    down, and the proposed budget for fiscal year 2008 continues this trend
    in the Department of Education and Department of Interior. Although
    NCAI supports Interior Secretary Kempthorne's proposal to increase
    funding for the Bureau of Indian Education as part of an Indian
    Education Initiative, many of the education programs supported by
    tribal leaders were eliminated or reduced in the fiscal year 2008
    budget request, such as scholarships and adult education (reduced by $5
    million) and the Johnson O'Malley program (proposed to be eliminated).
        Johnson O'Malley Program.--: The President proposes to completely
    eliminate the Johnson O'Malley program (JOM) in fiscal year 2008. Once
    again, the administration justifies eliminating JOM stating other
    government programs can provide this funding. JOM is not duplicative of
    Department of Education programs. The U.S. Department of Education
    oversees the Title VII Indian Education Act programs which the
    President considers ``a similar funding'' source for Indian Education.
    The Title VII program is run directly through the school districts and
    is not subject to tribal control. The tribes have no actual authority
    over the design or implementation of the Title VII programs. NCAI urges
    Congress to restore the funding for this critical Indian education
    program.
                               natural resources
        Tribal communities maintain significant spiritual, economic,
    cultural, and material relationships with their natural environment.
    Natural resource programs are of immense importance to tribal cultures,
    including resource development, fish and wildlife, conservation,
    wetlands protection, and water resources. Protection of these resources
    form an integral part of the Federal Indian trust responsibility.
        BIA Natural Resources.--At the Bureau of Indian Affairs/Tribal
    Budget Advisory Council, tribal leaders and bureau representatives
    placed natural resources in the top four funding priorities for tribes
    and the BIA in fiscal year 2008. However, a partial list of
    disinvestments from fiscal year 2004 proposed in the President's fiscal
    year 2008 budget include: a $1.9 million cut, an 88 percent reduction,
    for Endangered Species from fiscal year 2004 levels; a $5.4 million
    cut, a 55 percent reduction, for Tribal Management/Development; $2
    million, a 52 percent reduction, for Noxious Weed Eradication; a $6.2
    million reduction for Rights Protection Implementation; and complete
    elimination of the Wetlands and Waterfowl Management program. Such
    diminishing resources leads to the dismantling of both the tribes'
    abilities to manage their natural resources and the Interior
    Secretary's trust responsibility to protect them. Overall, BIA natural
    resources funding should be restored to at least their fiscal year 2004
    enacted levels.
        Indian Land Consolidation.--Tribal leaders continue to stress that
    Indian land consolidation is critical for addressing the problem of
    fractionation, which creates an accounting nightmare for the Federal
    Government and enormous difficulties for Indian land owners in putting
    land to economic use. Land consolidation will improve Federal
    administration and management, and saves substantial Federal dollars
    that currently go to tracking tiny interests. The administration
    proposed $10 million for Indian land consolidation for fiscal year
    2008, $24.5 million below the enacted amount for fiscal year 2006. NCAI
    understands that the reduction to land consolidation may have been
    proposed at a time when Cobell settlement legislation, which included
    further measures to address fractionation, was anticipated to be passed
    during the 109th Congress. Considering that the Cobell settlement
    legislation was not enacted, NCAI urges Congress to fund the Indian
    Land Consolidation program in the very least at the fiscal year 2006
    enacted level of $34.5 million. However, NCAI would encourage Congress
    to fund ILCP at the level proposed by the administration in fiscal year
    2007, $59.5 million. Our understanding is that the Land Consolidation
    Office can effectively utilize these funds without the need to scale up
    the size of the office, and that land transactions costs are decreasing
    as the new title system is implemented. This investment in land
    consolidation will do more to save on future trust administration costs
    than any other item in the trust budget.
                                     other
        Data Management.--A persistent problem affecting all areas of
    Indian Country is the lack of efficient and effective data management
    and reporting. Tribes and Federal agencies badly need to improve
    capacity to identify existing needs and deficiencies and NCAI urges
    Congress and the President to invest in improved data management for
    programs affecting American Indians. For instance, in the Department of
    Interior, Indian Affairs programs do not maintain collected data in a
    ready access fashion for instant analysis and reporting, resulting in
    weeks or months to compile a report on standard program practices. The
    Bureau's lack of data management also leads to duplicate data calls,
    missed deadlines, and incomplete reporting. It appears that all
    programs collect standard program data on a regular basis, but fail to
    maintain it. NCAI urges an increased investment in data management to
    more efficiently and effectively use program funding; improve
    justification for budget formulation, budget allocations, and fund
    distribution; enhance data credibility and analysis for use by decision
    makers in critical processes (including GPRA and PART).
        Housing Improvement Program.--The President proposed complete
    elimination of the $18.8 million that funds the Housing Improvement
    Program in Tribal Priority Allocations. HIP serves the poorest of the
    poor in Indian Country by reducing substandard housing and homelessness
    through providing housing repairs and renovations of existing homes,
    construction of a modest replacement home, or construction of a modest
    home. NCAI urges Congress to restore this critical program in the
    fiscal year 2008 budget process.
                                   conclusion
        NCAI realizes Congress must make difficult budget choices this
    year. As elected officials, tribal leaders certainly understand the
    competing priorities that you must weigh over the coming months.
    However, the Federal Government's solemn responsibility to address the
    serious needs facing Indian Country remains unchanged, whatever the
    economic climate and competing priorities may be. We at NCAI urge you
    to make a strong, across-the-board commitment to meeting the Federal
    trust obligation by fully funding those programs that are vital to the
    creation of vibrant Indian Nations.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Conference of State Historic
                             Preservation Officers
        Request: $50,000,000 State Historic Preservation Programs and
    $10,000,000 competitive grants to States for historic site survey
    digitization and emergency preparedness from U.S. Department of the
    Interior, National Park Service, Historic Preservation Fund
        The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
    presents a two-part request: 1. $50,000,000 for the State Historic
    Preservation Offices (SHPOs) to fulfill the Federal commitment to
    historic preservation in the National Historic Preservation Act 2 (16
    U.S.C. 470) and 2. $10,000,000 for SHPOs for historic site survey
    digitization and emergency preparedness.
                $50,000,000 state historic preservation offices
        The $50,000,000 withdrawal from the $150,000,000 deposited into the
    Historic Preservation Fund in fiscal year 2008 constitutes formula
    matching grants to State Historic Preservation Offices to carry out the
    National Historic Preservation Act. This is a $14,283,324 increase over
    the administration's request.
        The National Historic Preservation Act sets out goals for the
    preservation of America's heritage: find every historic place, nominate
    significant places to the National Register, establish formal
    partnerships with local governments, review every Federal project for
    impacts on historic properties, advise project sponsors on historic
    rehabilitation, provide historic preservation education to all, conduct
    statewide planning, make matching grants for restoration, monitor
    covenants and easements. Since 1981, the administration budget requests
    have fallen woefully short of the need without a concomittant reduction
    in State responsibilities. $50,000,000 will bring the financial reality
    to the program demands.
         $10,000,000 competitive grants to shpos for digitization and
                                 identification
        Partly as a result of the Preserve America Summit--a national
    gathering of preservation experts in New Orleans in October 2006--the
    administration included a request for $5,000,000 in its budget for the
    digitization of historic site survey information. The National
    Conference commends the administration for acknowledging the need and
    for committing to a 7-year funding stream. We fully support $5,000,000
    in competitive grants to State Historic Preservation Officers to
    convert existing data on historic sites into electronic databases tied
    to a geographic information system.
        This effort will benefit the Federal Government. Federal agencies
    are required to take historic properties into account in project
    planning. The ``taking into account'' cost is dramatically reduced if
    agencies have on-line access through a GIS system to the location of
    historic properties. The administration's approach is realistic and
    doable. National Park Service's staff studies indicate that the
    digitization of paper records in State Historic Preservation Office
    files will require a $25,000,000 Federal commitment. (All HPF
    withdrawals are matched.) The administration's 7-year commitment will
    meet that goal.
        However, more is needed. The Katrina experience taught SHPOs that
    completing the identification of America's historic places is
    essential. The lack of information on the location of historic places
    significantly and unnecessarily delayed recovery. Had information on
    the location of historic places in the impact area been available in an
    electronic geographic information system, the historic preservation
    component of recovery could have begun virtually immediately.
        A second $5,000,000 would go for competitive grants to States for
    new field work to identify historic properties in areas prone to impact
    from disasters. Just as EMT's need addresses in responding to 9-1-1
    calls, when disaster strikes, agencies need to know the ``addresses''
    of historic properties.
                                   background
        Forty years ago, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
    (NHPA) established the Nation's historic preservation program to be
    carried out through State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs ).
    States continue to struggle to achieve bare minimum NHPA mandates as
    funding--in real dollar terms--declines. HPF withdrawals dropped by
    over 25 percent from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2003 and has been
    essentially flat since then. Our request would return the national
    program to levels comparable to fiscal year 2001, adjusted for
    inflation.
        Declining HPF withdrawals continue to force SHPOs to prioritize and
    frequently lay aside the preservation needs of their States to respond
    to Federal requirements. Economic Research Associates, an
    internationally economic consulting firm, analyzed SHPO's activity and
    concluded.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 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 a
    negative effect on other historic preservation priorities.
        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 as illustrated
    below.
                    benefits of a $50,000,000 hpf withdrawal
        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 using the modest Federal operating funds
    to stimulate as much as $3 billion in construction annually.
        Heritage Tourism.--Historic preservation is the foundation of
    heritage tourism, which is a multi-billion 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.
        Sample of State-Specific Benefits.--Here is a sampling of new tasks
    SHPOs would take on with a $50,000,000 appropriation.
        Alabama and New York: tackle their dual problems of rural
    depopulation and urban sprawl
        California: address the hard questions about significance of
    buildings from the recent past--the key period in California's history
        Idaho: combat looting of archeological sites; educate about
    historic buildings and energy conservation and handicapped
    accessibility
        Washington: cultivate the young generation with a keen interest in
    the architecture of the recent past
        Rhode Island: address the structural deficit in the human capital
    needed to promote the credit and assist developers to rehab rotting
    industrial complexes into a new, property tax-paying life
        New Mexico: famous for historic preservation around Santa Fe, most
    of the State needs advice on how retain its varied culture and historic
    homes and businesses.
                                why $50,000,000?
        The National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund Grants Manual
    in Chapter 2 Apportionment Formula determines that $50,000,000 is the
    appropriate amount (when matched) to run the basic national historic
    preservation program. The program components, all of which are
    mandatory, include identification of historic places; maintenance of
    historic site survey information and making it available for
    preservation use; National Register nomination process; consultation
    with Federal agencies on every action in the State; education for
    Federal agencies and the public; assistance to and entitlement funding
    for local government partners; statewide historic preservation
    planning; advising owners about and reviewing plans for historic
    rehabilitation tax credit applications; and on-going monitoring of
    easements and covenants for Historic Preservation Fund restoration
    grants from the 1970s. In addition to these mandated responsibilities,
    SHPOs coordinate and oversee Preserve America and Save America's
    Treasures grant projects.
        The HPF Fund allocations to State Historic Preservation Offices are
    operational funding, not a discretionary grant program. Unlike the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund grants for acquisition projects, the
    Historic Preservation Fund covers operational costs--salaries and
    benefits, office space, telephone, supplies, etc. Inflation and fixed
    costs directly impact State Historic Preservation Offices just as they
    do the National Park Service. A reduction in a LWCF appropriation
    results in doing fewer projects. State Historic Preservation Officers
    do not have that flexibility. Fixed costs are fixed. A flat HPF
    appropriation in dollar terms means an absolute reduction, a decrease.
                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.\2\
    The National Conference is disappointed that this success is not
    reflected in an increase in program funding in the administration's
    budget request.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ State LWCF grants, in contrast, received a review score of 43
    percent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   conclusion
        The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
    appreciates the opportunity to present the States' HPF case to the
    Congress. We urge your careful consideration of the States' request
    ($50,000,000 and $10,000,000, see p. 1) and that of Tribal Historic
    Preservation Officers ($12,000,000) and Preserve America ($10,000,000
    and Save America's Treasures ($30,000,000). The total request of the
    national historic preservation community is $112,000,000, $3,000,000
    less than the 2006 total (with emergency expenditures).
        Thank you.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the National Cooperators' Coalition
                                    summary
        The National Cooperators' Coalition (NCC) urges the subcommittee to
    increase the operational budget of the U.S. Geological Survey's
    Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CFWRUs) by $5 million
    above the fiscal year 2008 request, and to provide additional funding
    of $20 million in subsequent years to initiate a competitive, matching
    fund program for support of high priority research and training by the
    CFWRUs. These increases above the fiscal year 2008 request are
    essential to successfully address the natural resource management
    challenges posed by climate change, energy development needs, invasive
    species, infectious diseases, wildfire, increased demand for limited
    water resources, and retirement and replacement of an unprecedented
    number of natural resource professionals over the next 10 years.
        The National Cooperators' Coalition is an alliance of more than 60
    nonfederal CRU program cooperators and other supporters of the CFWRU
    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 CFWRU
    program cooperators.
       funding the ncc vision for natural resources research and training
        The State agencies, universities, and organizations of the NCC have
    worked together to develop a Vision and Strategies for the Future of
    the CFWRUs, which identifies our most pressing natural resource
    challenges and outlines how greater use of the CFWRUs can help meet
    these needs. The CFWRUs are crucial to successfully addressing the
    natural resource management challenges posed by climate change, energy
    development needs, invasive species, infectious diseases, wildfire, and
    increased demand for limited water resources. These challenges also
    include replacing the unprecedented number of natural resource
    professionals who will be retiring over the next 10 years.
        As you know, each of the CFWRUs in 38 States is a true Federal-
    State-university-private partnership among the U.S. Geological Survey,
    a State natural resource agency, a host university, and the Wildlife
    Management Institute. The CFWRUs build on these partner contributions
    to leverage more than $3 for every $1 appropriated to the program by
    Congress.
        Finding workable solutions to our natural resource challenges
    requires the CFWRU's management-oriented, community-based approach to
    research, which relies on interdisciplinary efforts and fosters
    collaboration and accountability. The CFWRUs also are well positioned
    to help replace our retiring workforce. They have an established record
    of educating new natural resource professionals who are management-
    oriented, well-versed in science, grounded in State and Federal agency
    experience, and able to assist private landowners and other members of
    the public.
        To begin meeting these high priority research and training needs in
    fiscal year 2008, the NCC asks you to begin implementation of the NCC
    Vision by establishing a competitive, matching fund program within
    existing CFWRU legislative authority that eventually would make
    available $20 million annually in new funds beyond base operational
    costs. These new funds would support future cooperative, high priority
    research efforts and essential training of new natural resource
    professionals to replace the large number who will retire within the
    next decade.
        The fiscal year 2008 USGS appropriation also needs to provide
    approximately $5 million more than the fiscal year 2006/2007 funding
    levels for the CFWRUs to restore seriously eroded operational funds for
    each CFWRU, enhance national program coordination, and fill current
    scientist vacancies. This additional funding would restore necessary
    capacity in the CFWRU program for it to meet the Nation's research and
    training needs. Importantly it also would ensure that the Interior
    Department provides the Federal scientist staffing agreed to with
    partners so that the return on their continuing investment in the
    CFWRUs is realized and fully leveraged. Without an infusion of funds,
    one fifth of all CFWRU scientist positions (24) will need to be vacant
    by the end of fiscal year 2008 to remain within allowable spending
    levels.
        The NCC urges you to make greater use of this important research
    and training partnership, which already brings together State fish and
    wildlife agencies, State universities, and Federal agencies around a
    local, applied research agenda. With your assistance, the Cooperative
    Fish and Wildlife Research Units can become even more effective in
    using science and collaboration to address the natural resources
    challenges facing the Interior Department and other Federal, State, and
    local agencies.
        This effort is supported by the following hunting, angling, and
    conservation organizations: Archery Trade Association, Bear Trust
    International, Boone & Crockett Club, Bowhunting Preservation Alliance,
    Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Foundation for
    North American Wild Sheep, Izaak Walton League, National Trapper's
    Association, North American Bear Foundation, North American Grouse
    Partnership, Pheasants Forever, Pope & Young Club, Quail Forever,
    Quality Deer Management Association, Safari Club International,
    Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Wildlife Forever, The
    Wildlife Society, and the Wildlife Management Institute.
        Thank you for consideration of this request. With your assistance,
    the CFWRUs can become even more effective in using science and
    collaboration to address the natural resources challenges facing the
    Interior Department and other Federal, State, and local agencies.

        University of Arkansas; University of Arizona; Arizona Game and
    Fish Department; Humboldt State University; Colorado State University;
    Colorado Division of Wildlife; University of Florida; Florida Fish &
    Wildlife Conserv. Comm.; University of Georgia; Georgia Dept. of
    Natural Resources; University of Hawaii; University of Idaho; Idaho
    Dept. of Fish and Game; Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources; Purdue
    University; Iowa State University; Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources;
    Kansas Dept. Wildlife and Parks; Louisiana State University; Maine
    Dept. Inland Fisheries & Wildlife; University of Maryland Eastern
    Shore; University of Minnesota; Minnesota Dept. Natural Resources;
    University of Missouri; Missouri Dept. of Conservation; University of
    Montana; Montana State University; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks;
    University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Nebraska Game and Parks Commission;
    University of Nevada, Reno; New Mexico Dept. of Game and Fish; New
    Mexico State University; North Carolina State University; North
    Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission; Oklahoma Dept. of Wildlife
    Conservation; Oklahoma State University; Oregon State University;
    Pennsylvania Game Commission; Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission;
    Clemson University; South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks; South Dakota
    State University; Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency; Texas Parks and
    Wildlife Department; Texas Tech University; Utah State University;
    Virginia Tech University; Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department;
    Wisconsin Dept. Natural Resources; University of Wisconsin--Madison;
    Wyoming Game & Fish Department; University of Wyoming; Ducks Unlimited,
    Inc.; Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; Izaak Walton League of
    America; Midwest Assoc. Fish & Wildlife Agencies; Western Assoc. Fish &
    Wildlife Agencies; National Association of University Fish and Wildlife
    Programs; North American Grouse Partnership; The Wildlife Society;and
    Wildlife Management Institute.
                                     ______

        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 2008. NCSE recommends a minimum appropriation 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. NCSE recommends 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.
        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 U.S. Geological Survey provides essential services for the
    Nation yet suffers from a long-term funding shortfall. In real terms,
    funding for the USGS is currently at its lowest level since fiscal year
    1996, when the National Biological Service was first integrated into
    the USGS (Figure 1). The USGS budget has declined in real dollars for 5
    consecutive years and is targeted for another budget cut in fiscal year
    2008. The President's budget request would cut funding for the USGS by
    approximately $8 million or 1 percent to $975 million in fiscal year
    2008.
        As a founding member and co-chair of the USGS Coalition, NCSE joins
    with numerous other organizations in recommending an appropriation of
    $1.2 billion for the U.S. Geological Survey in fiscal year 2008. This
    increase would enable the USGS to restore the science cuts proposed in
    the budget request, accelerate the timetable for deployment of critical
    projects, launch new science initiatives that provide the scientific
    basis for addressing emerging national needs, and begin to reverse the
    cumulative effects of the long-term funding shortfall that has left the
    USGS budget stagnant for the past decade. After years of stagnant
    funding and absorption of uncontrollable cost increases, the USGS has a
    large and growing backlog of science and monitoring needs.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The USGS provides essential services that address many of the
    Nation's highest domestic priorities. A few examples are provided
    below:
      --In the wake of recent floods, wildfires, earthquakes and
            hurricanes, there is a growing appreciation of the role of USGS
            science in preventing natural hazards from becoming natural
            disasters.
      --As the Nation grows increasingly concerned about energy, water,
            mineral and biological resources, it will rely increasingly on
            the USGS for resource assessments and under-standing to improve
            the scientific basis for managing our natural resources.
      --The potential for an avian flu pandemic remains a global concern,
            and the USGS is conducting targeted surveillance of birds for
            avian flu in North America. The USGS provides information
            necessary to track and respond to other infectious diseases
            that can be transmitted from wildlife to people. It also
            monitors the spread of invasive species that can pose
            significant economic threats.
      --The USGS is poised to make greater contributions to climate change
            science by taking advantage of its unique multidisciplinary
            expertise and distributed geographic infrastructure to
            interpret the consequences of climate variability to the
            Nation's ecosystems and land and water resources.
      --The USGS is producing a new generation of digital geospatial data
            products that provide a virtual infrastructure for resource
            management, science, commerce, recreation, and homeland
            security.
        Proposed budget cuts would adversely affect the ability of the USGS
    to achieve its mission. For example, more than $20 million would be cut
    from the Mineral Resources program, a devastating decrease of more than
    40 percent. The entire budget ($6.4 million in fiscal year 2006) for
    the Water Resources Research Institutes, which are located in all 50
    States, would be eliminated. We encourage Congress to restore these and
    other cuts proposed in the fiscal year 2008 budget request, but this
    funding should not come at the expense of other high priority programs
    elsewhere in the USGS.
        The USGS benefits every American every day. It deserves the
    continued support of Congress. NCSE is grateful to Congress for its
    past support of the USGS and for restoring proposed budget cuts. More
    investment is needed to strengthen USGS partnerships, improve
    monitoring networks, produce high-quality digital geospatial data and
    deliver the best possible science to serve the needs of the Nation.
                        environmental protection agency
        EPA's research and development portfolio has declined while the
    Nation's environmental challenges continue to grow. In order to fulfill
    its mission, EPA needs increased investments in both its intramural and
    extramural science programs, as well as such associated services as
    environmental education and information. 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.
        EPA's funding for R&D is at its lowest level in nearly two decades
    in real dollars and would fall even further under the President's
    budget request for fiscal year 2008 (figure 2). After several years of
    steady declines, EPA's R&D funding level in fiscal year 2008 would be
    27 percent below the fiscal year 2004 funding level in real dollars,
    according to data compiled by the American Association for the
    Advancement of Science. EPA's extramural research grants program has
    suffered disproportion-ate budget cuts since fiscal year 2002.
        NCSE recommends a minimum appropriation 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 STAR research
    grants program and $20 million for EPA's STAR graduate fellowship
    program. NCSE recommends 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 created the extramural Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
    program as part of a set of reforms proposed by the National Academy of
    Sciences in the 1990s. The STAR program provides EPA with an
    opportunity to take better advantage of the intellectual and scientific
    resources of the academic community and apply these resources to the
    challenges faced by EPA. The 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. 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 National Academies report says, ``The STAR program
    should continue to be an important part of EPA's research program.''

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Funding for the STAR program has been cut repeatedly over the past
    several years. The fiscal year 2008 request for the STAR programs
    (including fellowships) is $61.9 million, which is approximately 44
    percent below the fiscal year 2002 level of $110 million and 28 percent
    below the fiscal year 2004 level of $85.5 million. 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 merit-based 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.''
        The STAR Graduate Fellowship program has been repeatedly proposed
    for budget cuts, only to be restored by Congress each year. The budget
    for the fellowship program has been slightly under $10 million for much
    of its 10 year history. 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 2008 budget request again 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 Endowment for the Arts
        I am honored to report on the state of the National Endowment for
    the Arts (NEA) and the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for
    $128,412,000. We are pleased that the President's budget contains an
    increase of $4 million for the NEA.
                                   background
        As I begin my second term as chairman of the National Endowment for
    the Arts, I am proud to report that the NEA is currently operating with
    high artistic standards, unprecedented democratic access, inclusive
    partnerships, and improved efficiency. We have made remarkable progress
    in recent years and today have a strong sense of confidence in our
    public mission, reputation and record of service.
        The Arts Endowment's programs now reach into every corner of our
    Nation--bringing the best of the arts and arts education to the
    broadest and most varied audiences possible. While maintaining the
    highest artistic and educational standards, the agency has effectively
    democratized its programs, while also keeping them relevant to the
    needs of diverse communities. This expanded reach has been made
    possible by national initiatives such as Shakespeare in American
    Communities, NEA Jazz in the Schools, Operation Homecoming, Great
    American Voices, Poetry Out Loud, The Big Read, and American
    Masterpieces that together reach thousands of communities, classrooms,
    and military bases--collectively serving millions of Americans.
        Meanwhile our grants process has been broadened through our
    Challenge America: Reaching Every Community program that helps to
    ensure that direct grants reach arts organizations in every
    congressional district in the United States in addition to our State
    arts agency and regional arts organization grants. In 2007 we will
    achieve for the third consecutive year our goal of reaching every
    community in the United States--with many grants once again going to
    organizations that have never before received Endowment support.
                        fiscal year 2008 budget request
        The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is proud to support the
    President's budget request for fiscal year 2008 and to report on our
    progress during the past year. To support our vital mission, we are
    requesting a budget of $128,412,000, which includes $102.942 million
    for grant-making activities with $61.765 million committed to American
    Masterpieces, Challenge America, and basic grant programs and $41.177
    million allocated for State and regional partnerships.
                        agency goals and accomplishments
        The past 4 years have been a period of enormous innovation,
    sustained energy, and meaningful renewal at the NEA. We have made a
    series of significant changes that enable the agency to serve the
    Nation more efficiently and effectively.
        NEA grants are producing economic benefits throughout the country
    by nurturing local arts groups and enhancing local economies. With each
    dollar awarded by the NEA generating on average $6-$7 from other
    sources, the NEA is triggering an investment of approximately $600
    million for the arts from private donors and non-Federal sources.
        We welcome this opportunity to showcase the following programs that
    exemplify NEA's commitment to excellence, broad geographic reach and
    arts education.
    Challenge America: Reaching Every Community
        The creation of the Challenge America program in 2001 marked a
    turning point in NEA history. This program built upon the agency's
    strengths in supporting the arts and arts education but challenged the
    NEA to broaden its service to Americans outside established cultural
    centers. The program quickly broadened the geographic distribution of
    grants, but it did not fully realize its original goals of reaching the
    entire Nation. In an average year, direct grants reached only about
    three quarters of the Nation (as measured by congressional districts).
    Consequently, areas of the Nation representing more than 70 million
    citizens received limited service from the agency.
        Four years ago, we set the goal of delivering a direct grant to
    every congressional district in the United States. In 2005, and again
    in 2006, the NEA realized 100 percent coverage with direct grants
    awarded to high-quality organizations in all 435 districts. In 2007 the
    NEA will again achieve that 100 percent coverage goal. The Arts
    Endowment considers the new Challenge America program one of its
    central achievements.
    International Initiatives
        When I came to the NEA, I was dismayed to learn how little was done
    in international cultural exchange. Over the past few years, the NEA
    has focused on developing several programs that showcase America's
    artistic creativity and excellence abroad. We now provide assistance to
    U.S. music and dance ensembles invited to perform in international
    festivals abroad. We have joined with the Open World Leadership Program
    to support short-term residencies for Russian artists and arts
    administrators with U.S. arts groups.
        Most recently, as a partner in the State Department's Global
    Cultural Initiative launched in September, the NEA has begun a series
    of International Literary Exchanges. In partnership with other
    countries and U.S. independent presses, the NEA is providing American
    readers with access to literary works by contemporary writers of other
    countries and providing foreign readers with access to the work of
    highly talented living American writers. Building on the success of a
    United States-Mexico poetry anthology published in 2006, the NEA is
    currently developing similar projects with Russia, Northern Ireland and
    Pakistan.
                              national initiatives
        The Arts Endowment's national initiatives allow the agency to
    create partnerships with hundreds of local arts organizations, schools,
    and public institutions to achieve common goals. Creating these
    partnerships allows Federal dollars to be spent more effectively. Over
    the past 4 years these widely applauded initiatives have reached
    millions of Americans with programs of the highest quality and truly
    egalitarian reach. Managed through the regional arts organizations, the
    initiatives have provided hundreds of grants to arts organizations and
    employment to thousands of actors, singers, writers, musicians, and
    artists as well as directors, designers, stagehands, and technicians--
    all directed at providing cultural services greatly needed and
    appreciated by local communities and schools.
    American Masterpieces
        Many adults and young people are unfamiliar with the significant
    artistic and cultural achievements of our Nation. They have few
    opportunities in school or daily life to learn about the arts or
    acquire skills to appreciate or participate in them. To address this
    challenge, the Arts Endowment established American Masterpieces: Three
    Centuries of Artistic Genius. It vividly embodies the goals of
    excellence and outreach and features educational programs along with
    presentations of artistic works themselves.
        Now in its third year, American Masterpieces is fully under way
    with five major components--visual arts, dance, choral music, musical
    theater, and literature. American Masterpieces grants have enabled 27
    museums in 14 States to tour exhibitions to 136 cities across the
    Nation, reaching an estimated audience of 4.1 million. Choral music
    grants have supported the creation of eight regional festivals
    celebrating American choral music in seven States and the District of
    Columbia. Fifty dance companies are reviving and touring American
    choreographic masterpieces nationwide. In Musical Theater, 13 theater
    companies in 11 States are reviving and touring significant works of
    American musical theater. All these programs are reaching into
    underserved rural and urban American communities and introducing new
    generations to their rich artistic legacy.
    The Big Read
        The National Endowment for the Arts' widely discussed 2004 report,
    Reading at Risk, identified a critical decline in reading among
    American adults. Drawn from a U.S. Census sample of 17,000 Americans,
    Reading at Risk established an especially alarming fact: literary
    reading is rapidly declining among Americans of all ages, races,
    genders, income and levels of education.
        Challenged to stem the decline in reading, the NEA developed a
    literary component of American Masterpieces called The Big Read. With
    Mrs. Laura Bush as its honorary chair, the Endowment is uniting
    communities and generations through the reading and discussion of a
    common book. To make the Big Read work, communities are creating new
    partnerships involving schools, libraries, literary centers, arts
    councils, dance and theater companies, symphony orchestras and museums,
    television and radio stations, as well as mayor's offices and chambers
    of commerce to broaden the reading of quality literature in every
    segment of the community.
        Piloted in 10 cities in 2006, Big Read programs are underway in 72
    towns and cities across the country during the Spring months of 2007.
    Our goal is for Americans to reconnect to the pleasure of reading great
    American novels in 200 communities across all 50 States in 2007 with
    400 communities participating in 2008.
        We have an opportunity to impact America profoundly with The Big
    Read. With additional funds for the Big Read requested by the
    President, we believe that we can make a significant difference in
    making the United States a better place to live for individuals, for
    families and for communities. The decision to expand The Big Read into
    400 communities is a pivotal moment in connecting Americans to their
    culture.
    Shakespeare in American Communities
        The NEA's Shakespeare program is now in its fourth year with
    Shakespeare for a New Generation, a program that focuses on providing
    American students an opportunity to see a live professional performance
    of Shakespeare. Since the program began in September 2003, the
    Endowment has awarded 100 grants to 59 theater companies that have
    brought new productions of Shakespeare to more than 1,400 communities
    in mostly small and mid-sized cities, and to 18 military bases. More
    than 2,000 actors have performed for students attending 2,500 middle
    and high schools.
        The award-winning NEA Shakespeare classroom toolkit has been
    distributed free to 20,000 schools--32 percent of which are located in
    rural communities--reaching 15 million students. The NEA's Shakespeare
    program has reached deeply into all 50 States with an overwhelming
    positive response from teachers and students alike.
    NEA Jazz in the Schools
        The Arts Endowment's long-standing support of jazz was broadened in
    2006 with the NEA Jazz in the Schools program, an engaging and
    substantive introduction to jazz created for high schools. Developed
    with Jazz at Lincoln Center and with support from Verizon and the
    Verizon Foundation, an academic tool-kit, made available in January
    2006, has already been provided free to 8,800 classrooms across all 50
    States. Used by teachers during Black History Month, some 4.5 million
    students have participated in the program, which introduces jazz as a
    distinctively American art form as well as a powerful and positive
    force in African-American social history. This new educational program
    was added while the agency maintained all of its 50 State NEA Jazz
    Master touring, and radio and awards programs.
    Operation Homecoming and Other Programs for the Military
        Operation Homecoming was created by the National Endowment for the
    Arts to help U.S. troops and their families write about their wartime
    experiences. We are proud to report that the program achieved its goals
    well beyond our expectations. Operation Homecoming began in 2004 with
    50 writing workshops conducted by some of America's most distinguished
    writers on 30 military installations here and abroad. In response to a
    call for submissions, military personnel and their families submitted
    more than 12,000 pages of written material that was judged by an NEA
    panel of distinguished writers, editors and historians. With Andrew
    Carroll as editor, Random House published an anthology of the best 100
    literary works in Operation Homecoming: Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Home
    Front in the Words of U.S. Troops and Their Families.
        The program now draws to a close with the production of two films
    showcasing wartime writing and the creative process. This initiative
    was supported by the Boeing Company, which also funded Great American
    Voices that sponsored performances by 24 opera companies on 39 U.S.
    military bases with visits to neighboring schools. The response has
    been excellent, and the performers have consistently played to packed
    houses.
                                   conclusion
        As we contemplate the future of the National Endowment for the
    Arts, we remain dedicated to our stated mission of bringing the best of
    the arts--new and established--to all Americans. Too few Americans,
    especially younger Americans, have the opportunity to know and
    experience the best of our Nation's rich artistic legacy. Too few
    students have access to arts education in their schools and
    communities. The Arts Endowment's mission is to enrich the civic life
    of the Nation by making excellent art and arts education truly
    available throughout the United States. A great Nation deserves great
    art.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Environmental Services Center
        Chairwoman Feinstein, ranking member Craig, and members of the
    subcommittee: The National Environmental Services Center provides
    technical services, distributes information, and develops and delivers
    training programs to small and rural communities in the areas of
    drinking water, wastewater, and municipal solid waste. We accomplish
    our mission through two major programs, the National Small Flows
    Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse) and the National Environmental Training
    Center for Small Communities (Training Center). We seek your continued
    support for the Clearinghouse and the Training Center.
                                      need
        Small and rural communities (populations less than 10,000) require
    assistance in developing, maintaining, and managing their
    infrastructure for municipal wastewater treatment facilities. Well-
    managed facilities protect public health and meet environmental
    regulations. Many communities use decentralized technologies such as
    septic systems or small water treatment systems. Small and rural
    communities generally have few financial resources and are overseen by
    elected officials who have limited time for hands-on management of
    treatment system, and limited staff support to assist in administering
    and maintaining their infrastructure.
        The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognized that septic
    and small wastewater treatment systems are a significant component of
    the Nation's wastewater infrastructure. In 2005, EPA developed its
    Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems Program Strategy in response
    to Congress' 2003 request that EPA help small and rural communities
    make more efficient use of the limited funding available for wastewater
    infrastructure. EPA observed that the deployment of decentralized
    wastewater treatment systems also extends to suburban areas near larger
    cities where water treatment systems are too expensive to install.
    Approximately 40 percent of new developments use decentralized
    treatment systems. There are over 13,000 communities in the United
    States which fit the definition of small flow systems (less than 1
    million gallons of wastewater per day) compared to 533 systems serving
    our largest communities (more than 10 million gallons of wastewater per
    day). EPA's strategy addresses the largest number of systems and
    communities which have the least ability to pay for services.
        EPA requires the assistance of programs such as our Clearinghouse
    and Training Center to execute its strategy and attain our national
    goals in wastewater management. To that end, EPA has entered into a
    Memorandum of Understanding with nine other national water
    organizations, including the National Small Flows Clearinghouse, under
    which all participants are working cooperatively to meet strategic
    goals in the Decentralized Treatment Program.
        EPA has continually relied on the Clearinghouse and the Training
    Center to provide information services, technical assistance, and
    training for small and rural community officials and for service
    providers who work with these communities. However, the administration
    routinely does not request financial support for such programs in the
    EPA budget. Consequently, congressional action is required each year to
    support Clearinghouse and Training Center services. Other major
    providers such as the National Rural Water Association, the Rural
    Community Assistance Partnership, and the Groundwater Protection
    Council must also obtain congressional support on an annual basis
    because their programs are also not included in the administration
    budget request.
        We recommend that Congress continue to support the larger national
    effort in wastewater programs, including support for our Clearinghouse
    and Training Center. Without such congressional action, our small
    communities would suffer environmentally and economically from poor
    water treatment systems.
                about the clearinghouse and the training center
        Our programs assist agencies, organizations, and industries that
    focus on decentralized wastewater treatment. Theses technologies are
    referred to as ``decentralized'' because they do not require the large
    infrastructure investment common to centralized municipal collection
    and treatment systems. Because decentralized systems do not usually
    have dedicated operating personnel, specialized technologies and
    specialized training are needed to ensure safe and effective operation.
        Congress mandated the creation of a national small flows
    clearinghouse through the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1977
    under section 1254(q)(3). In 1991, Congress established the Training
    Center to expand the mission of the Clearinghouse to include training
    in addition to information dissemination. The Clearinghouse provides 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 install and service alternative
    treatment systems. The training center develops curricula, trains
    trainers, and sponsors educational courses for these users.
        Accomplishments and services under the Clearinghouse and Training
    Center programs include:
      --Toll-free phone service providing technical assistance from our
            staff of engineers and information experts to operators,
            engineers, scientists, regulators, manufacturers, and
            homeowners;
      --Magazines and newsletters, including Small Flows Quarterly, a
            related publication called Pipeline, and a newsletter called E-
            train, that cover and drinking water and wastewater issues for
            small communities, with a combined mailing list of 70,000
            individuals or organizations nationwide;
      --More than 1,000 information 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 and searchable online databases featuring
            water, wastewater, security, and emergency preparedness
            resources for communities of 10,000 or fewer residents;
      --Demonstration projects at more than 100 sites in 27 States showing
            the latest onsite sewage treatment technologies and management
            strategies at work;
      --The intensive State Onsite Regulators Conference: a one-of-a-kind
            annual event for wastewater regulators and industry
            professionals;
      --An annual week long national environmental training institute for
            small communities and service providers;
      --The Nation's only Wastewater Vulnerability Assessment Guide for
            small communities;
      --A ``Top Ten'' list of security and emergency preparedness actions
            for small wastewater systems.
        With the support of Congress and cooperation and guidance from EPA,
    both programs have expanded their capabilities and level of service
    over time to address the ever increasing complexity of infrastructure
    issues as they pertain to smaller systems.
                                    request
        Congressional support to continue the work of the Clearinghouse and
    Training Center is imperative because the State agencies and
    communities these programs assist cannot pay on a fee-for-service
    basis. Neither can State allocations for water and wastewater
    infrastructures pay for these programs' services. By virtue of the
    congressional appropriation, we are able to offer most of our services
    free of charge. Without congressional support, these programs will be
    unable to attain sufficient funding to continue. We request an
    appropriation of $2.25 million in fiscal year 2008 to continue the
    combined programs of the Clearinghouse and the Training Center. As in
    the past, we will confer extensively with EPA to develop a plan of work
    responsive to national needs and the goals of the EPA program.
        Thank you for considering our request.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
        Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the
    opportunity to submit testimony regarding the fiscal year 2008 funding
    request for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation). The
    Foundation respectfully requests that the committee fund these efforts
    at the following levels:
      --$9 million through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Resource
            Management General Administration appropriation;
      --$3 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.
        These dollars will be focused on mutually agreed upon projects
    across the country. Furthermore, the appropriated $20 million will be
    turned into a minimum of $40 million, according to the Foundation's
    Congressional Charter which requires a minimum of a one-to-one match.
    We have been operating on a three-to-one match historically, which
    means that the $20 million has the potential to turn into $80 million
    or more for on-the-ground conservation. One other note of special
    interest is that according to the Foundation's Charter, all directly
    appropriated funds have to be obligated to grants as they are not
    available to the Foundation for any direct or indirect expenses.
        Since our inception in 1984 through fiscal year 2006, the
    Foundation has supported over 8,865 grants and leveraged over $374
    million in Federal funds for more than $1.2 billion in on-the-ground
    conservation. This has resulted in more than 18.35 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.
        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 2006, we received
    three times as many good project proposals as we could fund. With our
    FWS, BLM, and FS appropriations, we were able to fund 339 projects
    representing over $11.6 million in Foundation Federal funds, leveraging
    it with $1.7 million in other Federal funds and $51.7 million in non-
    Federal funds to commit $65 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 $1.5 million in appropriated funds was held back to
    support our spring special grant programs; when these pending projects
    are approved, it will bring our total on-the-ground conservation to
    more than $69 million.
        In fiscal year 2006, the FWS, BLM and FS partnerships we forged
    with our appropriated dollars are anticipated to help the Foundation
    permanently protect 2,362 additional acres; restore 14,149 acres;
    better manage 939,472 acres of public and private lands; and aid the
    restoration of 92 river and stream miles, as well as management of 175
    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.
        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. Congress established the Foundation 23 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, as well
    as 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 National Fish Habitat Initiative, the Chesapeake Bay Small
    Watershed Grants Program, and the Pulling Together Initiative. With the
    support of the committee in fiscal year 2008, we can continue to uphold
    our mission of enriching fish, wildlife and the habitat on which they
    depend.
        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.
      --Great Lakes Watershed Restoration Program (GL).--A multi-agency
            partnership between the Environmental Protection Agency, FWS,
            the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, FS, and
            the Natural Resources Conservation Service to promote ecosystem
            restoration within the Great Lakes. The program provides grants
            to State and local governments, as well as community
            organizations, working to improve the conditions of their local
            watersheds, while building citizen-based resources stewardship.
            In fiscal year 2006, the Foundation awarded 22 projects
            throughout the Great Lakes basin that leveraged over $1 million
            in Federal funds to more than $3 million for on-the-ground
            projects through the GL 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 in part by
    preventing the listing of species under the Endangered Species Act, as
    well as 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.
      --Species benefiting from Foundation grants in fiscal year 2006
            include the golden-cheeked warblers, whooping cranes, black-
            footed ferrets, California condors, cerulean warblers, northern
            swift foxes, cutthroat trout, Chinook salmon, sage grouse,
            Atwater's prairie chickens, sea turtles, Delmarva fox squirrel,
            and red-cockaded woodpeckers.
      --Bring Back the Natives (BBN).--A longstanding Foundation grant
            program is being modified to directly assist our agency
            partners in implementing the National Fish Habitat Action Plan.
            The BBN program is a public-private partnership, including FS,
            BLM, FWS, Trout Unlimited and the Foundation; it is focused on
            restoring native populations of sensitive or listed aquatic
            species. Priority is provided to aquatic joint ventures and to
            those projects that directly implement the recommendations of
            the National Fish Habitat Action Plan. In fiscal year 2006, the
            Foundation awarded 18 projects that leveraged over $1.2 million
            in Federal funds to more than $4.7 million for on-the-ground
            projects through the BBN program.
        New Strategic Plan.--During 2006, the Foundation underwent a
    detailed self-evaluation, which resulted in the development of a new
    strategic plan for the organization. The strategic planning process
    revealed that the Foundation maximizes conservation benefits when it
    targets a series of grants towards a specific geographic region,
    habitat type, or conservation challenge. To ensure that future grants
    achieve a sustainable and measurable conservation impact, the
    Foundation is establishing targeted Keystone Initiatives around the
    core conservation investment areas in which the Foundation has
    historically specialized. The Keystone Initiatives represent the new
    core portfolio of the Foundation's grant making with clearly defined
    long-term goals, well-articulated strategies, and defined budgets to
    reach desired outcomes.
        The four initial Keystone Initiatives, launched by the Foundation
    in 2007, include Birds; Wildlife and Landscape Scale Habitats;
    Freshwater Fish and Habitats; and Marine and Coastal Life and Habitats.
    Additional Keystone Initiatives being developed include Wildlife and
    Agriculture, Wildlife and Energy Development, Invasive Species, and
    Future Conservation Leaders. Each grant approved under a Keystone
    Initiative will be designed to provide a measurable outcome that brings
    us one step closer to the final long-term conservation goal of the
    Initiative. Where appropriate, the strategies and outcomes of the
    Foundation's Special Grant Programs, such as the Great Lakes
    Restoration Fund, Bring Back the Natives, and the Coral Reef
    Conservation Fund, will be designed to directly contribute to the long-
    term Keystone Initiative goal. Through our targeted grants, the
    Foundation seeks to achieve measurable success in ``moving the needle''
    on these critical conservation objectives over the next 5 to 10 year
    period.
        Accountability and Grantsmanship.--During the strategic planning
    process, Foundation staff spent time listening to feedback from our
    agency partners and grantees. Choke points in our grant making process
    were identified, and the Foundation is in the process of revising
    portions of our grant review and contracting process to ensure we
    maximize efficiency while maintaining strict financial and evaluation-
    based requirements. The Foundation has also launched a new website that
    is more user-friendly and content rich than the previous version. This
    new interactive tool will allow the Foundation to improve communication
    with our stakeholders and will help streamline our grant making
    process.
        To ensure that only those grants with the greatest likelihood of
    obtaining conservation outcomes directly related to a Keystone
    Initiative are funded, the Foundation has implemented a thorough review
    process. Applicants are required to submit a pre-proposal which allows
    staff to proactively work with applicants to refine and improve their
    application before submitting a full proposal. All full proposals are
    then submitted to a peer review process which involves five external
    reviews representing State agencies, Federal agencies, affected
    industry, environmental non-profits, and academics. Grants are also
    reviewed by the Foundation's Keystone Initiative staff, as well as
    evaluation staff, before being recommended to the Board of Directors
    for approval. In addition, the Foundation 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, according to our congressional Charter.
        Basic Facts About the Foundation.--The Foundation is governed by a
    25-member Board of Directors, appointed by the Secretary of 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,
    most all of our directors make financial contributions to the
    Foundation. It is a diverse Board, and includes the Director of the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Administrator of the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as corporate and
    philanthropic leaders with a tenacious commitment to fish and wildlife
    conservation.
        None of our Federally appropriated funds are used for lobbying,
    litigation, or the Foundation's administrative expenses. By
    implementing strategic real-world solutions with the private sector,
    while avoiding regulatory or advocacy activities, we serve as a model
    for developing cooperative solutions to environmental issues. We are
    confident that the money you appropriate to the Foundation is making a
    positive difference.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Humanities Alliance
        This testimony is submitted on behalf of the National Humanities
    Alliance and its 91 member organizations in support of the National
    Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The National Humanities Alliance
    respectfully urges the subcommittee to support funding of $177 million
    for fiscal year 2008 for the National Endowment for the Humanities, an
    increase of $36 million above the fiscal year 2007 level and the
    President's request. This increase would represent an important step
    forward in restoring NEH funding to its historic levels of demonstrated
    effectiveness.
        While we are pleased that the President continues to voice support
    for the humanities, we are disappointed that the administration has
    again recommended flat funding for the agency, at a level of $141.355
    million for fiscal year 2008. The President's budget proposal not only
    fails to address inflationary costs, it would cut funding for NEH core
    programs by an estimated $1.1 million to meet administrative and
    overhead increases.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ This estimate is based on allocations outlined in the
    President's fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 budget proposals.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The National Humanities Alliance supports an increase for all NEH
    program funds to help reverse the effects of budgetary cuts and
    inflation and ensure the long-term effectiveness of the agency. We are
    particularly concerned about recent declines in the capacity of the NEH
    core programs, which have suffered disproportionately from these
    downward forces. These programs are Research, Education, Challenge
    Grants, Preservation & Access, Public Programs, and the Federal/State
    Partnership. We propose that restored funding be routed through these
    core programs, and that it be directed, in so far as possible, in
    support of a new emphasis on the global context of the American
    experience. This new emphasis would reflect the country's need to
    comprehend the broader world we engage in such complex ways. The effort
    would complement both the agency's We the People initiative to promote
    study and understanding of American history, culture, and civic
    institutions, as well as the agency's recently launched Digital
    Humanities Initiative, which supports projects that develop innovative
    information technologies in humanities education and scholarship.
        We support the administration's request of $15.2 million for
    continued funding of the NEH We the People initiative, and $1.4 million
    to extend the Digital Humanities Initiative in fiscal year 2008.
               renewing the federal investment in the humanities
        Our members, and the thousands of teachers, scholars, organizations
    and institutions they represent, use NEH grants to maintain a strong
    system of academic research, education and public programs in the
    humanities. Even at an ebb, NEH is, today, the single largest source of
    support for the humanities in the United States.\2\  As such, NEH plays
    an important leadership role in the education of our Nation's citizens;
    the creation and dissemination of new knowledge; and the preservation
    and enrichment of American intellectual and cultural life. The
    significance of NEH funding is multiplied by the ability of NEH grants,
    and the high regard in which they are held, to stimulate additional
    project support. Since its founding, NEH has leveraged more than $2
    billion in direct, non-Federal giving for humanities projects across
    the United States. Though a relatively small agency, the NEH is
    nevertheless critical to the humanities infrastructure of the United
    States.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ According to data compiled by the Foundation Center and the
    American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the NEH provides almost six
    times the support for humanities programs as the largest private
    funder, and more than the top fifteen combined. Foundation Funding for
    the Humanities: An Overview of Current and Historical Trends, June
    2004.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The combined impacts of inflation and budget cuts on the agency
    raise serious concerns about NEH's long-term ability to carry out the
    mandate for which it was established. The funding table below
    illustrates the decline, both in nominal and constant dollars, in the
    agency's operational capacity. NEH reached its nominal funding peak of
    $177.5 million in fiscal year 1994, which when adjusted for inflation,
    would be equivalent to $241 million today. Reinstituting the 1994
    budget level would constitute a significant reversal of this trend, and
    put the agency on a path toward full restoration of its grantmaking
    capacity.

                                                           NEH APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEARS 1977-2007
                                                                    [in millions of dollars]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Fiscal year
                                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       1977    1979    1980    1990    1994    1995    2000    2004    2005    2006    2007
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nominal $.......................................................    99.4   145.2   150.1   156.9   177.5   172.0   115.3   135.3   138.1   140.9   141.0
    Constant $ (2006 $).............................................   330.6   403.3   367.2   242.0   241.4   227.5   134.9   144.4   142.5   140.9   141.0
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note.--Constant dollar values are adjusted for inflation according to the annual CPI-U.

                 the global context of the american experience
        NEH's We the People initiative has been a noted success. We propose
    complementing that success in the study of the American experience with
    an extended effort aimed at support for understanding of cultures
    around the world. The increase we advocate--$36 million--would help
    support programming designed to enhance Americans' understanding of the
    world and our place within it. Like We the People, this emphasis on
    global cultural perspectives could be routed, administratively, through
    the core programs named above. This would restore those core programs
    to a level at which need has been demonstrated, while focusing the new
    funding primarily on issues of contemporary urgency.
        The well-being of this country depends now, as perhaps never
    before, on our ability to understand the ways of life and thought of
    peoples in disparate cultural traditions within and without our
    borders. One cannot understand the American experience without
    knowledge of the historical and cultural experiences that have informed
    the lives of new Americans arriving to this country from around the
    world. Moreover, we cannot succeed in aiding those we wish to assist or
    in defending ourselves against those who wish us ill, unless we bring
    insights cultivated uniquely and effectively in the humanities.
                                funding analysis
        In the legislation establishing NEH more than 40 years ago,
    Congress found that ``An advanced civilization must not limit its
    efforts to science and technology alone, but must give full value and
    support to the other great branches of scholarly and cultural activity
    in order to achieve a better understanding of the past, a better
    analysis of the present, and a better view of the future.'' Yet today,
    this vision remains unfulfilled. Federal funding for the humanities
    through NEH has failed to keep pace with either our Nation's economy,
    or its investment in science and engineering.
        In fiscal year 1979, the year in which NEH funding reached its real
    historical peak, Congress funded NEH at a level of more than $400
    million (2006 constant dollars)--a level equivalent to about 16 percent
    of the budget for the National Science Foundation. In 2007, NEH funds
    represent only 2.5 percent of the NSF budget. Over the last 30 years,
    Federal funding for NSF has grown by over 200 percent and has kept pace
    with the Nation's economic output. In contrast, NEH funding has
    declined by nearly 60 percent over the same time period, and, today,
    NEH is operating at less than half of its demonstrated funding capacity
    of 30 years ago.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Data sources include: NEH Office of Strategic Planning (NEH
    Annual Appropriations), NSF Office of Budget, Finance & Award
    Management (NSF FY Actuals), U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of
    Economic Analysis (Real Gross Domestic Product).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While we applaud the advances made in research and development in
    science and engineering, we cannot forget the importance of the
    humanities to our country's workforce and civic institutions. Our
    Nation faces many challenges in the 21st century. The information and
    skills imparted by study of the humanities--critical thinking and
    analysis, knowledge of world history, literature and cultures, and
    multiple language proficiency--are vital to our citizens' success in an
    increasingly complex and competitive global environment. The humanities
    are the vehicle through which our students and the public learn about
    and reflect on our Nation's history and civic institutions. They are
    equally an important conduit for promoting knowledge of our culture and
    institutions abroad. A greater investment in the humanities is
    necessary to ensure the knowledgeable citizenry upon which the
    preservation of our country's democratic ideals and long-term economic
    strength depends. It is time to renew our Nation's commitment to the
    education and enrichment of its citizens in all areas of learning.
                     funding shortfall in neh core programs
        The NEH core programs are at the center of the agency's mission to
    create, preserve, and disseminate knowledge in the humanities. Yet,
    since 1994, these programs have suffered disproportionately from budget
    cuts and inflation. In fiscal year 1994, NEH awards in the core program
    divisions of Research/Fellowships, Education, Preservation & Access,
    Public Programs and Challenge Grants totaled $126.8 million (not
    adjusted for inflation).\4\ In fiscal year 2006, awards in these
    divisions totaled only $80.8 million--a 36 percent decline.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ NEH FY 1994 Annual Report.
        \5\ NEH Summary of Grants and Awards, fiscal year 2006. Division
    totals include We the People funds.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While we recognize that Congress continues to face difficult
    choices this year, we are asking the subcommittee to recommend a
    funding increase for the agency of $36 million, signaling that the
    110th Congress is ready to make a significant new investment in the
    Nation's education and research infrastructure through the National
    Endowment for the Humanities.
        Thank you for your consideration of this request.
        Founded in 1981, the National Humanities Alliance is a coalition of
    more than 90 national, State, and local nonprofit organizations and
    institutions dedicated to the advancement of humanities education,
    research and public programs. Membership includes associations of:
    scholars and scholarly societies, libraries, museums, State humanities
    councils, historical societies, higher education associations,
    university-based and independent humanities research centers.
        Phi Beta Kappa is the Nation's oldest academic honor society.
    Founded in 1776, it has chapters at 276 institutions and half a million
    members throughout the country. Its mission is to champion education in
    the liberal arts and sciences, to recognize academic excellence, and to
    foster freedom of thought and expression. Among its programs are
    academic and literary awards, lectureships, a fellowship, a
    professorship, and publication of The American Scholar, an award-
    winning quarterly journal.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Institutes for Water Resources
        Mr. Chairman, last December Congress unanimously passed Public Law
    109-471 which reauthorized Water Resources Research Act program for
    grants to States for water resources research institutes and for
    research focused on water problems of a regional or interstate nature
    through fiscal year 2011. The National Institutes for Water Resources
    respectfully request the addition of $8,775,000 to the 2008 budget of
    the U.S. Geological Survey to continue support for the Water Resources
    Research Act program.
        I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and the
    subcommittee members for your longtime support of the program and your
    support for the reauthorization. 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 Water Resources Research Act of 2006, which reauthorizes the
    original Act of 1964, authorized the establishment of a water resources
    research institute at the land grant colleges in all 50 States, and in
    the Virgin Islands, Guam, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
    The program is administered by United States Geological Survey in the
    Department of Interior. The institutes were charged with: (1) arranging
    for competent research that addresses water problems or expands
    understanding of water and water-related phenomena; (2) aiding the
    entry of new research scientists into the water resources fields; (3)
    helping to train future water scientists and engineers; and (4) getting
    results of sponsored research to water managers and the public.
        The Water Research Institutes are uniquely positioned to address
    the interdisciplinary challenges of sustaining the reliability of water
    supplies in the face of new challenges and uncertainties. For more than
    40 years, the Institutes have conducted applied research that links
    science to innovative and cost-effective policies to increase the
    preparedness of water supply systems to withstand hazards.
        In administering the water resources research program the U.S.
    Geological Survey, distributes appropriated funds equally among the
    institutes. The institutes, in turn, award research funds through a
    competitive, peer review process. Each institute maintains one or more
    advisory panels comprised of local, State, and Federal water officials,
    representatives from water user groups, and other interested parties.
    Annually, these groups develop research priorities for their States and
    review the allocation of funds among various competing projects. In
    this way, each institute is able to focus grants on the most pressing
    water problems and issues affecting their State.
        The grants that support this water resources research, as well as
    information transfer and the training of research scientists, engineers
    and technicians must be matched with $2 non-Federal for each Federal
    $1. Thus, the Federal appropriation results in a larger pool of
    research funding. In Wisconsin, for example, the Federal dollars are
    matched with State dollars allocated to the University System to
    address groundwater issues. These Federal and State dollars in turn
    attract additional funding from Wisconsin Department of Natural
    Resources, Department of Health, and Department of Agriculture and
    Consumer Protection, all administered by the Wisconsin Water Resources
    Institute. This Federal/State/university effort would most likely not
    exist without the modest seed funding from the Water Resources Research
    Act.
        A second component of the act provides competitive Federal grants
    focusing on regional and interstate water resources problems beyond
    those affecting a single State and must be matched on a dollar-for-
    dollar basis. By continuing and enhancing these collaborative efforts,
    the Institutes can better address critical issues on long-term water
    planning and supply that may exceed the resources of any one State.
                                    request
        The requested $8,775,000 to the 2008 budget of the USGS for the
    Water Resources Research Act Program would be allocated 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.
        The increase from the fiscal year 2007 appropriation that is
    recommended herein would partially offset the sharp increase in
    university costs of the last 3-5 years, especially 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 that was
    initiated by this subcommittee and 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 support and 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
    often neglected--most notably the institutional aspects of water
    management, where important economies and innovations may be realized.
    Furthermore, other Federal research funding agencies--for example, NSF,
    EPA, USDA--while often focused on various themes, are mainly
    investigator initiated and dissemination of results often have to rely
    on peer reviewed journal articles and professional conferences. The
    Water Resources programs do that as well. However, there is value
    added. The Water Resources Institutes, most of them administered and
    situated on our Nation's premier research universities, work to
    integrate local, regional, national, and often global water research
    priorities on a network basis, train students, and get involved in
    outreach activities. As an extra value added, the institutes cooperate
    with USGS in a number of ways, making it a win-win situation for both
    the States and our Federal Government. It is our united vision that our
    institutes would be the ``go-to'' educational resource network and that
    our Nation would fully use the vast intellectual resources of our
    universities for the coming challenges on water resources issues.
        In response to the National Academy report on water research
    issues, NIWR has developed a national strategic plan. The plan
    basically articulates a research, outreach and education plan for our
    major research universities and how they can contribute to priorities
    presented in the report. Each of NIWR's eight regions was asked to
    prioritize research outreach and education issues, these were then
    incorporated into a national plan with metrics and measures of success.
        According to the NRC's 2004 report, private organizations and State
    natural-resource agencies need water research, education and training
    but seldom have the capacity to conduct these activities themselves. We
    maintain that it is necessary to tap the intellectual capacity that
    resides within universities and that these 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? We propose four
    criteria: relevance, quality, efficiency and need.
        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 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 past and present activities at
    different scales include:
      --The University of California Center for Water Resources is
            sponsoring research to advance the monitoring of California
            water resources from space. This work will allow monitoring of
            water storage changes within the major drainage basins and
            mountain ranges of the State, for the first time.
      --Collaborating with the USGS and Washington State University,
            investigators from the Idaho Water Resources Research Institute
            have constructed a water budget for the Spokane Valley/Rathdrum
            Prairie aquifer and defined its implications for water
            management. The project responds to the need to understand the
            interaction between surface and ground water, and to develop
            tools to predict how changes in water resources management
            within the region will impact flows in the Spokane River.
      --Investigations of the causes of changes in groundwater recharge
            rates in southeast Wisconsin.
        The President's budget recommends the water institute program for
    elimination in fiscal year 2008. This recommendation is justified by
    stating that the institutes generally have been successful in obtaining
    other sources of funding and should be able to support themselves. In
    fact, it is the congressional designation as a focal point of water
    investigation and outreach as well as the ongoing Federal support, that
    enable the institutes to exist and to augment their base grants from
    other funding sources. It is very likely that some of the institutes
    would cease to exist without the Federal base grant. Others would
    greatly curtail their activities. In my own State, it is doubtful that
    the university system would be such a strong contributor to the water
    resources knowledge base without the seed money provided by Congress.
        The investments the subcommittee makes in the USGS and its programs
    underpin responsible natural resource stewardship and contribute to the
    long-term health, security and prosperity of the Nation. Together, the
    Survey and the water resources research institutes meet important
    public needs and are a reasonable priority within a responsible
    appropriations bill.
        I thank you for your past support, and hope that the institutes
    have earned your continued confidence.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Mining Association
                           department of the interior
        U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)--Mineral Resources Program (MRP).
    Reject the proposed $25.6 million reduction in funding for the MRP,
    including the $5.1 million proposed cut for the Minerals Information
    Team (MIT).
        Bureau of Land Management (BLM)--Mining Law Administration. Support
    the administration's request of $35 million to support administration
    of the mining law.
        Office of Surface Mining (OSM). An increase of $7 million is
    recommended for the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)
    Title V State grants program.
                   u.s. environmental protection agency (epa)
        Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP)--
    Support the $5 million request for EPA's participation in this effort.
        Center for the Study of Metals in the Environment (CSME). $1.175
    million is recommended for the continuation of this program.
                                   background
    Mineral Resources Program
        The USGS is the only source for most of the United States'
    statistical data on mining and minerals commodities. The proposed
    reduction of $25.6 million in MRP funding (from the enacted fiscal year
    2006 budget) would result in the elimination of more than 210 full time
    employees (FTEs). The $5.1 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 more than
    50 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 United
    States 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) the
    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.
        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 $542 billion in the U.S. economy
    in 2006 as well as assessing the environmental impacts of mining.
    Mining Law Administration Program
        NMA supports the BLM fiscal year 2008 request to increase the
    Mining Law Administration Program (MLAP) budget by $2 million. NMA
    remains concerned, however, that the increase will be insufficient to
    meet the agency's obligations to process notices and plans of
    operations necessary for domestic exploration and mining projects. The
    number of mining claims filed over the past 5 years has increased by
    more than 300 percent. In 2001, only 13,561 new mining claims were
    filed as compared to 57,494 in 2005. During the same time frame, the
    number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees assigned to the program
    fell from 397 to 332.
        Additional staffing and other resources are necessary in order to
    process the notices and plans of operations required for expanding our
    domestic mineral supplies. Delays in obtaining permits and other
    authorizations remain a substantial impediment to the financing and
    development of mining projects in the United States. To that end, it is
    worth noting that the National Academy of Sciences has found that the
    permitting of domestic mining projects entails an inordinate amount of
    time and resources. According to Behre Dolbear, the United States ranks
    among the worst 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 the
    ability to attract the capital investment required for mine
    development. In short, investment capital will flow to areas where
    investors experience a quicker return on their investment.
        In a 2005 report to the Congress, 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 the
    increased location and maintenance fees should be used to address MLAP
    budget needs. In fact, BLM's budget request acknowledges that its $2
    million increase can be recouped from the increased fees. To address
    this regulatory bottleneck that impairs our Nation's economic growth
    and security, NMA provides the following recommendations:
      --Location and maintenance fees collected that exceed the MLAP budget
            should be dedicated to the MLAP instead of being deposited in
            the General Fund. In 2005, the amount collected from such fees
            exceeded the budgeted amount by approximately $15 million. Such
            funds would allow the hiring by BLM State offices of
            approximately 100 FTEs to allow either backfilling of currently
            vacated positions or new hires and;
      --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.
                            office of surface mining
        NMA recommends an increase of $7 million for the SMCRA Title V
    grants to the States. The increase is justified due to anecdotal
    evidence that States are not always receiving their full 50 percent
    match in funding to which they are entitled for their Title V
    regulatory programs under SMCRA. In some cases, this is caused by the
    Federal Government not accepting State estimates of operating costs and
    substituting their own, usually lower, estimates. NMA urges the
    Congress to ensure that State regulatory programs are provided matching
    funds at the full 50 percent rate of their actual costs. Failure to
    address this problem could eventually result in some States returning
    their regulatory authority back to the Federal Government, which would
    then lead to even higher costs for the U.S. Treasury.
           asia-pacific partnership on clean development and climate
        NMA supports the administration's request of $5 million to fund
    EPA's participation in APP and specifically their role in efforts to
    reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The APP will spur development of
    cutting edge technologies and practices that support economic growth
    while reducing emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions. It will
    result in expansion of market opportunities for U.S. mining and
    equipment companies and other U.S. businesses. The APP, involving the
    United States, Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea, is
    important for a number of reasons:
      --It will result in real emissions reductions: With the participation
            by China and India, APP is the only international agreement
            addressing rapid emissions growth in the developing world,
            which is forecast to surpass emissions of industrialized
            nations in 2010. APP is a voluntary, technology-based approach
            to emissions reduction geared towards future economic growth
            and energy security and will be more effective than unrealistic
            mandates or treaties.
      --It builds on Methane-to-Markets and other successful programs that
            reduce greenhouse gas emissions: The U.S. coal industry has
            captured and re-used 308 billion cubic feet of coal mine
            methane--the equivalent of removing 40 million automobiles per
            year from the roads. APP, working with the EPA's Methane-to-
            Markets program will use U.S. experience and expertise to
            accelerate large-scale capture and recycling of methane in
            China and India.
      --It helps preserve coal as an important energy source: The United
            States, China, India, and Japan will be at the center of a
            significant rise in population, economic activity and energy
            use in the next 50 years. Coal is essential to sustaining
            America's competitiveness and vitality in a changing world, as
            it is in China and India. APP supports improvements in
            efficiency in both coal mining and use through the acceleration
            of clean coal technologies, industrial technology strategic
            planning and energy efficiency best practices.
      --It creates new markets for U.S. companies in the emerging economies
            of China and India.
               center for the study of metals in the environment
        The CSME is a multi-investigator team of scientists and engineers
    from the University of Delaware and Pennsylvania State University. The
    purpose of the CSME is to further the understanding of processes
    affecting the fate and effects of metals in aquatic and terrestrial
    ecosystems.
        NMA recommends $1.175 million 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.
        The National Mining Association (NMA) represents producers of over
    80 percent of the coal mined in the United States. Coal continues to be
    the most reliable and affordable domestic fuel used to generate over 50
    percent of the Nation's electricity. NMA members also include producers
    of uranium--the basis for 20 percent of U.S. electricity supply. NMA
    represents producers of metals and minerals that are critical to a
    modern economy and our national security. Finally, NMA includes
    manufacturers of processing equipment, mining machinery and supplies,
    transporters, and engineering, consulting, and financial institutions
    serving the mining industry.
                                     ______

       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 325,000 members, we appreciate
    the opportunity to share our funding priorities and respectfully
    request the committee consider these views as the fiscal year 2008
    Interior budget is developed. NPCA strongly supports the
    administration's request of $1.97 billion for the Operations of the
    National Park System (ONPS), an increase of more than $200 million
    above current fiscal year 2007 funding levels. However, other National
    Park Service accounts are woefully inadequate in the President's budget
    request, most notably, funding for land acquisition. Funding for Park
    Service land acquisition under the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF) is requested at only $22.5 million, a cut of more than 50
    percent from current fiscal year 2007 levels, and over $100 million
    below levels only 5 years ago. NPCA recommends at a minimum restoring
    funding for Park Service land acquisition to current fiscal year 2007
    levels, and working toward restoring LWCF to its historic levels.
                     operations of the national park system
        A top NPCA priority is to significantly increase funding for Park
    Service operations. NPCA strongly supports the $1,969,010,000 requested
    for ONPS, an increase of $206 million above current fiscal year 2007
    levels. This budget increase was supported by 40 Senators in a recent
    bipartisan letter sent to the committee.
        If enacted, the requested increase of $206 million would greatly
    benefit our parks across the country. In particular, this budget would
    provide:
      --Nearly 500 permanent full-time employees
      --1,000 new seasonal maintenance employees
      --1,000 new seasonal interpretive rangers
      --1,000 new seasonal visitor and resource-protection rangers
        As the subcommittee is well aware, the Park Service faces a
    significant operational shortfall, estimated to exceed $800 million
    annually. In recent years, unbudgeted cost-of-living increases, un-
    reimbursed storm damage, and insufficient funding for new
    responsibilities such as homeland security, have stretched park budgets
    thin. Since 2001, the Park Service has absorbed $149 million for
    unbudgeted pay increases alone.
        Another significant shortcoming has been the across-the-board cuts
    required to appropriations bills as a result of insufficient
    allocations to the committee. Since fiscal year 2001, across-the-board
    cuts have cost the Park Service $111 million.
        We know that the subcommittee is aware of these shortcomings and
    welcomed the Chairman's efforts in the fiscal year 2007 Continuing
    Resolution to focus an extra measure of attention on them.
        Park Service operations funding is not keeping pace with park
    needs. As a result, the Park Service cannot provide adequate resource
    protection and services for millions of visitors to our Nation's 390
    national parks every year. Securing a substantial increase for park
    operations funding in fiscal year 2008, and building upon it in the
    years ahead toward 2016, will help to restore our parks by their
    centennial.
                      national park centennial initiative
        When the Eisenhower administration launched Mission 66, it made a
    10-year commitment of $1 billion ($7 billion in today's dollars) in
    preparation for the 50th anniversary of the National Park System.
    Today, the American people are united around the idea of fully
    addressing the needs of the parks in time to celebrate the 100th
    anniversary of the National Park System and Park Service in 2016.
        The proposed National Park Centennial Initiative offers an
    opportunity to restore our parks, but this will require a sustained and
    comprehensive effort by the American public, Congress, and the White
    House. The central element of such an effort must involve the Federal
    Government meeting its primary stewardship responsibility to protect
    and fund our national parks.
        There are five key areas in which the Centennial Initiative can
    make a measurable difference to help our parks:
      --Restore.--Restore the health of the cultural and natural resources
            of our national parks by taking action to overcome external and
            internal threats.
      --Reinvest.--Reinvest in our national parks by establishing reliable
            sources of sustainable public funding and strategic private
            investments.
      --Reinvigorate.--Reinvigorate the management capacity and efficiency
            within the National Park Service by facilitating mission-driven
            decision-making, encouraging innovation, and stimulating
            stakeholder collaboration.
      --Research.--Ensure that the parks have current science and active
            research to inform decisions about park protection, as these
            decisions should be based on science and informed expertise to
            the greatest extent possible.
      --Represent.--Ensure that the National Park System continues to grow
            and evolve to represent and interpret nationally significant
            landscapes, ecosystems and the full range and diversity of
            American history and culture, and reflects and engages all
            Americans.
                                land acquisition
        Federal funding for national park land acquisition under the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) program has decreased dramatically
    in recent years. In 2001, Federal land acquisition was funded at $125
    million, and benefited 46 national park sites; by 2007, Federal funding
    for land acquisition had dropped 81 percent to only $22 million for one
    park.
        This drastic cut could not come at a worse time. Unplanned
    development in and around national parks threatens park resources,
    scenic views, and air and water quality. Today, the Park Service
    estimates that more than 11,000 tracts or 1.8 million acres are in need
    of funding for acquisition, with an estimated value to developers of
    $1.8 billion. For instance, at Gettysburg National Military Park, the
    Park Service does not own nearly 20 percent of the land within its
    boundary.
        From the world-class paleontolgical resources at Petrified Forest
    National Park in Arizona to the historical resources associated with
    the encampment of General Washington's Continental Army at Valley Forge
    National Historical Park, parklands across the Nation are threatened.
    We must provide adequate LWCF funding to protect these national
    treasures.
        The consequences of insufficient land acquisition funding are
    dramatically illustrated at Petrified Forest National Park--a site of
    top concern to NPCA and the Park Service. Petrified Forest contains
    more than 500 archaeological and historical sites that reflect 10,000
    years of human history, and a rich fossil record of the Triassic
    Period. The site's significance was underscored last week when the
    Department of the Interior nominated it among 36 U.S. sites for UNESCO
    World Heritage status. Despite support from the Park Service, and 3
    years after Congress authorized expanding Petrified Forest, little
    Federal funding has been appropriated for this important project, and
    the willing sellers in the area are growing increasingly impatient as
    years pass and developers offer greater and greater incentives to sell.
        In fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated $2 million for the
    Bureau of Land Management to acquire lands now within the boundary of
    the park, yet these monies were reprogrammed in fiscal year 2002 for
    fire suppression activities. We request at a minimum that these monies
    be restored. Additionally, we appreciate that the 110th Congress
    recognized the importance of this land acquisition need, adding
    Petrified Forest to the list of projects in the final fiscal year 2007
    Appropriations bill. Unfortunately, only $135,000 was allocated, which
    is not sufficient to purchase any of the congressionally-approved
    125,000 acres of private and public land.
        NPCA is seeking $4 million in fiscal year 2008 as a down payment.
    With land values rapidly increasing in the Sunbelt, further delay will
    only add to the cost of acquiring these lands.
        Other examples of Park Service priority land acquisition projects
    that NPCA would like to see funded in fiscal year 2008 include:
      --$1.5 million for acquisition of 440 acres in the Carbon River
            Gateway at Mount Rainier National Park in Washington to enhance
            visitor access to the park and conserve lands along the Carbon
            River that provide habitat for fish and wildlife;
      --$3.5 million for Valley Forge National Historical Park in
            Pennsylvania to acquire lands within the boundary of the park
            that preserve and interpret the encampment of General
            Washington's Continental Army in one of the fastest-growing
            areas in the State; and
      --$1.9 million for Fern Lake at Cumberland Gap National Historical
            Park in Kentucky and Tennessee to protect both a historical
            landscape, scenic viewshed, and critical water supply in the
            park.
        Finally, NPCA supports greater LWCF funding the Emergency Hardship,
    Deficiency, and Relocation Fund--key to the acquisition of inholdings,
    particularly in Alaska's national parks. The Hardship Fund is used
    effectively by the Park Service's Alaska Regional Office to secure
    critical inholdings in national parks from willing sellers. Through the
    Hardship Fund, remote parcels have been secured, thus removing the
    threat of heirs of original allotees subdividing and selling their lots
    for commercial use in the middle of Alaska's premier wilderness parks.
    Currently, the Hardship Fund is funded at $2.3 million. NPCA is seeking
    $4.6 million in fiscal year 2008 for the fund.
                    underground railroad network to freedom
        The Park Service's Underground Railroad Network to Freedom (NTF)
    program is the only national program dedicated to the preservation,
    interpretation, and dissemination of Underground Railroad history.
    Established by Congress in 1998 to increase public knowledge and
    awareness of the Underground Railroad and the desperate struggle by
    enslaved people to resist slavery through escape and flight, the NTF
    has 285 members (institutions, programs, and facilities) in 27 States
    and the District of Columbia.
        The NTF program is an excellent public-private partnership
    program--a proven success and one of the best diversity-enhancing
    initiatives ever developed by the Park Service. Staff matches Park
    Service resources with local expertise to enable communities, scholars,
    and park sites across the United States to more capably tell their part
    of the Underground Railroad story.
        Funding woes, however, threaten the future of this dynamic program.
    Originally funded at $500,000 annually, the NTF has suffered from a
    woefully inadequate budget since its inception. At its current funding
    level of $479,000, the NTF cannot cover staff salaries, benefits, nor
    pay for basic programmatic services. In November 2006, the Park
    Service's own core budget projections indicated that without
    assistance, the NTF budget will be reduced by 72 percent by the year
    2011, effectively terminating the program.
        NPCA is seeking a modest $2-million increase to the annual
    operating budget of the NTF program. This important funding would
    resolve its financial needs and ensure the survival of this important
    program. Representatives Hastings and Castle have introduced bipartisan
    legislation (H.R. 1239) in the U.S. House of Representatives to
    reauthorize the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act to
    provide funding and staffing levels more appropriate to the actual
    needs of the program. NPCA supports the passage of H.R. 1239 to
    increase the authorization for this important program.
                                  great lakes
        There are 18 popular national parks in and around the Great Lakes
    watershed. Like the Grand Canyon and Everglades, the Great Lakes define
    the soul of a region and the landscape of our Nation. But this
    invaluable resource--which provides economic and recreational benefits,
    as well as drinking water for 30 million Americans--needs greater
    support.
        NPCA co-chairs the Healing Our Waters coalition, which is calling
    on Congress to fully fund the Great Lakes Legacy Act with $54 million,
    and the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act with $16 million,
    among other programs. These programs, when funded in tandem with the
    Park Service, will help our parks, restore the Great Lakes watershed,
    and protect vital wildlife habitat.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Federation
        Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
    National Wildlife Federation, our nation's largest conservation
    advocacy and education organization, and our more than 4 million
    members and supporters, I thank you for the opportunity to provide
    funding recommendations for Department of the Interior and USDA
    programs for fiscal year 2008. The purpose of this testimony is to
    recommend levels of funding for specific programs we believe are vital
    to NWF's mission to inspire Americans to protect wildlife for our
    children's future.
                         u.s. fish and wildlife service
    State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
        The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program is the nation's core
    program for preventing 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 solely on this goal. It
    provides State wildlife agencies and their partners a broad suite of
    proactive conservation tools to allow for meaningful, proactive 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. In the 6 years since, this program has
    yielded detailed strategies for protecting wildlife in each State and
    territory across the country, called Wildlife Action Plans. With the
    creation and recent final approval of State Wildlife Action Plans, we
    now have a national conservation blue-print in place for wildlife for
    the first time in history. This is truly a landmark for wildlife
    conservation. The National Wildlife Federation supports these plans and
    is actively working in several States as a partner to State wildlife
    agencies to promote these plans as foundations for State wide
    conservation agendas. We urge Congress to honor its commitment to this
    effort and to protect its own investment in the State Wildlife Grants
    Program by providing the Federal share of support as the program enters
    this new phase of implementation. The Administration's request for
    $69.5 million in the fiscal year 2008 budget is a slight increase
    relative to the 2006 enacted level, but is insufficient to meet the
    large and growing needs of this program. We respectfully request that
    the subcommittee restore State Wildlife Grants funding to $85 million,
    or the fiscal year 2002 level, which represents the highest level of
    funding for this program to date.
    National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance
        The President's budget request of $394.8 million for the National
    Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance budget, although a
    modest increase over fiscal year 2007 levels, fails to reverse severe
    erosion in the Refuge System budget in the last 4 years. 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, and thus a
    significant decrease in refuge services. NWF supports the Cooperative
    Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) recommendation of $451.5
    million, which would equal the fiscal year 2004 Refuge System budget
    ($391 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 a safety net for wildlife,
    plants and fish that are on the brink of extinction. The ESA has been
    almost 100 percent effective in preventing the extinction of plants and
    animals. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) needs more
    funding in order to implement the ESA effectively and get more species
    on the road to recovery. The Service has lost 600 staff members in the
    last 2 years alone. Each of the programs responsible for implementing
    the Act is missing at least thirty percent of the staff it once
    contained. In order to recover more species, Congress must provide the
    Service with the funds it needs to do its job. We urge the subcommittee
    to appropriate at least $185.2 million toward the Endangered Species
    Program in order for FWS to meet its ESA implementation
    responsibilities through the following critical activities:
      --Listing Program.--This program will require $25.2 million for 2008
            (the President's budget request is 18.3 million) in order to
            allow the FWS to address both new species and the backlog of
            species awaiting action on proposed listings and critical
            habitat designations.
      --Recovery Program.--Despite the fact that Congress repeatedly States
            that recovery is the most important element of the ESA,
            recovery funding has remained almost stagnant in recent years.
            For an effective recovery program, FWS needs $84.8 million.
            This is $16.7 million more than the President's request.
      --Consultation Program.--Under provisions of section 7 of the ESA, a
            Federal agency that permits, licenses, funds, or otherwise
            authorizes activities must consult with the FWS as appropriate
            to ensure that its actions will not jeopardize the continued
            existence of any listed species. In 1999, FWS participated in
            40,000 consultations and received $36 million in funding. In
            2006, FWS participated in approximately 77,000 consultations--
            with only $48 million. While the amount of work almost doubled
            for FWS staff, funding to ensure consultations are done
            accurately and efficiently has not. To ensure an accurate and
            efficient consultation program, FWS needs $63.2 million. The
            President's request is only $51.6 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 under the Endangered Species Act, but
            for which listing is precluded due to a lack of resources and
            other higher priority listing activities. To allow species to
            gain the full protections of the ESA--and start moving towards
            recovery--FWS needs $12 million in 2008. This is a $3.4 million
            increase over the President's request.
        In addition to the core endangered species programs, FWS needs
    $134.6 million to increase incentives for cooperative conservation in
    order to protect endangered wildlife. The Bush Administration recently
    zeroed out funding for two successful land owner incentive grant
    programs. NWF would like to see the programs adequately funded. The
    Private Stewardship Program provides grants and other assistance on a
    competitive basis to individuals and groups engaged in local, private
    and voluntary conservation efforts that benefit federally listed,
    proposed, or candidate species, or other at-risk species. We would like
    to see this program receive $11 million in 2008.
        The Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) provides States with grants
    for incentive programs. These grants are designed to establish or
    supplement landowner incentive programs that protect and restore
    habitats on private lands to benefit federally listed, proposed or
    candidate species or other species determined to be at-risk. NWF would
    like to see it funded at $27.4 million (the President's request is $0).
        The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (authorized
    under section 6 of the Endangered Species Act) offers grants to States
    for participation in a wide array of voluntary conservation projects
    for candidate, proposed, and listed species. These funds may in turn be
    awarded to private landowners and groups for conservation projects.
    Section 6 grants include: Recovery Land Acquisition Grants; Habitat
    Conservation Plan (HCP) Land Acquisition Grants; HCP Planning
    Assistance Grants; and Grants to States. We would like to see this
    program receive $96.2 million. This would be a $16.2 million increase
    over the President's budget.
                            bureau of land managment
    National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS)
        The National Landscape Conservation System is an American treasure
    that consists of 26 million acres of some of the last best places where
    one can experience the history and wild beauty of the American West.
    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 fiscal year 2008 budget is the lowest level of funding ever
    proposed for the National Landscape Conservation System: $49.2 million,
    or less than $2 an acre. This constitutes a destructive cut of almost
    $3 million from the already inadequate fiscal year 2007 enacted budget,
    and nearly $10 million, or more than 16 percent, from the insufficient
    fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $59 million. When accounting for
    inflation alone, and not normal uncontrollable operating increases, the
    President's proposal is over 20 percent below average funding over the
    last 5 years. The total proposed budget of just $49.2 million would
    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 urge the committee
    to increase the System's fiscal year 2008 budget by $19.76 million, for
    operations and maintenance, to provide a total of $69 million to
    conserve the unique National Monuments, Conservation Areas, Trails,
    Rivers, and other areas that comprise the 26 million acre System. This
    would bring the System's funding only modestly above historic levels
    when adjusting for inflation. Priority unmet needs include additional
    rangers and field staff, investments in monitoring and restoration,
    cultural and historical site protection, and volunteer program support.
    We also ask the committee to support any member requests for additional
    funding for Conservation System units in their districts. To promote
    greater management transparency and accountability for the System, we
    urge the committee to request expenditure and accomplishment reports
    for each of the System's Monuments and Conservation Areas for fiscal
    year 2007, and to ask BLM to include unit-level allocations by major
    sub-activities for all System units but Wilderness and Wilderness Study
    Areas (WSAs). These unit-level allocations are to be combined with
    Wilderness and WSAs under a new activity account for the entire System.
        Roan Plateau.--Last September, the BLM approved energy development
    on 74,000 acres on top of and around the Roan Plateau in western
    Colorado. This area is home to mule deer, elk, sage grouse, cutthroat
    trout and hundreds of other native species. The BLM plan, which has
    prompted opposition from sportsmen's groups, local cities and counties,
    business owners and recreation groups, allows drilling in areas too
    sensitive to withstand the intense energy development that is planned.
    The National Wildlife Federation asks that Congress legislate a funding
    limitation that will prevent the BLM from initiating the proposed Roan
    Plateau energy development until September 30, 2008 in order to allow
    additional time for further study and analysis.
                   u.s. forest service: forest legacy program
        NWF is concerned by the President's request of $29 million for the
    Forest Legacy Program, over $30 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 $71 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)
        LWCF provides funding for the acquisition of valuable wildlife
    habitat by Federal land management agencies. The LWCF is an invaluable
    tool to help enhance wildlife habitat, preserve natural, cultural, and
    historic sites, restore declining native species, and halt the
    destruction and fragmentation of millions of acres of habitat occurring
    annually across the U.S. NWF is concerned to see that the President's
    budget slashes Federal LWCF funding to only $83.6 million. LWCF has
    been cut by more than 75 percent since 2001. We urge the subcommittee
    to provide at least $220 million for Federal LWCF.
        NLCS LWCF Projects.--We support the President's fiscal year 2008
    request for Land and Water Conservation Fund projects for Colorado's
    Gunnison Gorge National Recreation Area, Idaho's Upper Snake/South Fork
    Snake River Area of Critical Environmental Concern and New Mexico's El
    Malpais National Conservation Area. We recommend that the President's
    request for $200,000 for El Malpais be increased to $250,000; the
    President's request for $1.5 million for Upper Snake/South Fork Snake
    river Area of Critical Environmental Concern be increased to $2 million
    and we recommend $4.9 million for six additional projects:
      --Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, Arizona: $550,000
      --Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, Colorado: $2 million
      --Carrizo Plain National Monument, California: $500,000
      --Sandy River/Oregon National Historic Trail, Oregon: $500,000
      --Oregon National Wild & Scenic Rivers (Rogue National Wild & Scenic
            River), Oregon: $500,000
        NWF also supports USFS LWCF acquisitions of $6 million in the Swan
    Valley of Montana and $5 million for the Pinhook Swamp/Suwanee River
    Wildlife Corridor in Florida.
        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, again, for providing the National Wildlife Federation
    with the opportunity to provide testimony.
                                     ______

         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 138 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 2008 Interior Appropriations bill. Specifically, we respectfully
    request that the subcommittee support the following:
      --An overall funding level of $451.5 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);
      --Of the $6 million increase requested by the administration for the
            Partners for Wildlife Program, allocate $1 million to implement
            Refuge Landscape Conservation Initiatives, strategic
            partnerships among the FWS, NWRA, refuge Friends and other
            national, regional and local interests that work with States,
            counties and municipalities to identify, prioritize and
            implement land and water conservation opportunities beyond
            refuge boundaries;
      --An allocation of $1 million to continue to support volunteer
            projects on and in connection with refuges, including the
            Cooperative Volunteer Invasives Monitoring Program (VIMP) and
            competitive grants, which utilize Friends and volunteers to
            identify and eradicate invasive species;
      --Withhold funding for implementation of a new National Bison Range
            Annual Funding Agreement, pending the conclusion of an
            investigation by the Department of the Interior Inspector
            General into FWS employee grievances and pending completion of
            a FWS Refuge Tribal AFA policy;
      --An allocation of $100 million in the FWS land acquisition budget
            through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to acquire
            vital habitat from numerous willing sellers across the country;
      --An increase in the FWS construction budget to prevent further
            degradation of Refuge System infrastructure;
      --For Midway Atoll NWR, $3.23 million to initiate the public
            visitation program, provide needed equipment for safety and
            cooperative work, and to stop the deterioration of facilities
            that will be integral to visitor use;
      --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.
        The National Wildlife Refuge System continues to be crippled by a
    $2.75 billion funding backlog that harms every refuge in the System.
    Specifically, funding shortfalls limit the ability of refuges to
    successfully conduct important biological programs and hire essential
    staff, while also hindering opportunities for the public to engage in
    compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.
        Significant strides were made to reduce the budget shortfall in
    connection with the 100th anniversary of the National Wildlife Refuge
    System in 2003, and we are grateful to the subcommittee for its work in
    this regard. Since then, however, annual appropriations have failed to
    keep pace with ever-increasing fixed costs and inflation. The
    Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), consisting of the
    NWRA and 20 other diverse conservation and sporting organizations, has
    determined that the annual Refuge System budget of $765 million is
    required simply to meet the System's top tier needs. CARE details these
    needs in a recently released report, Restoring our Wildlife Legacy. 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.
    At a minimum, it is crucial that the cost-of-living and other
    inflationary needs are covered in the fiscal year 2008 budget. To keep
    the modest 100th Anniversary budget (fiscal year 2004) on pace with
    inflationary costs, the Refuge System needs $451.5 million for its
    operations and maintenance accounts for fiscal year 2008.
        While providing adequate funding to operate and maintain the Refuge
    System is of vital importance, unfortunately most refuges are too small
    in size to achieve their conservation mission and objectives alone.
    Their integrity depends on the health of surrounding State, Federal,
    and private lands and waters. Consequently, there is a growing need to
    provide funding to ensure that lands and waters beyond refuge
    boundaries are conserved. Today, the alarming rush to convert rural
    land to subdivisions and strip malls has caught wildlife managers off
    guard and requires quick action. In response, the National Wildlife
    Refuge Association (NWRA) launched Beyond the Boundaries, a campaign
    designed to identify and prioritize crucial additions to the Nation's
    conservation estate, improve connectivity between refuges and other
    conservation lands, and protect buffer zones. Beyond the Boundaries
    employs sound conservation science to integrate State Wildlife Action
    Plans (WAP), refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP) and other
    conservation planning tools, and engages diverse stakeholders at the
    State and local levels to develop bold strategies for protecting
    critical wildlife habitat, while strengthening economies through
    improved quality of life, clean water and outdoor recreation and
    appreciation.
        Accordingly, for fiscal year 2008 we respectfully ask that the
    subcommittee allocate $1 million of the administration's $6 million
    request above fiscal year 2007 levels for the Partners for Fish and
    Wildlife Program to implement Refuge Landscape Conservation Initiatives
    in FWS regions 1, 3, and 5, with a focus on the Silvio Conte National
    Fish and Wildlife Refuge in the latter. Each initiative will bring
    together diverse stakeholders in creating conservation visions for
    landscapes surrounding targeted refuges, and develop shared priorities
    for conservation action. The final visions--Refuge Landscape Action
    Plans--will serve as blueprints for use of State, Federal, and private
    conservation dollars and will expedite implementation of State Wildlife
    Action Plans.
        We also encourage the subcommittee to continue its strong support
    ``for cooperative projects with [F]riends groups on invasive species
    control'' by again appropriating $1 million for this valuable program.
    With annual allocations by Congress since fiscal year 2003, 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. A competitive grants program for cooperative
    invasive species projects with refuge Friends and volunteers
    constitutes the majority of previous allocations. In fiscal year 2006,
    a total of 811 volunteers contributed 16,176 hours and participated in
    the treatment, inventory and restoration of 74,786 refuge acres.
        Likewise, the Cooperative Volunteer Invasives Monitoring Program
    has demonstrated powerful results at the 31 currently participating
    refuges. A partnership among the NWRA, FWS, United States Geological
    Survey (USGS) and The Nature Conservancy, the program trains refuge
    volunteers to identify invasives and collect extensive data using
    inexpensive but sophisticated global positioning system (GPS)/
    geographic information system (GIS) data-collection equipment. To date,
    an estimated 23,651 acres of refuge lands, in addition to 220 water
    bodies, have been inventoried and mapped by 170 trained volunteers
    contributing 6,552 hours. Refuges participating in the program have
    used the data to engage an additional 791 volunteers in invasive plant
    management actions such as control and restoration measures.
    Importantly, the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the Wildlife Refuge Caucus
    have recognized the value of this program, including it as a component
    of H.R. 767, the ``REPAIR Act,'' that directs the Secretary to
    establish a Cooperative Volunteer Invasives Monitoring and Control
    Program to document and combat invasive species in national wildlife
    refuges.
        In December 2006, FWS Director Dale Hall terminated the National
    Bison Range Tribal Annual Funding Agreement (AFA), citing work
    performance issues and documented employee grievances that illustrated
    a severely strained and counterproductive work environment with the
    Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. While we believe it's vitally
    important that the FWS have a collaborative working relationship with
    the tribes at the Bison Range, we believe that the grievances, now
    under review by the Inspector General at the Department of the
    Interior, must be resolved before any consideration of a new agreement.
    Accordingly, we ask that the subcommittee include bill language
    withhold funding for negotiating or implementing a new AFA pending
    results of the Inspector General's investigation and pending completion
    of a FWS Refuge Tribal AFA policy.
        The NWRA encourages the subcommittee to allocate sufficient funding
    to purchase high-priority lands and conservation easements through the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The Refuge System land
    acquisition backlog is estimated at $4 billion, with 15.4 million acres
    remaining to be acquired within approved refuge boundaries. 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. The NWRA believes that $100
    million should be allocated toward Refuge System land acquisition, yet
    even at that rate, it would take at least 40 years to acquire priority
    lands. Within this request, the NWRA encourages the subcommittee to
    provide funding for the following projects through the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund: $750,000 for Alaska Peninsula NWR (AK); $1.5 million
    for Togiak NWR (AK); $750,000 for Yukon Delta NWR (AK); $710,000 for
    Stewart B. McKinney NFWR (CT); $3 million for Bayou Sauvage NWR (LA);
    $500,000 for Tensas NWR (LA); $4 million for Silvio O. Conte NFWR (MA);
    $2 million for Blackwater NWR (MD); $1 million for Lake Umbagog NWR
    (NH); $2 million for Cape May NWR (NJ); $1.2 million for Great Swamp
    NWR (NJ); $2 million for Wallkill River NWR (NJ); $275,000 for Balcones
    Canyonlands NWR (TX); $3 million for San Bernard NWR (TX); $750,000 for
    Back Bay NWR (VA); $3.1 million for James River NWR (VA); $459,000 for
    Rappahannock River Valley NWR (VA); and $3 million for Canaan Valley
    NWR (WV).
        We encourage the subcommittee to resist the $25.5 million cut to
    the construction budget proposed in the president's fiscal year 2008
    budget request. The FWS has identified $1 billion in construction
    projects, which in many cases will result in replacing quickly
    deteriorating structures that are becoming more expensive to maintain.
        Midway Atoll NWR is an integral part of the newly established
    Northwest Hawaiian Islands National Monument and the sole area
    designated for public visitation. Accordingly, FWS will need adequate
    funding to fully realize its potential both for conservation and
    carefully coordinated public visitation. NWRA supports $3.23 million to
    initiate the public visitation program, provide needed equipment for
    safety and cooperative work, and to stop the deterioration of
    facilities that will be integral to visitor use.
        The NWRA urges the subcommittee to appropriate at least $85 million
    for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program in fiscal year 2008 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 National Wildlife 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.
        In conclusion, the NWRA believes the National Wildlife Refuge
    System can meet its important conservation objectives only with strong
    and consistent funding leveraged by the valuable work of refuge
    volunteers. We extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for its
    ongoing commitment to our National Wildlife Refuge System.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation
        The New Jersey Conservation Foundation thanks you for the
    opportunity to comment on the fiscal year 2008 Department of the
    Interior 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, wildlife
    habitat, water quality and special places.
        NJCF's top priorities include:
      --$100 million for the Forest Legacy Program, including $5.7 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).--Fiscal Year 2008 Forest Legacy Program
    Project: $5.7 million is sought to acquire 1,000 acres located in the
    Sparta Mountain/Lubber's Run Conservation Focal Area identified in the
    USDA/Forest Service New York-New Jersey Highlands Regional Study 2002
    Update. Sparta Mountain South, located in Sussex County, forms the
    westernmost ridge of New Jersey's northern Highlands, where it creates
    a key linkage between Allamuchy State Park and four State wildlife
    management areas to the north.
        There is currently the potential, in densely populated New Jersey,
    to preserve more than 5,000 privately-held acres in the Sparta Mountain
    Greenway. In fiscal year 2006, the Forest Legacy Program provided
    funding for 1,200 easement acres. Now, we seek $5.7 million for the
    State of New Jersey to acquire and preserve 1,000 acres in its top
    ranked Forest Legacy project.
        At the northern end of 15-mile long Sparta Mountain, Hamburg
    Mountain (State) Wildlife Management Area, 1,200-acre Gerard Woods WMA,
    3,200-acre Sparta Mountain WMA and 1,300-acre Weldon Brook WMA preserve
    over 10,000 acres. Sparta Mountain South forms a critical linkage
    between these WMA's and Allamuchy State Park to the south, as mapped in
    Garden State Greenways, a vision of connected lands created by New
    Jersey Conservation Foundation and New Jersey's Green Acres Program.
    New Jersey's Highlands Millennium Trail, initiated in 1994 with
    National Park Service Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance,
    travels along Sparta Mountain on its 150-mile route between the Hudson
    and Delaware Rivers.
        Sparta Mountain South's magnificant vistas overlook pristine lakes
    and ponds 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 live 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 and the Lubber's Run Watershed form the upper
    part of the watershed of the Musconetcong River. Legislation adding 24
    miles of the Musconetcong River to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
    System was signed by the President in December 2006. Nevertheless,
    recent development threatens the biological and resource integrity of
    Sparta Mountain South, endangering the Federal investment in the area.
                           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 2008.
     wyanokie highlands (nj), fiscal year 2008 highlands conservation act
                                    project
        New Jersey requests $2.5 million in funding to acquire four parcels
    totaling 1,288 acres in the Wyanokie Highlands in Ringwood and
    Bloomingdale Boroughs and West Milford Township in Passaic County. The
    total cost of this project is $7.7 million. The Wyanokie Highlands were
    identified as a Conservation Focal Area in the USDA Forest Service NY-
    NJ Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update.
        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 New Jersey's 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.--New Jersey
    Conservation Foundation is 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 privately owned acres are located in various parcels 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, N.J. 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 the New Jersey Conservation
    Foundation's comments on the fiscal year 2008 Interior and Related
    Agencies Appropriations bill.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission
                                    summary
        This statement is submitted in support of fiscal year 2008
    appropriations for Colorado River Basin salinity control program
    activities of the Bureau of Land Management. I urge that $5,900,000 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.
        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 United States 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 $5.9 million
    for activities in fiscal year 2008 that benefit salinity control in the
    Colorado River Basin. In addition, BLM needs to target the expenditure
    of $1,500,000 of the $5.9 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 $5.9 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 2008. 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 requires
    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 quantified damages from the
    Colorado River to United States water users are about $330 million per
    year. Unquantified damages increase the total damages significantly.
    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 2008 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 $5.9 million in fiscal year
    2008 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 the Nisqually Tribe of Indians
        Over the past 30 years, the Nisqually Tribe has embarked on an
    aggressive effort to develop a viable tribal community on our
    Reservation. Today we have, with Federal assistance, built a tribal
    center, community health clinic, alcohol and drug outpatient facility,
    law enforcement facility, Elders center, tribal library, several tribal
    enterprises, two salmon hatcheries and over 125 homes for the more than
    400 Indian persons who now live on reservation lands. We have also
    placed a major emphasis on natural resource issues, youth mental health
    services, and land acquisition, to address serious community
    development issues for our Tribe. On behalf of the Tribe, I would like
    to submit the following written testimony on the fiscal year 2008
    budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service and
    the Fish & Wildlife Service. We need your assistance to protect
    critical base funding, and to provide increases in several priority
    areas to address our unmet needs.
                              bia law enforcement
        I would like to give you a picture of the law enforcement system on
    the Nisqually Reservation. We are located in Washington State. Our
    Reservation is approximately 5,000 acres. We serve over 6,000 Indian
    people in our service area, about 600 of whom are enrolled tribal
    members living on the reservation, and the rest of whom live in
    surrounding areas. We have a land-based police force with nine
    officers. Our officers are solely responsible for enforcing tribal law,
    and they also work closely with local police on other matters. Our
    police also have extensive marine water enforcement duties. We employ
    two water patrol officers to patrol over 100 square miles of Puget
    Sound for both the treaty salmon fishery and treaty shellfish
    harvesting. We also provide hunting enforcement for over 50,000 acres
    of land in the tribe's usual and accustomed area within the Nisqually
    River watershed. Besides our police department, we have a tribal court
    with two full-time judges, and we employ 10 detention officers at our
    45-bed detention facility (built 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 decision to increase law
    enforcement funding by $16 million under its Safe Indian Communities
    Initiative. However, this increase still falls short of meeting the
    severe need in Indian country for additional law enforcement resources.
    The need is especially acute this year in light of significant cuts to
    Indian programs proposed by the Department of Justice. We ask that the
    subcommittee increase the President's request by an additional $16
    million.
        Additionally, we ask you to ensure that that the funding is
    allocated in a manner that helps strengthen tribal justice systems, not
    hobble them. We understand the need to target high-crime areas, but the
    need for law enforcement resources across Indian country is severe. It
    is estimated that BIA programs alone require an additional 1,500
    officers just to meet minimum safety standards. At Nisqually, nine
    officers patrol 5,000 acres (approximately eight square miles) of
    reservation and near reservation lands and serve a population of
    approximately 6,000. This is roughly one officer per square mile, and
    1.5 officers per 1,000 people. To compare, rural non-Indian law
    enforcement agencies generally have 2.2 officers per 1,000 people
    (based on 2003 estimates), and far more officers per square mile of
    patrol area. Short-term increases targeted to specific problems or
    specific areas do little to address these core shortages. Long-time
    under-funding of BIA and tribal law enforcement agencies is part of
    what contributes to the perception that reservations are ``lawless,''
    which makes our reservations attractive to drug dealers. We request
    that the subcommittee earmark at least half of any law enforcement
    funding increase for formula distribution to tribes.
        Finally, it is important that the subcommittee understand that
    effective crime prevention takes more than just police officers. Our
    officers see firsthand every day all the problems our youth face that
    can lead them to become involved in criminal activity. This is why the
    Nisqually Tribe has committed to use tribal funds to open a youth
    center. We hope that by providing out children with a safe place to
    pursue healthy activities, we can keep crime rates down in the future.
    For those that are already in the system, we have a state-of-the-art
    detention facility responsible for the ``safekeeping, care and
    custody'' of the people detained there. But we also need functioning
    courts, drug treatment services and alternatives to detention. As a
    government, we recognize our responsibility for fostering positive
    change and rehabilitation, even in our jail. More often than not, the
    inmates are people from our community who will be returning to the
    community when they are released, so we have a particular incentive to
    help them pursue positive changes. Without all of these services,
    though, we are stuck in a cycle of arresting and locking up our own
    people. We therefore ask that the subcommittee consider parallel
    increase to the Tribal Courts program and to Alcohol and Substance
    Abuse Programs within the Indian Health Service.
                     bia natural resources and environment
        The Tribe supports the request from the Northwest Indian Fisheries
    Commission (NIFWC) on behalf of its member tribes, including the
    request of $1.8 million to restore previous budget reduction to our
    Fisheries Management Base funding; $7.575 million to the Western
    Washington Fisheries Management program to provide trust resource
    protection in the face our growing obligations and responsibilities;
    restoration of Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund to $100 million
    with a set aside for NWIFC member tribes of $9 million; $3.172 million
    for Hatchery Reform Implementation so tribes can integrate hatchery
    reform with salmon recovery under ESA; $1.74 million (to restore full
    funding of $3 million) for the Western Washington Timber-Fish-Wildlife
    program to match local funds to make the program whole; and, $2.5
    million through the BIA for mass marking and monitoring of salmon
    production in the region.
                                 bia education
        We ask you to restore the proposed cuts to education programs--
    specifically the Johnson-O'Malley program ($16.3 million) and higher
    education scholarships ($5.3 million). While we support the
    administration's initiative to improve performance at BIA schools, we
    cannot support balancing these increases with cuts that would harm
    children attending public schools and our youth who are pursuing a
    college education. As Chair, I have worked hard to emphasize the
    importance of education to our youth. The JOM program provides
    important funding to support Indian students attending public schools,
    such as academic support programs, counselors or cultural education. If
    the JOM program were eliminated, the net result would be that less
    money would be available for Indian student programs. And scholarships
    make it possible for our tribal members to obtain the college education
    that is necessary for many careers today.
                           bia contract support costs
        The Tribe supports the administration's proposal to increase
    contract support costs by $7 million. The administration has indicated
    that this increase will permit the United States 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.
                               ihs health service
        While we support the President's proposal to increase the budget
    for Indian Health Services, the amount of that increase ($212 million
    above the current funding level) 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. The Northwest Portland
    Area Indian Health Board estimates that at least $480 million is
    required to maintain even the current level of services in fiscal year
    2008. And keeping pace with current levels would only allow most
    clinics to be funded at 40-60 percent of the Level of Need Formula. We
    support the efforts of all Indian tribes to receive 100 percent of the
    Level of Need Formula, which is absolutely critical for tribes to
    address the serious and persistent health issues facing our
    communities.
        We also ask that the Indian Health Service be exempted from any
    future rescissions. Given the poor health status of Indian people and
    the limited funding available to many clinics and health programs,
    across the board rescissions have an extremely damaging effect on
    Indian health care. For example, in 2006, rescissions cut almost half
    of the IHS budget increase. The only other non-entitlement Federal
    health program, the Veteran's Administration, is exempted from
    rescissions for just this reason. We ask that you do the same for the
    IHS.
                            fish & wildlife service
        The Tribe strongly endorses the FWS Nisqually National Refuge in
    its full implementation of its Comprehensive Conservation Plan. In
    particular, we fully support restoration of 700 acres of salt marsh
    through the relocation of a series of dikes. This effort in combination
    with the Tribe's restoration of 150 acres on our property in the
    Nisqually Delta will nearly double the survival of our listed fall
    Chinook as well as provide ecosystem benefits to the entire region. We
    also ask your support for the Tribe's funding requests for the
    following FWS project proposals:
        1. Hatchery Reform/ESA Implementation--Weir Construction ($2.5
    million).--The Tribe requests $2.5 million to construct a 300 foot
    floating weir in the mainstem Nisqually River. A weir is a barrier that
    is installed in the river to allow handling of all fish that attempt to
    pass. A serious obstacle to our long term salmon recovery objectives is
    the constant and overwhelming influence of hatchery fish on the
    spawning grounds. The intent of our plan, and the direction given by
    NOAA in the Puget Sound Fall Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan, is to reduce
    in the short term the composition of hatchery fish on the spawning
    grounds to less than 30 percent with a long term goal of getting below
    10 percent. The proposed weir will solve our salmon recovery while
    maintaining harvest opportunities dilemma and serve as a model for
    other watersheds. This project is supported by the independent Hatchery
    Scientific Review Group, the Puget Sound Technical Review Team, FWS and
    NOAA Fisheries Division.
        2. Ohop Creek Restoration ($4 million).--The Tribe requests $4
    million to complete an $8 million restoration of 4.5 miles of Ohop
    Creek, a tributary to the Nisqually River. The Tribe has identified 3
    major salmon habitat projects essential to recover the ESA-listed
    Nisqually Fall Chinook salmon--restoration of 700 acres in the
    Nisqually Estuary, construction of a weir in the river to prevent
    straying of hatchery fish onto the spawning grounds and the
    comprehensive restoration of 4.5 miles of Ohop Creek near Eatonville.
    Ohop is an important creek for Chinook, coho, pinks, and steelhead. Its
    ability to support salmon was severely reduced in the late 1800's and
    early 1900's when most of the trees in the Ohop Valley were cut down
    and the lower part of the creek was diverted into a deep ditch for
    approximately 4.5 miles. The Tribe's plan involves the full restoration
    of the stream by recreating its original channel in the floodplain,
    filling in the ditch and replanting 400 acres along the valley floor
    with native vegetation. This project will be one of the largest most
    comprehensive salmon habitat restoration projects in the region.
        3. Managing for Success ($1.2 million).--The Tribe requests $1.2
    million for the development of Managing for Success (MFS), a new
    adaptive management tool, as a model for the region. A key component of
    salmon recovery is the ability to make better decisions over time as
    new information becomes available. This is referred to as adaptive
    management. MFS is a modeling tool that brings together years of work
    to tie biological and project management pieces together in a web based
    application, allowing us to more closely tie our actions to predicted
    outcomes and resulting in better informed decision-making.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the North Cascades Conservation Council
        I am writing on behalf of the North Cascades Conservation Council
    to request Land and Water Conservation funding for acquisition of two
    critical inholdings in the Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National Forest of
    Washington State. The North Cascades Conservation Council has been
    working for over 50 years to protect lands in the Cascade Range of
    Washington State. We believe funding is needed to acquire the following
    inholdings in the Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National Forest:
        Maloney Creek.--This is a half section of land directly south of
    the town of Skykomish, Washington, comprising the south half of section
    35, township 26 N., R 11 E., Willamette Meridian. This half section of
    land is owned by the Longview Fiber Company, and is completely
    surrounded by National Forest land. Some of it was logged about 60 or
    more years ago, and some of it is untouched old growth forest. Some of
    the best remaining lowland old growth forest in the Washington Cascades
    is located on National Forest land immediately adjacent to this
    inholding, and would be adversely affected were logging activity to
    occur on the Longview Fiber land. Conservation groups have proposed
    construction of a trail from the town of Skykomish to the very
    impressive grove of old growth forest directly above and near the town
    which is next to this Longview Fiber property. A rocky ledge nearby
    would also provide a dramatic viewpoint of the town below, and the
    valley and mountains beyond. Acquisition of the immediately adjacent
    Longview Fiber property is necessary to allow construction of this
    trail. Such a trail would be expected to draw many visitors, and would
    be a great asset to the community of Skykomish.
        No appraisals have been done on the Longview property to our
    knowledge, but we estimate the cost to be in the neighborhood of $2
    million.
        Buse/Index.--This is an area of approximately 40 acres immediately
    south of the town of Index, in section 20, township 27 N., range 10
    east. This area of mature, naturally regenerated second growth forest
    is directly across the North Fork Skykomish river from the town of
    Index, the most scenic mountain town in Washington State. It is
    immediately adjacent to National Forest land. Index is the main gateway
    community to the proposed and hopefully soon to be enacted Wild Sky
    Wilderness. Although most of the area around Index was logged about 80
    years ago, these lands have grown back with very impressive naturally
    regenerated forest, with many trees 3 feet in diameter and over 150
    feet high. These forests are critical to protect the health of the
    North Fork Skykomish river, one of the most important salmon spawning
    rivers in the Puget Sound basin. Estimated cost of this parcel is $1.3
    million.
        We hope that the committee will be able to give serious
    consideration to these proposals, both of which are very important to
    protect the ecological health of the Skykomish watershed. Hundreds of
    millions of dollars have been spent to acquire lands to the south along
    the Interstate 90/Snoqualmie Pass corridor in the Mountains to Sound
    Greenway area. That investment has yielded great dividends. No LWCF
    monies have gone to the U.S. Highway 2/Stevens Pass corridor to the
    north. Most of this corridor is public land, much of it hopefully to be
    included in the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness. The time has come to
    acquire some of the key pieces of private property in this corridor,
    and the North Cascades Conservation Council believes these two parcels
    deserve priority for funding.
        Thank you for your efforts in this regard.
                                     S6621_

     Prepared Statement of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
        On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Northern Colorado Water
    Conservancy District and Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water
    Conservancy District, I am requesting your support for appropriations
    in fiscal year 2008 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the
    Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, consistent with the
    President's recommended budget as follows:
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds to the FWS to
    allow FWS to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado
    River Endangered Fish Recovery Program;
        2. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    within the $45,147,000 line item entitled ``National Fish Hatchery
    Operations'' to support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray
    National Fish Hatchery in Utah; and
        3. Allocation of $200,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet FWS' Region 2
    expenses in managing the San Juan Program's diverse recovery actions.
        We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request
    your assistance for fiscal year 2008 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

               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 2008
    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 Forest Legacy and LWCF projects
    from the Northern Forest totaling $7.965 million and $9.8 million,
    detailed in tables below. In order to cover these urgent requests and
    similar meritorious requests from across the Nation, we also urge
    strong overall program allocations of $100 million for Forest Legacy
    and $320 million for LWCF, including $220 million for Federal LWCF
    projects and $100 million for the State grants program.
        The Northern Forest is a rural region of 26 million acres
    stretching from the Tug Hill Plateau in central 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
    forestland 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 25 in the Nation for projected development
    through 2030, including parts of the Connecticut River watershed,
    Androscoggin River watershed, and the Penobscot River watershed. We are
    recommending fiscal year 2008 conservation projects in all three of
    these 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 as lands are subdivided,
    closing opportunities for hunters, hikers, and other recreationists.
              conserving land conserves 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, all of the fiscal year 2008 Forest
    Legacy projects in our region have been designed to maintain working
    forests that might otherwise be converted for private development.
        One of the most innovative conservation approaches in the Northern
    Forest is the growing use of community ownership of forestland to
    maintain traditional uses. The Brushwood Community Forest project in
    Vermont, sponsored by the Trust for Public Land, is perhaps the
    foremost example. The Forest Legacy project will help the Town of West
    Fairlee purchase over 1,800 acres of the most productive sugar maple
    stands in the State the land for community ownership and continued
    timber harvest and sugaring. In addition to its forestry values, the
    land will also be heavily used for community recreation, forest-based
    education, and model forest stewardship to educate private landowners.
    The Brushwood project is part of a new statewide effort, the Northern
    Forest Alliance-led Vermont Town Forest Project, which is helping
    communities statewide to purchase forestland and enhance management and
    use of existing town forests.
        The Nature Conservancy is also leading innovative and exciting
    community forest conservation projects using Forest Legacy. The Lower
    Penobscot Forest project outside Bangor, Maine will conserve more than
    40,000 acres in the shadow of this fast growing city. The project area
    is in the most threatened watershed in the Nation for development,
    according to the USFS, and will sustain not only highly productive
    forestry operations but also popular youth hunting programs and other
    community activities. The Ossipee Pine Barrens project in the Lakes
    Region of New Hampshire has similar community forest values. It will
    conserve more than 2,200 acres of a globally rare forest system and
    link with existing town forests and other conserved lands for a 5,800-
    acre block of outstanding habitat and locally important recreation
    lands.
        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 10 percent of all
    Northern Forest jobs, with a payroll of $455 million. Many of the
    fiscal year 2008 Forest Legacy projects in the Northern Forest would
    have a significant impact on tourism. In particular, we are supporting
    a complementary fiscal year 2008 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 famed Mahoosuc Notch, the most rugged and challenging
    section of the entire 2,100-mile Appalachian Trail (AT) and subject of
    recent profiles in USA Today and the New York Times. Thanks to the work
    of volunteers and non-profit organizations, the region is poised to
    complete the newly-developed Grafton Loop Trail that will enable hikers
    to swing almost fifty miles off the AT in the Mahoosucs. When complete,
    this trail will complement the AT to create a complex of hiking trails
    less than three hours from Boston, Portland, and Concord.
        Maine's Stowe Mountain fiscal year 2008 Forest Legacy project lies
    in the Mahoosucs adjacent to the State and Nation's top-ranked fiscal
    year 2007 Forest Legacy project, Grafton Notch. Grafton Notch was
    recently approved for fiscal year 2007 funding and will soon add 3,688
    acres to State holdings in the Mahoosucs. Stowe Mountain would add
    another 3,400 acres to this historic effort to conserve one of
    America's truly iconic natural landscapes. Stowe Mountain includes nine
    miles of the Grafton Loop Trail and virtually all of the remaining
    unprotected land in the Bear River Valley. Funding Stowe Mountain would
    be a major step toward completing the conservation and recreation
    vision for the Mahoosucs.
        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 Additions project in New York is one important example. The
    project will conserve six private inholdings totaling more than 1,600
    acres of the Hudson River headwaters among the High Peaks region of New
    York's Adirondack Park. The signature parcel among these six would
    protect more than 1,400 acres on the flanks of Santanoni Mountain--one
    of the High Peaks' most famed and scenic mountains. The project is a
    remarkable value per acre, seeking only $660,000 to accomplish
    significant conservation.

        NORTHERN FOREST ALLIANCE FISCAL YEAR 2008 FOREST LEGACY REQUESTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State                       Project                           Request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       VT Brushwood Community Forest                            $1,500,000
       ME Lower Penobscot Forest                                 2,300,000
       ME Stowe Mountain                                         1,125,000
       NH Ossipee Pine Barrens                                   2,380,000
       NY Tahawus Additions                                        660,000
                                                           -----------------
                Total                                            7,965,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

             fulfilling our potential: lwcf for the northern forest
        The fiscal year 2008 LWCF projects for the Silvio Conte National
    Wildlife Refuge, Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, and White
    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 the Northern Forest's most important natural and recreational
    resources, but are being compromised as private inholdings within the
    units are developed. Often these lands are developed 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 Silvio Conte
    National Fish and Wildlife Refuge is unique in the Nation for its
    strategic conservation value: the proclamation area covers select lands
    of highest conservation value throughout the entire 7.2 million-acre
    Connecticut River watershed and the legislation creating the refuge
    envisioned that it would catalyze conservation activity throughout the
    entire area. To better support this unique refuge, the Northern Forest
    Alliance has worked with other supporters across four States to create
    the Friends of Conte Refuge and is now chairing this organization. The
    Friends are enthusiastically supporting an $8.25 million request for
    fiscal year 2008. The funding request covers important acquisitions
    from willing sellers in all four States that the refuge crosses--
    Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut--and includes
    projects that were approved for fiscal year 2007 funding but lost when
    the Joint Resolution rendered moot the significant Conte NWR earmarks
    of $3 million and $4 million that were in the House and Senate Interior
    bills.
        The fiscal year 2008 request of $1 million for Lake Umbagog
    National Fish and Wildlife Refuge and the $550,000 request for the
    Haystack Notch Trailhead project on the White Mountain National Forest
    will both contribute to conservation of the Mahoosuc region, profiled
    above as one of the Northern Forest's foremost natural and recreational
    treasures. The Lake Umbagog NWR lands to be conserved include more than
    5,000 acres of the Mollidgewock Brook watershed. This rich parcel would
    connect existing refuge lands to the Errol Town Forest, a more than
    5,000 acre conservation area that was recently conserved through Forest
    Legacy. In sum, these lands would conserve the richest natural and
    wildlife lands in the New Hampshire portion of the Mahoosucs.
        The Haystack Notch Trailhead project on the White Mountain National
    Forest in Maine has been driven by overwhelming local interest in this
    rural community. Local residents want the national forest to acquire
    these lands for conservation of the pristine Pleasant River as well as
    trailhead access to highly popular trails. The lands in question are
    highly developable, yet surrounded on three sides by national forest.
    The parcel will aid USFS management of the area and is strongly
    supported by the district ranger. The project is notable as the only
    USFS project in the President's LWCF budget that lies east of Montana.
    Given the highly fragmented nature of most eastern national forests, it
    is essential that the Congress continue to make investments in
    acquisition of these kinds of strategic inholdings.

      NORTHERN FOREST ALLIANCE FISCAL YEAR 2008 LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION
                                  FUND REQUESTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
         State                       Project                      Request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NH/VT/MA/CT Silvio Conte National Fish and              $8,250,000
                     Wildlife Refuge
                 NH Lake Umbagog National Fish and               1,000,000
                     Wildlife Refuge
                 ME White Mountain National Forest                 550,000
                     (Haystack Notch Trailhead)
                                                           -----------------
                          Total                                  9,800,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        All of the Forest Legacy and LWCF projects included in our fiscal
    year 2008 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 Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee and
    provide oral testimony on the Department of the Interior and the
    Environmental Protection Agency for fiscal year 2008 Appropriations for
    Natural Resource Management of Tribal Programs for twenty (20) Treaty
    Indian Tribes in Western Washington. We would like to highlight the
    following requests:
               summary of fiscal year 2008 appropriations request
    Secure and Enhance Western Washington Fisheries Management Base Funding
        $1.8 million--restore reduction incurred in the President's fiscal
    year 2008 Budget for BIA/Natural Resources Management/Rights
    Protection.
        $7.575 million--enhance the BIA/Natural Resource Management/Rights
    Protection/Western Washington Fisheries Management (WWFM) Base Funding.
    Salmon Habitat Restoration, Hatchery, Maintenance/Rehabilitation and
            Reform
        $1.5 million--increase BIA/Natural Resources Management/Fish,
    Wildlife and Parks/Fish Hatchery Repair account to support tribal
    hatcheries.
        $3.172 million--increase to the BIA/Natural Resources Management
    accounts for Hatchery Reform Implementation.
    Maintain the Timber-Fish-Wildlife Program
        $1.74 million--to the BIA/Natural Resource Management/Rights
    Protection/Timber-Fish-Wildlife Program to maintain the overall program
    service level.
    Maintain the Mass Marking Program
        $2.5 million--an increase of $1.5 million to BIA/Natural Resource
    Management to fully mark salmon at tribal hatcheries and to implement
    new selective fisheries plans.
    Protect Marine Resources of Pacific and Puget Sound and Co-manage
            Natural Resources
        $2.5 million--to the EPA/National Estuaries Program Puget Sound
    Partnership for tribal participation in ocean and Puget Sound planning
    and management.
    Strengthen Tribal Wildlife Management and Assure Treaty-Protected
            Hunting Rights
        $2.0 million--to BIA/Natural Resource Management/Rights Protection
    to support Tribal Treaty Rights.
    Fulfill Puget Sound Regional Shellfish Settlement Commitment
        $7.0 million--to BIA/Indian Land and Water Claims Settlement
    Account to fully fund the shellfish settlement.
            fiscal year 2008 appropriations requests justifications
    Secure And Enhance Western Washington Fisheries Management Base Funding
        Restore reduction of $1.8 million to BIA/Natural Resources
    Management/Rights Protection.
        This reduction, which targeted the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon
    Treaty, would affect the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, as well
    as the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and the Metlakatla
    Indian Community. The NWIFC portion of this cut is about 67 percent, or
    a reduction of $1.2 million. Tribes receive important value from the
    PST monies through direct contracts from the BIA for research and
    monitoring work, as well as from NWIFC policy coordination, technical
    assistance, and personnel contract support. These monies are critical
    for the successful renegotiation of portions of the treaty that are set
    to expire in 2008.
      --Enhance the BIA/Natural Resource Management/Rights Protection/
            Western Washington Fisheries Management (WWFM) Base Funding by
            $7.575 million.
        Tribes have had to take on many new obligations over the years
    since Congress provided the original ``Boldt'' monies in the mid
    1970's. Responsibilities for shellfish management, groundfish
    management, Endangered Species Act requirements, and other tasks have
    received little or no funding. NWIFC proposes that the WWFM base be
    increased by $7.575 million to bring tribal and NWIFC programs up to a
    minimal new level commensurate with current obligations.
    Salmon Habitat Restoration, Hatchery Maintenance/Rehabilitation &
            Reform
      --The BIA/Natural Resource Management/Fish, Wildlife and Parks/Fish
            Hatchery Repair Account should be increased to $1.5 million per
            year for Tribal hatcheries.
        According to a study done by the BIA at the request of Congress,
    Tribal hatcheries are estimated to be worth almost $120 million, with a
    residual maintenance need of over $48 million. Yet the BIA account for
    maintenance and rehabilitation has essentially been frozen at $500,000
    for a number of years. We request an annual increase in this line item
    to help Tribes begin to address serious health and safety issues at
    Tribal facilities.
      --Hatchery Reform Implementation needs to be funded at $3.172 million
            so Tribal hatcheries can address both ESA and production
            issues. This request is from the BIA/Natural Resources
            Management accounts.
        The Tribes, State of Washington and the Federal Government have
    undertaken significant planning through the Hatchery Reform Process.
    Regional and hatchery specific reviews resulted in over 900
    recommendations and guidelines to modify hatcheries operation and
    facilities. Tribes have developed a scientifically sound Tribal ranking
    process that has identified over $3.172 million worth of necessary
    monitoring and construction projects for this fiscal year. Additional
    projects will be ranked in coming years.
    Maintain the Timber-Fish-Wildlife Program
      --The BIA/Natural Resource Management/Rights Protection/Timber-Fish-
            Wildlife Program (TFW) account requires funding of $1.74
            million to maintain the overall program service level.
        TFW has served as the cornerstone-funding source for Tribal habitat
    management capabilities for almost 20 years. Since 2000, Congress has
    provided an allocation for additional Tribal participation in TFW and
    the Forest and Fish Report (FFR) development. Originally at $3.08
    million, this level was decreased in fiscal year 2006, but has been
    supplemented by a special request for funds from the State of
    Washington. In an effort to make the TFW program whole and allow Tribes
    to continue to implement TFW and the adaptive management provision in
    the FFR plan, which has been adopted as a HCP under the Endangered
    Species Act, an additional $1.74 million is needed to supplement the
    funds received by the Tribes from the State of Washington.
    Maintain the Mass Marking Program
      --BIA/Natural Resource Management funding of $2.5 million is needed
            to fully mark salmon at Tribal hatcheries and to use these
            marked fish to scientifically monitor salmon populations and
            watersheds in Western Washington.
        Federal requirements to mass mark Pacific Salmon raised in
    facilities funded in whole or in part by Federal dollars require
    program funding for Tribes. Tribes have agreed to mark salmon at their
    facilities, but require necessary funding to do so. It is also
    critically important to scientifically monitor salmon populations
    through spawning escapement studies to determine how the marking
    program and marked selective fisheries may be affecting existing data
    and assumptions. Funding levels have stagnated at $1 million, despite
    the expectation that the level would rise to $1.7 million in fiscal
    year 2006. New plans to implement more extensive selective fisheries
    require additional monies above the amount we originally thought to be
    adequate.
    Protect Marine Resources Of Pacific & Puget Sound & Co-manage Natural
            Resources
      --Funding for Tribal participation in the ocean and Puget Sound
            planning and management work requires $2.5 million. Of this
            amount, $2 million should be provided to the Puget Sound Tribes
            from the overall partners request (via the State of Washington)
            to the EPA/National Estuaries Program/Puget Sound Partnership.
        Marine resources are essential for all the NWIFC Tribes. Inside
    Puget Sound, the Tribes are actively working in the context of the
    Puget Sound Partnership. This effort brings together key marine issues
    of salmon recovery, storm water runoff, management and regulatory
    changes and a host of other issues. Tribes need $2.0 million to
    actively participate.
    Strengthen Tribal Wildlife Management and Assure Treaty-protected
            Hunting Rights BIA Natural Resource Management/Rights
            Protection should include a Tribal Wildlife
      --Management Initiative of $2.0 million to support Tribal treaty
            rights.
        This is a new initiative. Existing sources within the BIA to
    address wildlife management issues have been eliminated at the same
    time Tribal treaty rights to hunt are being constantly challenged
    either through unfriendly legal processes or through loss of important
    habitat and access to open and unclaimed lands. An appropriation of $2
    million would provide each of the member Tribes with a basic
    infrastructure to deal with Tribal wildlife management and treaty
    hunting rights.
    Ensure that Puget Sound Regional Shellfish Settlement Commitment Is Met
      --The BIA Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements account must
            include $7.0 million for the Puget Sound Regional Shellfish
            Settlement this fiscal year.
        The Federal Government is committed under terms of recently enacted
    Federal legislation to fully fund the shellfish settlement. To complete
    the Federal obligation, $7 million is required in fiscal year 2008 and
    $5 million for fiscal year 2009-fiscal year 2011.
                                   conclusion
        Our ancestors reserved rights to manage indigenous species of fish,
    wildlife and vegetation when they signed treaties with the United
    States a century and a half ago. Whether salmon or waterfowl, deer or
    cedar trees, all species of life have sustained the Tribes for
    thousands of years. Our dependence on these species for our economies,
    food, medicines, clothes, tools and cultural traditions has defined us
    as a people and strengthened our identity as caretakers of the land. In
    1974, the U.S. v. Washington (Boldt) Decision reaffirmed Tribes' treaty
    rights to these resources. The decision, confirmed by the U.S. Supreme
    Court in 1979, reaffirmed the Tribal fishing right and confirmed that
    Tribes have co-management authority with the State. A comparable
    relationship exists with Federal agencies. This is appropriate, since
    treaties are nation-to-nation accords and established a bond between
    our governments underscored by a Federal trust responsibility to the
    Tribes. Co-management has fostered increased cooperation and team
    spirit in natural resource management and it has helped the Tribes
    strengthen their natural resource management infrastructure. This
    enables us to do the policy and technical work necessary to achieve
    management objectives critical to the protection and restoration of
    fish, wildlife and native plant species.
        The administration has ushered funding cuts for Tribal natural
    resource management programs over the past 6 years. In the BIA's Rights
    Protection Implementation Account we have seen a 20 percent cut from
    fiscal year 2006 alone. This action compromised and jeopardized the
    management programs and infrastructure that are critically important to
    co-management and to the health and vitality of natural resources and
    the Tribal and non-tribal people they sustain.
        Our requests are bare minimums and we are sensitive to the budget
    challenges that Congress faces. We recognize that this administration
    has greatly reduced the allocation to discretionary domestic spending
    during the last several years, which makes it increasingly difficult
    for this committee to address the many requests it receives. We are
    also reaching out to the Budget Committee to champion the critical need
    for it to increase its allocation for domestic discretionary spending
    which is the major source of funding to Tribes. There is a critical
    need for adequate allocations of funds in the Pacific Northwest, and
    nationwide.
        We are actively involved in supporting efforts to increase the
    overall congressional investment in natural resource/environmental
    management. We do believe natural heritage should be a top priority of
    this country, and we do wish to work on a government-to-government
    basis with the United States and the States to meet the challenges of
    today's environment in a cooperative and coordinated way. But the
    challenges we are facing in natural resource management requires
    adequate funds for the Tribes to be active partners in these important
    natural resource management initiatives. It would be our pleasure to
    provide any additional information you might require related to these
    issues.
        I thank the committee for allowing me this opportunity to make
    these budget requests of the fiscal year 2008 Appropriations for the
    Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency.
                                     ______

                      Prepared Statement of OPERA America
        Madam Chairwoman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I
    am grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of OPERA
    America, its Board of Directors, and its 116 American member companies
    and the 16 million audience members we serve with our performances and
    education programs. We strongly urge you to support an increased
    appropriation of $176 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
    for fiscal year 2008. This testimony and the funding examples described
    below are intended to highlight the importance of Federal investment in
    the arts so critical to sustaining a vibrant cultural community
    throughout the country.
        The not-for-profit arts industry stimulates the economy, creates
    jobs, and attracts tourism dollars. The not-for-profit arts generate
    $134 billion annually in economic activity, support nearly 5 million
    jobs, and generate more than $10 billion in Federal income taxes.
    Federal Government funding of the arts generates on average $7 for
    every $1 granted--NEA funding of worthy arts programs is truly an
    economic investment in the cultural richness of our communities.
        Opera is a continuously growing art form that can address the
    diverse needs and backgrounds of our communities. Past NEA funding has
    directly supported projects in which arts organizations, artists,
    schools, and teachers collaborated to provide opportunities for adults
    and children to create, perform, and respond to artistic works. NEA
    funding has also made the artform more widely available in all States,
    including isolated rural areas and inner cities; indeed, NEA funded
    projects cross all racial, geographic, and socioeconomic lines.
        The following are some examples of the impact of NEA funding on
    opera programs in 2007:
        From the NEA's 2007 Access to Artistic Excellence Program:
        Boston Academy of Music, Inc. of Boston, MA received $10,000 to
    support a consortium festival project titled Opera Unlimited. In
    collaboration with the Boston Modern Orchestra Project, the second
    biannual festival will present contemporary chamber operas with an
    emphasis on new American works and recent works that are rarely
    performed. Additional activities will include composition workshops,
    staged readings of works in progress, seminars for adult audience
    members, and an outreach program designed for charter high school
    students in an underserved Boston neighborhood.
        Cedar Rapids Opera Theatre of Cedar Rapids, IA received $10,000 to
    support a production of Carlisle Floyd's Susannah. Outreach activities
    will include a free performance for youth and adults served by Big
    Brothers Big Sisters, Osada, and the McAuley Center for Women.
        Chinese Culture Foundation of San Francisco of San Francisco, CA
    received $10,000 to support the commissioning and presentation of an
    opera by composer Gang Situ. Based on Mozart's Don Giovanni, the work
    will fuse musical elements of traditional Cantonese opera with those of
    western composition.
        Glimmerglass Opera, Inc. of Cooperstown, NY received $22,500 to
    support a new production of Jenufa by Leos Janacek. Related activities
    will include illustrated lecture presentations, visual exhibitions,
    pre-concert ``Meet the Artists'' presentations, Young American Artist
    recitals, and Behind the Scenes production and rehearsal previews on
    the opera's Web site.
        Houston Grand Opera Association, Inc. of Houston, TX received
    $25,000 to support the Discover Opera: Community Connections
    Initiative. In its fourth year the program aims to educate and nurture
    new audiences through educational outreach in schools and community
    centers, including a program of portable operas for elementary school
    students, Opera Camps, and a year-long training program for high school
    voice students.
        Lake George Opera Festival Association, Inc. of Saratoga Springs,
    NY received $10,000 to support the production of Our Town, a new opera
    by composer Ned Rorem and librettist Sandy McClatchy based on the novel
    by Thornton Wilder. Related activities will include a screening of the
    film version of Our Town and panel discussions with project principals.
        Long Beach Opera of Long Beach, CA received $15,000 to support a
    condensed production of Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen (The Ring).
    Educational and outreach activities, in collaboration with the Goethe-
    Institut and the Wagner Society, will include a series of film
    screenings, recitals and pre-performance lectures.
        Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc. of New York, NY received
    $100,000 to support a new production of Mazeppa by Peter Ilyich
    Tchaikovsky. The production will be conducted by Valery Gergiev and
    produced by Yuri Alexandrov, with sets by George Tsypin and costumes by
    Tatiana Noginova.
        Michigan Opera Theatre of Detroit, MI received $30,000 to support a
    new production of Verdi's Aida.The production will feature a diverse
    cast, including African American singers Indra Thomas, Lisa Daltirus,
    and Gregg Baker; Chinese bass Hao Jiang Tian; Russian American mezzo-
    soprano Irina Mishura; and Italian singers Salvatore Licitra, Antonello
    Palombi, and Giuliano Carella.
        Minnesota Opera Company of Minneapolis, MN received $20,000 to
    support the American premiere of a new production of Saverio
    Mercadante's 1846 opera Orazi e Curiazi. The rarely performed bel canto
    opera dramatizes the struggle between family and duty during a war
    between the Romans and the neighboring Albans.
        Opera Company of Philadelphia of Philadelphia, PA received $20,000
    to support a production of Margaret Garner by composer Richard
    Danielpour and librettist Toni Morrison. The title role will be sung by
    mezzo-soprano Denyce Graves, who will be joined by soprano Angela
    Brown, baritone Gregg Baker, and bass-baritone Rodney Gilfry.
        Opera Omaha, Inc. of Omaha, NE received $20,000 to support the
    world premiere of Dream Horses by composer Anthony Davis and librettist
    Yusef Komunyakaa. The new opera is inspired by historical events that
    occurred in Nebraska between 1877 and 1879; with themes of loss and
    mourning that resonate locally and nationally.
        Santa Fe Opera of Santa Fe, NM received $55,000 to support the
    American premiere of Tea: A Mirror of Soul by Tan Dun with libretto by
    Xu Ying and the composer. Education and outreach programs will include
    free public lectures about the opera and a symposium involving the
    composer, librettist, and director.
        Sarasota Opera Association, Inc. of Sarasota, FL received $10,000
    to support the Apprentice and Studio Artists Program. Improvements
    designed to provide training and performance opportunities in the
    development of young singers will include vocal coaching, language
    coaching, master classes, and seminars on auditions.
        Seattle Opera of Seattle, WA received $50,000 to support a new
    production of Verdi's Macbeth. Performances of this rarely produced
    opera will be accompanied by preview talks, lectures, and radio
    broadcasts. Through Experience Opera, the company will work with
    teachers to incorporate opera into foreign language, philosophy,
    literature, and arts curricula and also provide multimedia lectures and
    presentations at ten schools.
        These examples are just a few of the many programs supported by the
    National Endowment of the Arts. As we continue into the 21st century,
    these programs display the power of opera to bridge different cultural
    backgrounds and traditions and attract new audiences with new
    programming and education efforts that reflect the wide diversity of
    our Nation.
        Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending
    Federal tax dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered
    from a 40 percent budget cut in the mid-nineties, and its programs are
    seriously underfunded. OPERA America and other performing arts service
    organizations work hard each year to strengthen support for the NEA in
    Congress. We urge you to increase the 2008 NEA funding allocation to
    $176 million.
        On behalf of OPERA America, thank you for considering this request.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Orange County Land Trust, Middletown, NY
        On behalf of the Orange County Land Trust and Partner Organizations
    responsible for the grass roots preservation of Sterling Forest State
    Park I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
    fiscal year 2008 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
      --$100 million for the Forest Legacy program.
                           highlands conservation act
        The recently enacted Highlands Conservation Act established the
    importance of protecting the critical Highlands geological formation
    surrounding the New York metropolitan region and it adjacent areas.
    This 3-million acre region has productive forests and farms, critical
    wildlife habitat, and superb recreational resources within an hour of
    major metropolitan areas, but it also provides drinking water for
    millions of local citizens. The Highlands Conservation 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 which will give
    greater leverage to these Federal funds.
        In his budget for fiscal year 2008, President Bush included no
    appropriation for the Highlands Conservation Act (HCA). This is
    unacceptable, and we strongly urge the Senate to increase the budget
    allocation to $11 million which includes the full $10 million
    authorized by the legislation for land acquisition plus $1 million to
    the USDA Forest Service for continued research into the Highlands
    ecosystems and for administration of the Highlands Act implementation.
    The Governors of the four Highlands States have jointly submitted
    projects totaling $10 million to the Department of the Interior for
    funding in fiscal year 2008, thus indicating their willingness to
    provide matching State monies.
                                  our request
        New York's Arrow Park is a priority area for funding under the
    Highlands Conservation Act, and it is an important priority of the
    Orange County Land Trust, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
    Preservation, the Palisades Interstate Park Commission and the grass-
    roots volunteer organization Sterling Forest Partnership. I want to
    explain the importance of this area and how your action on the fiscal
    year 2008 Appropriations bill impacts its protection.
        The value of Sterling Forest State Park, to which the Arrow Park
    parcel will be added, has been recognized regionally and nationally for
    its natural resource value, and includes designations as a New York
    Important Bird Area, Significant Habitat for State listed Cricket Frog
    and Eastern Timber Rattlesnake, a Critical Resource for clean waters
    flowing into the Wanaque Reservoir watershed providing drinking water
    for over 2 million residents in New Jersey, and classified as a Park
    Preserve, providing the greatest environmental protection within the NY
    State Park system.
        Arrow Park is an under-used private 334-acre resort contiguous with
    the northern border of Sterling Forest State Park. It consists of
    woodlands, small fields, a few buildings, and a pristine 43 acre lake
    which drains into Sterling Forest, . . . It is located in southeastern
    Orange County, the fastest growing county in the State, in an area
    where unchecked development has altered the landscape from farmland to
    suburbia in just a few years. The Orange County Land Trust has
    negotiated a purchase with the owners for well below the current fair
    market value of land in this area and has partnered with the Palisades
    Interstate Park Commission and the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and
    Historic Preservation to purchase 278 acres of the 334 acres. To
    protect the remaining 56 acres and facilities including an old stone
    lodge, cabins and recreation hail, the property will be turned over to
    a not-for-profit entity to continue current activities and create new
    programs using the natural landscape as a healing landscape.
        Currently successful programs taking place and to be expanded
    include:
      --A pediatric bereavement camp, run by Calvary Hospital for children
            who have suffered death and trauma.
      --Use by Orange County hospices and like agencies for their programs.
      --Healing programs for children of war from Sierra Leone, Africa and
            other locations. The New York City Fire Department's program
            for children and widows from the 9/11 terror attack.
      --Occupations Inc. special support programs for the disabled.
      --A new program being developed by the Military Order of the Purple
            Heart for veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan and their
            families.
        Placing this area under public protection is important because:
      --This property is under extreme development pressure and the current
            owner is willing to sell it for a much higher price than the
            amount currently under contract with the Land Trust;
      --The water from the lake flows into a habitat for State listed
            Cricket Frogs which, if degraded by development and unmanaged
            use, could endanger this species further;
      --The region serves as a nesting area for migratory birds, partly due
            to its north-south orientation and partly to its habitat
            diversity; and
      --It is a natural extension of Sterling Forest State Park which is
            the largest contiguous forest in the tri-state area providing
            habitat for an unusually diverse flora and fauna.
        Other public values to be protected include a variety of
    recreational, educational, and research activities currently underway.
    The open space provided by the greater Sterling Forest region and the
    Highlands is a major attraction for people moving into the area which
    is within commuting distance of New York City. Fishing is enjoyed by
    hundreds of anglers, ranging from serious fly-fishermen to children
    having their first experience putting a worm on a hook. Deer hunting is
    pursued in much of the area, and it is an important management tool as
    the deer populations continue to reshape our forest communities.
    Hiking, bird-watching, nature study from flora to butterflies and
    dragonflies, and photography are other activities commonly occurring in
    the forest. Yet public access to the rivers and the open space has
    become more limited in recent years. The healing inspiration provided
    by lake and forest natural landscapes have proved their worth in the
    programs that have taken place here. All of these values and activities
    are destined to be severely degraded in the near future if no
    protective action is taken.
                                  the problem
        Shopping malls and residential development pressure in the area is
    severe and increasing annually. This proximity to metropolitan
    population centers of New York City and northern New Jersey, combined
    with the upgrading of highway and rail corridors into the area, produce
    extraordinary pressures on this landscape. It is the fastest growing
    region of New York State, yet it also provides drinking water for
    millions of New Jersey residents. Land is being converted into
    developments at an alarming rate as pressure for housing at almost any
    cost leads to rapid changes from forest and fields to lawns, driveways,
    malls, and sprawl. This causes declines in wildlife habitat, water
    quality, and all the other values provided by the forests and wetlands,
    and once the land has been converted, these environmental services are
    essentially impossible to recover. And as more land is converted, the
    costs to protect the increasingly rare open space that remains rises
    even more rapidly.
        The window of opportunity to save Arrow Park and similar Highlands
    areas is rapidly closing. The longer we take to protect our valuable
    Highlands resource, the less effective we will be and the more it will
    cost.
        The $11 million funding request for the Highlands Act is an
    extremely important investment in protecting our future. The Forest
    Legacy funding will also contribute to protecting these resources and
    should be fully funded as well.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Pacific Rivers Council
        Requesting $30 million for the Washington Watershed Restoration
    Initiative: Road Renovation and Removal in the Puget Sound and Hood
    Canal Watersheds of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie and Olympic National
    Forests.
        As a credentialed watershed and aquatic scientist and an
    experienced natural resources lawyer, we ask the committee for
    appropriations to fix a problem that science tells us is ecologically
    urgent and the law tells us we are obligated to address.
        The Forest Service needs significantly more funding in order to
    build agency and community watershed restoration capacity to do more
    and better road remediation and removal projects.
                              what is the problem?
        Forest roads have widespread, pervasive and--if left untreated--
    long-lasting biological and physical impacts to our stream systems that
    continue long after initial construction. Roads change the way water is
    routed within watersheds, and almost always increase instream sediment
    and reduce water clarity. Road crossings can become barriers to
    movement of fish and other aquatic organisms, disrupting migration and
    making populations less likely to survive. In most cases, these effects
    cannot be alleviated without human intervention.
        Nationwide, roads contribute sediment to streams, rivers, and lakes
    more widely than any other form of land management activity, and are
    the main source of sediment to water bodies from forestry operations.
    National forest roads are no exception. A 2002 Forest Service report
    found that ``construction of high density and insufficiently maintained
    road networks poses severe problems and risks for forest resources,''
    and that effective watershed restoration requires ``decommissioning and
    obliterating non-critical road systems.''
        But roads can be treated. Thanks to experience and good research,
    we know how to do it, and how to do it efficiently. In many cases, the
    most effective way to reduce road-related water quality degradation is
    to decommission roads, a task which requires significant investment.
    For roads that cannot be removed, upgrading design and drainage, and
    executing regular maintenance is critical to minimizing impacts on
    freshwater ecosystems. But these are also outside the reach of current
    agency budgets. (Shockingly the total deferred maintenance backlog on
    Forest Service roads nationwide is estimated conservatively to be at
    least $4.05 billion).
        Current budget trends are heading us in the wrong direction:
    Federal funding to fix roads and restore watersheds has greatly
    diminished in recent years. The Washington State piece of the Federal
    budget currently provides only $3 million annually for Forest Service
    road maintenance--allowing an already staggering maintenance backlog to
    grow by at least $8 million each year. Field investigation confirms
    that inadequate maintenance is largely to blame for more than $30
    million of road damage in Washington's national forests following heavy
    rains last November. According to the Forest Service, if the needed
    road work begins now, it will cost an estimated $300 million to bring
    Washington's national forests into compliance with today's standards.
         what needs to be done to ``stormproof'' a forest road system?
        Roads are ``stormproofed'' when sediment delivery to streams is
    strictly minimized. The techniques for remediation of road-related
    sediment delivery risks are well-established. In order to protect
    aquatic ecosystems, roads should be constructed, reconstructed,
    maintained, and operated such that:
      --Roads do not initiate or contribute to gully and landslide erosion
            processes.
      --Road-related sediment (both coarse and fine) does not reach
            watercourses.
      --Fish movement is not restricted.
      --Natural drainage and hydrology are maintained--neither extended nor
            reduced.
      --Chemicals applied for forest management and those associated with
            road traffic do not come in contact with water, either directly
            or via sediment and aerosol transport.
        The Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative: A Six-Step
    Solution.--A coalition \1\ including the Washington State Department of
    Ecology, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and a dozen of Pacific Rivers
    Council's fellow conservation groups has prepared a ``Watershed
    Restoration Initiative'' for the State's national forests, suggesting
    the following 6-step solution.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The members of the Washington Watershed Coalition are:
    Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and
    Wildlife, Olympic Forest Coalition, Sierra Club Cascade Chapter, Public
    Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Pacific Rivers Council,
    American Whitewater, The Wilderness Society, Wild Fish Conservancy,
    Alpine Lakes Protection Society, North Cascades Conservation Council,
    Pilchuck Audubon Society, and Washington Wilderness Coalition.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        1. Adequate Funding.--$30 million in fiscal year 2008 and for each
    of the next 10 years. The Forest Service road maintenance backlog can
    be wiped out in the next decade state-wide with about $30 million
    annually. A sensible approach is to start with the national forests
    watersheds that flow into the already ailing Puget Sound and Hood Canal
    Basin--i.e. the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and the eastern
    Olympic National Forest.
        2. Prioritize to get the biggest bang for the buck.--We need to
    spend smarter. A strategic approach to public investment in road-
    related watershed restoration will optimize the ecological benefits of
    our investments across the landscape--an approach that is also
    consistent with the recovery needs of native fish. This means:
    targeting the ``best'' or highest ecological priority watersheds first
    and fully treating--i.e. ``stormproofing''--whole watersheds to meet
    ecologically adequate road-related risk and impact benchmarks.
        Specifically, we want to avoid treating only the ``worst'' roads in
    high-risk, high-value basins and leaving behind high road densities and
    conditions that still pose substantial risk of future harm to habitat
    and fish. It is a waste of scarce resources if our actions result in
    making highly impacted basins only slightly less highly impacted
    because the slight reduction provides negligible biological benefit.
        The goal should be to invest in ways that secure the maximum area
    of native fish habitat, that maintain the largest areal extent of
    existing high quality waters, and that allow relatively rapid recovery
    of high-quality conditions. Some subwatersheds with extensive,
    concentrated high-risk roads may go untreated for the first few years,
    while resources are invested to secure higher quality waters from being
    harmed by an existing road system that is not yet as severely
    compromised as the more heavily roaded areas. With the goal of
    ecological effectiveness as the primary driver, targeting choices may
    also be influenced by considerations such as partnership opportunities
    and complementary restoration projects in the same watershed.
        Within the priority watersheds, we strongly recommend that
    restoration projects must focus on the following objectives:
      --re-routing road runoff to eliminate or reduce direct delivery of
            sediment to streams;
      --decommissioning high-risk, unstable, and unneeded roads;
      --fixing culvert crossing to restore fish passage;
      --renovating road drainage features to minimize future maintenance
            and diminish the risk of road failures.
        3. Field Assessment.--The Initiative calls for improved inventories
    of road systems so we are able to use sound, field-based information to
    make road management decisions. The Forest Service has already
    collected useful data through Access and Travel Management Plans and
    Watershed Analyses that provide a good head start on large parts of the
    Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie and Olympic National Forests, in particular. Funds
    can get to the ground quickly and effectively in those places.
        4. Capacity Building to Support Partnerships.--In order to protect
    our public investment, we are also asking the committee to specify that
    funding be directed to increased professional capacity within the
    Forest Service to effectively design, implement and create local
    partnerships around roads projects. More Forest Service staff are
    needed to support project partnerships with landowners, tribes, and
    other agencies and organizations.
        5. Monitoring.--Watershed restoration projects must be monitored to
    ensure that road work is properly designed and implemented to meet the
    intended environmental objectives, and to allow for program adjustments
    where indicated. The Initiative suggests dedicating 2 percent of
    project funds to monitoring. PRC recommends that monitoring be
    conducted by the Forest Service's Pacific Northwest Research Station,
    the best branch to execute and report on restoration effectiveness.
        6. Strategic Re-deployment of Expert Agency Staff.--One potential
    way to stretch agency funding for staff is to enable the Forest Service
    to temporarily deploy outside Federal agency personnel with expertise
    in project implementation and oversight. In addition to supplementing
    local personnel, a generation of field and management staff will gain
    critical field experience that will build capacity for restoration
    nationwide.
        In conclusion, we believe that this is a chance to fulfill unkept
    promises. The problems caused by outdated and deteriorating Forest
    Service roads were highlighted during the early years of the 1993
    Northwest Forest Plan. Our request today reflects the unwelcome truth
    that we have not fulfilled the promise of this Plan to restore our
    forested watersheds, or our obligations to meet the goals of the Clean
    Water Act under a Memorandum of Understanding with the Washington
    Department of Ecology.
        The Watershed Restoration Initiative for national forest roads is
    the Forest Service counterpart of the road restoration work now being
    undertaken by private timberland owners in Washington State to protect
    fish habitat and water quality under the statewide Forest Practices
    Habitat Conservation Plan. Timber industry reports tell us that road
    maintenance and abandonment plans are proceeding to provide fish
    passage, reduce road impacts to streams and restore habitat. The Forest
    Service is lagging behind by allowing its road problems to grow.
        In conclusion, Pacific Rivers Council and our coalition partners
    are very grateful for your support of watershed restoration in
    Washington State and across the Northwest. We look forward to working
    with you ensure that neglected Forest Service roads don't prevent us
    from meeting our goals for clean water and healthy fisheries in Puget
    Sound and elsewhere.
                              selected references
        Angermeier, Paul L., A. P. Wheeler, and A.E. Rosenberger. 2004. ``A
    Conceptual Framework for Assessing Impacts of Roads on Aquatic Biota,''
    29 Fisheries 12, 19-29 (2004).
        Butler, Brett J. and Earl C. Leatherberry. 2004. USDA Forest
    Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis: National Woodland Owner Survey,
    2003, Preliminary Results. (July 12, 2004 draft).
        Gucinski, Hermann, Michael J. Furniss, Robert R. Ziemer, and Martha
    H. Brookes (eds.). 2001. Forest roads: A synthesis of scientific
    information. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-509. Portland, Oregon:
    U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. 103 p.
        Schlosser I. J. and P. L. Angermeier, 1995. Spatial variation in
    demographic processes of lotic fishes: conceptual models, empirical
    evidence, and implications for conservation. American fisheries Society
    Symposium. 17:392-401.
        USDA Forest Service, Forest Service Roads: A Synthesis of
    Scientific Information. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-509, May 2001,
    page 27.
        USDA Forest Service. ``Major Issues Facing the Forest Service,''
    Report of the Forest Service Fiscal Year 2002: Healthy Forests and
    Grasslands--Financial and Performance Accountability. May 2003 (page
    6).
        USDA Forest Service, 2007. Fiscal Year 2008 President's Budget:
    Budget Justification. 17-24
        USEPA. 2002. National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report. EPA-
    841-R0902-001, Aug., 2002
        USEPA. 2005. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint
    Source Pollution from Forestry. EPA-841-B-05-001.
        Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological
    effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation
    Biology 14:18-30.
        Weaver, W. E., D. K. Hagans, and E. Weppner. 2006. Part X, Upslope
    Erosion Inventory and Sediment Control Guidance, in California Salmonid
    Stream Habitat Restoration Manual, available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/
    nafwb/manual.html
        Weaver. W.E. 2005. Storm Proofing Your Roads: Practical Advice and
    Case Histories, Power Point Presentation and Oral Presentation, at USDA
    Forest Service, Oregon Department of Forestry, and Western Forestry and
    Conservation Association Workshop: Forest Roads: Advancements in
    Science and Technology, Eugene, Oregon, December 13-14, 2005.
                              contact information
        Mary Scurlock, Pacific Rivers Council, 917 SW Oak Street, #403,
    Portland, OR 97205 Phone: 503-228-3555 Fax: 503-228-3556 Email:
    mary@pacrivers.org
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Partnership for the National Trails System
        Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: The Partnership
    for the National Trails System appreciates your support over the past
    dozen 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 25 national scenic
    and historic trails for fiscal year 2008 through these appropriations:
      --National Park Service: $11.915 million for the administration of 20
            trails and for coordination of the long-distance trails program
            by the Washington Park Service office.
      --USDA Forest Service: $3.79 million to administer 4 trails and $1
            million to manage parts of 16 trails administered by the NPS or
            BLM; Construction: $2.1 million for the Continental Divide
            Trail, $1.35 million for the Florida Trail, and $1 million each
            for the Pacific Crest and Iditarod Trails.
      --Bureau of Land Management: to coordinate its National Trails System
            Program: $250,000; to administer the Iditarod National Historic
            Trail: $420,000, the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National
            Historic Trail: $230,000, the Old Spanish National Historic
            Trail: $331,000 and $3.67 million to manage portions of 10
            trails administered by the Park Service or the Forest Service;
            $1,460,000 for operating five National Historic Trail
            interpretive centers; $500,000 for planning and projects for
            the Iditarod National Historic Trail Centennial.
      --We ask that you appropriate $4.5 million for the National Park
            Service Challenge Cost Share Program and continue to direct
            one-third of it ($1,500,000) for 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 allocate it for the national
            scenic and historic trails it administers or manages.
      --We ask that you appropriate $1.253 million to the National Park
            Service office of Conservation and Outdoor Recreation to
            support the second year of a 5-year interagency project to
            develop a consistent system-wide National Trails System
            Geographic Information System (GIS).
        We ask that you appropriate from the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund for land acquisition:
      --to the Forest Service: $23.8 million for the Pacific Crest Trail,
            $5 million for the Florida Trail; $9.32 million for the
            Appalachian Trail; $4 million for the Ottawa National Forest/
            North Country Trail; $195,000 for the Overmountain Victory
            Trail;
      --to the Bureau of Land Management: $200,000 for the Continental
            Divide Trail in New Mexico;
      --to the Park Service: $4.75 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 25 national
    scenic and historic trails as described in the August 2001 report
    (requested by Congress in the fiscal year 2001 appropriation) ``GIS For
    The National Trails System.'' This builds upon work underway on the Ice
    Age, Appalachian, Florida, Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer and Pony
    Express Trails to develop consistent information gathering and mapping
    that can be applied across the National Trails System. This funding
    will be shared with the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest
    Service.
        We support the administration's proposed $850,000 for the Connect
    Trails To Parks project to enhance the public's understanding of the
    National Trails System and its relationship to the National Park
    System.
        The $11.915 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 increases we request--$80,000 for El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro
    and $135,000 for Old Spanish--will enable the Park Service to continue
    full-time management and help implement Comprehensive Management Plans
    for these new historic trails, co-administered with the Bureau of Land
    Management.
        We request an increase of $641,000 to continue and expand Park
    Service efforts to protect cultural landscapes at more than 200 sites
    along the Santa Fe Trail, to develop GIS mapping, and to fund public
    educational outreach programs of the Santa Fe Trail Association. An
    increase of $521,000 for the Trail of Tears will enable the Park
    Service to work with the Trail of Tears Association to develop a GIS to
    map the Trail's historical and cultural heritage sites so they can be
    protected and interpreted for visitors.
        The $232,000 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 $1,948,000 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 foster long-term
    cooperative stewardship of the Trail.
        The $879,000 we request for the 4,200 mile North Country Trail will
    enable the Park Service and Forest Service 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
    Wisconsin DNR and other partners to accelerate land acquisition 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 assist the Ice Age Park & Trail Foundation
    to better equip, train and support the volunteers who build and
    maintain the 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 $4.5 million in Challenge
    Cost Share funding to the Park Service for fiscal year 2008 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 one-third
    of the $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 $3.79
    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 $1 million
    specifically for these trails. We also request $1 million for the
    Chugach National Forest to begin to develop the Southern Trek of the
    Iditarod National Historic Trail.
        Work is underway, supported by funds you provided over the past 6
    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 2008 to enable the Forest Service and FTA to build 18 more miles
    and to 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 CDT construction, begun with fiscal year 1998 funding, we
    ask you to appropriate $2.1 million to build or reconstruct 89 more
    miles.
        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 three 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 request
    that you provide funding for the Bureau to begin to implement its 10
    Year ``National Scenic & Historic Trails Strategy and Work Plan.''
        We ask that you increase funding by $19.76 million to provide $69
    million as new permanent base funding for the National Landscape
    Conservation System and that you appropriate as new permanent base
    funding $250,000 for National Trails System Program Coordination,
    $420,000 for the Iditarod Trail, $230,000 for El Camino Real de Tierra
    Adentro Trail, $331,000 for the Old Spanish Trail, and $3,421,000 for
    management of the portions of the ten other trails under the care of
    the Bureau of Land Management. We request $166,000 for construction of
    new sections of the Continental Divide Trail, $115,000 for maintenance
    of the Pacific Crest Trail, $500,000 to begin planning and projects for
    the Iditarod Trail Centennial, and $1,460,000 to operate five 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.
        To promote greater management transparency and accountability for
    the National Trails and the whole National Landscape Conservation
    System, we urge you to request expenditure and accomplishment reports
    for each of the NLCS Units for fiscal year 2007 and to direct the
    Bureau to include unit-level allocations by major sub-activities for
    each of the scenic and historic trails, monuments, wild and scenic
    rivers, and conservation areas within a new activity account for the
    NLCS in future budgets. Existing accounts for Wilderness Areas and
    Wilderness Study Areas should also be included in this new National
    Landscape Conservation System activity 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 $23.8 million we request for the Pacific Crest National Scenic
    Trail will continue acquisition underway by the Forest Service and Park
    Service, protecting 12 miles of PCT in Washington and taking 34 miles
    off of roads in southern California. 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 $9.32 million requested will protect sections of the
    Appalachian National Scenic Trail in three national forests in three
    States. The $4 million requested for the Ottawa National Forest will
    protect the Sturgeon River Gorge adjoining the North Country National
    Scenic Trail in Upper Michigan. 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 $200,000 requested for the Bureau of Land Management will close
    a gap in the Continental Divide Trail in New Mexico.
        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 $10.9 million of fiscal year
    2000-2006 LWCF funding with $16.6 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 35 parcels totaling
    6,539 acres and now has another 28 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 $4.75 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 2006 the trail organizations channeled 687,904
    hours of documented volunteer labor valued at $12,409,472 to help
    sustain the national scenic and historic trails. The organizations also
    applied private sector contributions of $7,934,074 to benefit the
    trails. These contributions are documented in Attachment 1.

     ATTACHMENT 1.--CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN 2006 TO SUPPORT THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM BY NATIONAL SCENIC AND HISTORIC
                                                   TRAIL ORGANIZATIONS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Estimated value
                          Organization                        Volunteer hours      of volunteer        Financial
                                                                                      labor          contributions
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Appalachian Trail Conference...........................            190,017         $3,427,600         $4,230,000
    Camino Real Trail Association..........................              1,025             18,482              4,849
    Continental Divide Trail Society.......................          \1\ 1,500             27,060  .................
    Continental Divide Trail Alliance......................             31,225            563,299            645,197
    Florida Trail Association..............................             62,380          1,125,335            177,248
    Ice Age Park & Trail Foundation........................             49,524            893,413            257,164
    Iditarod National Historic Trail, Inc..................              1,898             34,240         \1\ 80,000
    Heritage Trails/Amigos De Anza & others................              2,625             47,355  .................
    Anza Trail Coalition of Arizona........................              4,377             78,961  .................
    Lewis & Clark Trail Heritage Foundation................             61,424          1,108,089            405,568
    Mormon Trails Association..............................          \1\ 1,800             32,472              3,653
    Iowa Mormon Trails Association.........................            \1\ 750             13,530              1,820
    Nebraska Mormon Trails Association.....................            \1\ 125              2,255              2,580
    National Pony Express Association......................             32,072            578,579            143,672
    Nez Perce Trail Foundation.............................              6,830            123,213             12,048
    North Country Trail Association........................             32,090            578,903            257,397
    Old Spanish Trail Association..........................             11,948            215,542             48,353
    Oregon-California Trails Association...................             60,200          1,086,008            714,178
    Overmountain Victory Trail Association.................              8,783            158,445             15,000
    Pacific Crest Trail Association........................             55,439          1,000,120            695,841
    Potomac Heritage Trail Association.....................          \1\ 2,000             36,080  .................
    Santa Fe Trail Association.............................             37,420            675,057            193,239
    Trail of Tears Association.............................             32,452            585,434             46,267
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------    Totals.............................................            687,904         12,409,472          7,934,074
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Estimate.

                                   ATTACHMENT 2.--PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM--REQUESTED FISCAL YEAR 2008 APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year
                                                 ------------------------------------------------
                    Agency/Trail                    2006 cong.      2008 admin.    2008 partners                           Project/Programs possible with increased funding
                                                      approp.         request         request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    PARK SERVICEAla Kahakai.................................        $259,000        $264,000        $264,000  Continue preparation of Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) for new trail;
    Appalachian.................................       1,205,000       1,341,000       1,719,000  Support ``A Trail to Every Classroom'' project with teachers and children, resource monitoring
                                                                                                   through AT Mega-Transect project, & Comprehensive Facility Management;
    Natchez Trace...............................          27,000          27,000          29,000  Planning & building new trail & bridges; backlog maintenance with SCA;
    El Camino Real Tejas........................          49,000          49,000          50,000  Start up administration for 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         348,000  Prepare & print Four Trails Auto Tour Route Guides for Wyoming, Utah/Idaho, Nevada;
    Captain John Smith..........................  ..............         151,000         151,000  Begin administration & Comprehensive Management Plan for new national historic trail;
    Ice Age.....................................         631,000         704,000         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         360,000         360,000  Coordination of Trail site protection, interpretation & development projects with local agencies &
                                                                                                   organizations; Outreach to schools and Latino communities;
    Lewis & Clark...............................       1,798,000       1,948,000       1,948,000  Planning, coordination & support for local L&CNHT projects after the Bicentennial;
    Mormon Pioneer..............................         128,000         128,000         183,000  Prepare & print Four Trails Auto Tour Route Guides for Wyoming, Utah/Idaho, Nevada;
    North Country...............................         684,000         732,000         879,000  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         304,000         356,000  Prepare & print Four Trails Auto Tour Route Guides for Wyoming, Utah/Idaho, Nevada;
    Overmountain Victory........................         170,000         177,000         335,000  New route signs & interpretive exhibits; Historic Preservation Study of Gilbertown; feasibility
                                                                                                   study for location of Trail headquarters and visitor contact site;
    Pony Express................................         182,000         182,000         237,000  Prepare & print Four Trails Auto Tour Route Guides for Wyoming, Utah/Idaho, Nevada;
    Potomac Heritage............................         276,000         280,000         280,000  Assistance to local agencies & organizations for planning & educational projects;
    Santa Fe....................................        722,0001         875,000       1,516,000  Preserve cultural resources; GIS mapping; produce interpretive media with SFTA;
    Selma to Montgomery.........................         328,000         611,000         611,000  Trail interpretation in collaboration with citizen support organizations & local agencies;
    Trail of Tears..............................         361,000         361,000         882,000  Develop GIS mapping, interpret Trail sites & provide new visitor facilities with TOTA;
    NTS--Washington Office......................         336,000         347,000         375,000  Program coordination and funding for special projects and training for staff & partners
                                                 ------------------------------------------------
          National Trails System................       8,266,000      10,212,000      11,915,000  Total National Trails System operations funding
                                                 ================================================
    Challenge Cost Share........................   \2\ 4,843,000   \3\ 2,380,000       4,500,000  One-third of $4.5 million for the National Trails System
    Interagency GIS Project.....................  ..............  ..............   \4\ 1,253,000  Development of GIS for National Trails System;                     BLMIditarod Trail..............................         420,000         248,000         420,000  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          15,000         230,000  Collaborative administration and management with National Park Service; Full-time Trail
                                                                                                   Administrator; Site certification and protection;
    Old Spanish.................................         273,000         225,000         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..........................         650,000         179,000         650,000  Planning 101 miles of CDNST in Idaho, Montana and New Mexico; Interagency management
                                                                                                   collaboration; Full-time CDNST Liaison;
    Pacific Crest...............................         294,000          65,000         100,000  PCNST maintenance in California and Oregon; Interagency management collaboration;
    Juan Bautista de Anza.......................          95,000          76,000          76,000  Interpretive exhibits for Anza Trail in Arizona and California;
    California..................................         155,000         126,000         179,000  California NHT resource inventories in Utah, Nevada and California;
    Lewis & Clark...............................       1,902,000         695,000       1,680,000  Completion of Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects in Idaho and Montana;
    Mormon Pioneer..............................         227,000         227,000         227,000  Mormon Pioneer NHT resource inventories in Utah and Wyoming;
    Nez Perce...................................          27,000          27,000         149,000  Completion of Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects in Idaho and Montana;
    Oregon......................................          18,000          23,000         210,000  Interagency management collaboration and Oregon NHT resource inventories;
    Pony Express................................         100,000         105,000         147,000  Marking Pony Express Trail in Utah and Nevada;
    Potomac Heritage............................  ..............           3,000           3,000  Completion of Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects in Idaho and Montana;
    NTS--Coordinator............................  ..............  ..............         250,000  Program coordination and funding for special projects and training for staff & partners;
                                                 ------------------------------------------------
          National Trails System................       4,176,000       2,014,000       4,652,000  Total National Trails System operations funding
                                                 ================================================
    Iditarod....................................  ..............  ..............         500,000  Planning and grants for Iditarod NHT Centennial activities;
    Challenge Cost Share........................  ..............  ..............         500,000  Projects along the various national scenic and historic trails;
    California, Casper, Oregon, Sacajawea, &           1,460,000       1,440,000       1,460,000  Operating ONHT, CNHT, MPNHT, L&CNHT, CRTANHT and PXNHT interpretive centers;
     Camino Real Centers.
    Construction of:
        Pacific Crest Trail.....................  ..............  ..............         115,000  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 SERVICEContinental Divide..........................        +742,000       1,500,000       1,500,000  Continued support for full administrative responsibility and for consistent interagency
    Florida.....................................        +639,000       1,000,000         650,000   collaboration for each trail; support for consistent management with trail organization and local
    Pacific Crest...............................        +832,000       1,297,000       1,000,000   agency partners; trail brochures, signs, project planning etc.; Also $250,000 to administer new
    Nez Perce Trails............................        +634,000         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 certify 150 miles of the Florida Trail and continue collaboration with Florida
                                                                                                   Trail Association to inventory 430 miles and further develop Trail GIS; $92,000 for Nez Perce
                                                                                                   Trail Foundation education and public outreach work and other projects;
                                                 ------------------------------------------------
          Total.................................   \5\ 2,847,000       4,437,000       3,790,000
                                                 ================================================
    Appalachian, North Country, Ice Age,                 916,000         918,000       1,000,000  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;
    Construction of.............................  ..............  ..............  ..............  New trail construction and re-construction throughout these national trails.
    Continental Divide Trail....................         995,000  ..............       2,100,000  Trail construction projects along the Continental Divide Trail: reconstructing or building 89
                                                                                                   miles of trail in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico;
    Florida Trail...............................         498,000  ..............       1,350,000  Trail construction projects totaling 18 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;
    Iditarod Trail..............................  ..............  ..............       1,000,000  Construction of the Southern Trek of the Iditarod NHT in the Chugach National Forest;
                                                 ------------------------------------------------
          National Trails System................       6,251,000       5,355,000      10,240,000  Total: National Trails System funding
                                                 ================================================
    Nat. Forest System Capital Improvement &          74,205,000      66,387,000      90,000,000  Trail maintenance and new trail construction throughout the National Forest System.
     Maintenance--Trails.               LWCF FOR TRAILSLWCF grant--FS Pacific Crest................         600,000  ..............      23,800,000  Forest Service acquisition of lands in southern California (Tejon Ranch & Agua Dulce), and
                                                                                                   southern Washington to preserve the scenic integrity of the Pacific Crest Trail.
    LWCF grant--FS Florida......................  ..............  ..............       5,000,000  Forest Service acquisition of lands in the Northwest Florida Greenway near Eglin Air Force Base,
                                                                                                   along Suwannee River, and adjacent to St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge.
    LWCF grant--FS Appalachian..................  ..............  ..............       9,320,000  Forest Service acquisition of 10,020 acres in the Cherokee NF in Tennessee, 425 acres in the
                                                                                                   Jefferson NF in Virginia (last unprotected segment of the Appalachian NST), and 90 acres at
                                                                                                   Wesser Bald in North Carolina.
    LWCF grant--FS North Country................  ..............  ..............       4,000,000  Forest Service acquisition of 2,000 acres in the Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness Area in the
                                                                                                   Ottawa National Forest in Michigan will protect viewshed of North Country Trail.
    LWCF grant--Ice Age--Wisconsin \6\..........       1,000,000  ..............       4,750,000  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, Polk, Portage, Sheboygan, Taylor, Washington, Waupaca and Waushara Counties.
    LWCF grant--BLM Oregon......................       1,600,000  ..............  ..............  BLM acquisition of land along the Sandy River in Oregon.
    LWCF grant--FS Overmountain Victory.........  ..............  ..............         195,000  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..........  ..............         200,000         200,000  BLM acquisition of land between El Malpais National Conservation Area and the Gila National
                                                                                                   Forest.
    LWCF grant--NPS Lewis & Clark...............       1,600,000  ..............  ..............  ..................................................................................................
                                                 ------------------------------------------------
          Total.................................       4,800,000         200,000      47,265,000  ..................................................................................................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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 Ponca Tribe of Nebraska
        Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee, my name is Larry
    Wright, Jr. I am the Chairman of the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska. On behalf
    of the Ponca Tribe, I would like to submit the following written
    testimony on fiscal year 2008 Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs and the Indian Health Service.
        Since our Federal restoration in 1990, the Ponca Tribe has
    diligently worked to address the socioeconomic needs of our people,
    including educational assistance, health services, and social services,
    to name just a few. Restored without a reservation, the Ponca Tribe has
    designated ``service'' areas in twelve Nebraska counties where we
    provide social services to our tribal members and health services to
    all Indian people. While we support those parts of the President's
    fiscal year 2008 budget which propose increases in funding, we are
    concerned that those increases do not fully address the tremendous
    unmet needs in Indian country. We are especially concerned about those
    portions of the President's budget that would reduce or cut funding for
    programs. All of these programs are critical to our ability to educate
    our children, provide much needed social services programs, provide
    health care to a large population of Nebraska's Indian people and
    protect our natural resources. We urge Congress to restore or increase
    funding in these areas on which we rely to provide essential services
    to our members.
                            bureau of indian affairs
        Education.--We urge Congress to restore the proposed cuts to
    education programs--specifically the Johnson O'Malley program ($16.3
    million) and higher education scholarships ($5.3 million). We
    understand that the administration has requested an increase of $14
    million in the Bureau's Improving Indian Education Initiative and to
    offset this increase, the administration proposes to cut education
    programs that benefit students outside of BIA schools, such as JOM and
    higher education scholarships. While we generally support the
    administration's initiative to improve performance at BIA schools for
    Indian youth, we cannot support balancing those increases by cutting
    programs that harm our children who attend public schools and who are
    pursuing a college education.
        As in past years, the administration has proposed to eliminate JOM
    funding. JOM funding helps Indian children with tutoring, cultural
    enrichment and Native language education, and is critical to tribal
    education programs. The majority of Ponca tribal members attend public
    schools. For the Ponca Tribe, JOM money supports an ongoing partnership
    with a public school district in one of the Tribe's five primary
    communities. The already small amount of JOM funding ($6,365) enables
    the Title VII JOM Coordinator to provide tutoring to Indian students.
    The balance of the JOM money covers the cost of annual awards and
    recognition events focused on student attendance, academic performance
    and senior graduate achievements. Should JOM funds be cut, then the
    only joint effort of positive encouragement our students receive from
    both the Ponca Tribe and the local public school will cease. Further,
    without JOM funding the partnership will end. Thus, 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 administration has attempted to justify the
    elimination of JOM funding by claiming that JOM funding duplicates
    funding provided by the Department of Education, but this is not the
    case. While the Department of Education provides some funds for Indian
    students under Title VII, the Department has failed to increase the
    overall budget for Indian student programs for several years. In fact,
    the Department of Education has indicated that it has not adjusted its
    budget to cover this loss of funds.
        The President's Budget also proposes to cut $5.3 million in funding
    for higher education scholarships. Again, the President proposes to
    increase funding for elementary-age students at BIA schools while
    eliminating funding for Indian youth who are pursuing post-secondary
    education. The Ponca Tribe is strongly committed to educating our youth
    and providing them with the necessary tools to succeed in a 4-year or
    community college. The funding for higher education scholarships is
    critical to helping our youth achieve their career goals. Last year, we
    provided 88 scholarships to deserving and hard-working tribal members.
    In order to continue to provide educational scholarships to our
    members, we strongly encourage Congress to restore this critical
    funding.
        Human Services.--We urge Congress to reject the administration's
    proposal to decrease Human Services and Indian Child Welfare funding.
    These programs are historically under-funded, and an additional
    decrease in these essential services will be detrimental to protecting
    our children, elderly and disabled from abuse and neglect. We rely on
    these funds to provide to our members child care assistance, domestic
    abuse and family violence services, family outreach and support
    services and family preservation and reunification services.
        Natural Resources.--We strongly support continued funding to the
    Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative (ITBC), as was provided in fiscal year
    2006. We have been reintroducing the bison to our native homelands
    since the Tribe was restored in 1990. With assistance from the ITBC,
    the Ponca Tribe now has a herd of nearly 100 animals in two pastures.
    Grants from ITBC made it further possible for the Ponca Tribe to
    install fencing around our two buffalo pastures. Our goal is to
    continue working with ITBC and to use the bison for education,
    cultural, and health purposes. We are also working to develop a
    comprehensive hide-tanning project which will provide Tribal members
    with employment, as well as give an outlet for bison hide to ITBC
    member Tribes. As an active member of the ITBC, we urge Congress to
    fund this important program.
                             indian health service
        It is well known that additional funding is needed for health care
    throughout Indian country. While we support the President's proposal to
    increase the budget for Indian Health Services, the amount of that
    increase ($212 million from the current funding level) still fails to
    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, Ponca tribal members, like Indian people 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. We
    support the efforts of all Indian tribes to receive 100 percent of the
    Level of Need Formula (LNF), which is absolutely critical for tribes to
    address the serious and persistent health issues that confront our
    communities.
        The Ponca Tribe is in a unique position as a ``non-reservation''
    Tribe. This gives us the opportunity to provide health care services to
    Ponca members as well as other Federally recognized and enrolled urban
    Indians from various Tribal affiliations. We opened the Fred LeRoy
    Health and Wellness Center (Center) in Omaha, Nebraska in order to
    provide health services to all Federally recognized and enrolled
    Indians in the Omaha metropolitan area and surrounding counties. The
    Center is the only IHS health facility operating within an urban
    setting in Nebraska. Its services are in high demand among urban
    Indians. Presently, the Center has over 4,000 clients which represent
    over 100 different Tribes and Bands. We are proud to provide quality
    health care to over 31.8 percent of the Indian population residing in
    Nebraska who are typically low to moderate income individuals and
    families. Notwithstanding our significant need, we have been able to do
    a great deal with the limited resources that we have. Currently we have
    a Medical Director, a Physical Therapist, Registered Nurse, a Licensed
    Practical Nurse, a Public Health Nurse, a Licensed Nurse Practitioner,
    one Dentist, and two Dental Hygienists along with support staff for the
    Medical and Dental clinics. Many of these professionals however, only
    provide part-time services at the Center, which results in limited
    appointments for our patients. We need additional funding in order to
    provide full-time Medical and Dental services. Additionally, the Center
    does not operate a Pharmacy, which places a large strain on our
    patients who are forced to travel a significant distance to receive
    their prescriptions. Our vision for the Center's Medical and Dental
    staff is to provide high quality, comprehensive health care in order to
    improve the health of Indian individuals and families. This can only be
    achieved with an increase in the IHS budget, above and beyond the
    proposed $212 million increase.
                                   conclusion
        In conclusion, the needs of the Ponca Tribe and throughout Indian
    country are substantial. Your support on these funding issues is
    essential to our ability to maintain vitally important programs and
    improve the delivery of services to our Tribal members.
        If we can provide any additional information, please do not
    hesitate to contact our counsel, Mary J. Pavel or Katherine E. Morgan
    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; kmorgan@sonosky.com.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Potapaug Audubon
        Madam Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: On behalf
    of the Potapaug Audubon, I appreciate the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of a $710,000 appropriation from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund for land acquisition within the Stewart B.
    McKinney National Wildlife Refuge. With these funds, the Refuge will
    permanently protect the 20-acre Menunketesuck Salt Meadow Marsh, which
    contains important coastal marsh, tidal streams, and forested upland.
        Potapaug Audubon has been a ``Friend'' of Salt Meadow, 1 of the 10
    units in the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge, for the last
    5 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 these 20 acres
    of land to the refuge will preserve critical habitat 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.
        The 20-acres of land available for acquisition 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
    stopover for neotropical migratory 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--
    designated as an Important Bird Area by the National Audubon Society--
    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 the
    development of 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 $710,000 is needed from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2008. 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
    $710,000 for the Stewart B. McKinney NWR in the fiscal year 2008
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of Preservation Action
                                    summary
        Preservation Action, representing grassroots historic preservation
    interests nationwide, asks that your subcommittee commit $50 million in
    fiscal year 2008 to support State Historic Preservation Offices, $12
    million to support Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, $30 million
    for the Save America's Treasures Program, $10 million for the Preserve
    America Program and $10 million for a historic resource inventory
    effort that will help identify vital historic assets and integrate
    existing digital historic resource inventories.
                      state historic preservation offices
        The Historic Preservation Fund plays a vital role in cultivating
    leadership, inspiring understanding of American history, and
    revitalizing local economies. Programs supported by the HPF are an
    integral part of local and State efforts to protect places of the
    highest value to local residents. The photo attached, of students
    restoring Illick's Mill in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, represents how a
    small amount of Federal engagement in local preservation can provide
    needed leadership. In this case, the HPF provided funds for the State
    Historic Preservation Office that reviewed the many drafts of a
    student-written National Register of Historic Places nomination for
    Illick Mill, during which students learned about researching and
    documenting American heritage, learned about history on site, worked
    with their hands, and contributed to the general public's recognition
    of the site's value and put into place a tool for Federal-level
    recognition. The cost of the review of the nomination was nominal,
    especially when weighed with its benefits.
        Bethlehem is home to many historic resources that have become a
    critical element of the town's economic revitalization. The town was
    built on industry--steel and shipbuilding--and is finding its way in a
    new economy. Illick Mill and Bethlehem Iron Works are exemplary of a
    shift in our national economy and the role preservation can play in
    reinventing communities. How the Federal Government recognizes the
    value of historic assets in places like Bethlehem is tied directly to
    the work of SHPO offices. Though most of the funding for revitalization
    comes from private sources and agencies other than the Department of
    Interior, SHPOs and programs they help administer, like the National
    Register of Historic Places and the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit
    (as well as State tax credits in many cases) insure that the Federal
    Government recognizes special community assets, and that review of
    projects involving these assets is professional and quick.
        The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) receives its funding through
    offshore oil lease revenue. In the 1970s, $150,000,000 in OCS revenues
    was authorized to be deposited into the HPF. SHPOs received nearly $47
    million in 1979. Last year, these offices received $35.7 million. This
    drop means fewer people to say ``yes'' when projects are proposed for
    the Federal and State tax credits, fewer people to reach out to
    communities who need to understand their opportunities, and fewer
    people to work proactively to document communities that are not
    necessarily threatened, but missing out on opportunities because there
    is no official understanding or documentation of these places' historic
    value.
                      tribal historic preservation offices
        Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPO) reflect a growing
    sensitivity to the diversity of cultural heritage and needs of
    indigenous populations in this country. THPOs identify, evaluate and
    protect significant places and practices are based on an understanding
    that cultural and spiritual values.
        The National Park Service anticipates that 77 THPOs will be
    requesting funding in fiscal year 2008. Since the program first
    received HPF funding in 1996, the number of THPO offices has
    substantially increased while funding for THPOs appropriated over the
    last several years has decreased and leveled out. The result is a
    winnowing average per office appropriation. In 2001, the THPO average
    Federal contribution, per office, was around $150,000. This year, with
    the increased number of THPOs now recognized, the per office average is
    expected to be around $45,000. The result is slowed tribal engagement
    in projects that could potentially erase sites and artifacts of
    extraordinary significance. We ask that you appropriate $12 million for
    THPOs this year.
                            save america's treasures
        Save America's Treasures is the only Federal ``bricks and mortar''
    program supporting historic preservation. The SAT program supports the
    protection of our Nation's most significant historic resources--those
    considered nationally significant on the National Register of Historic
    Places and National Historic Landmarks. This program has helped restore
    assets as diverse as the Rosa Parks Bus (Dearborn, Michigan), John
    Quincy Adam's diary (Boston, Massachusetts), Frank Lloyd Wright's Robie
    House (Chicago, Illinois), William Faulkner's Home (Oxford,
    Mississippi) and Mesa Verde National Park (Cortez, Colorado). This
    program is threatened by recent cuts. The President's budget has
    recommended the program receive $10 million of the $30 million it
    received in recent years. We ask that you restore full funding and
    appropriate $30 million for the Save America's Treasures program in
    fiscal year 2008.
                                preserve america
        Preserve America provides grant to historic places that demonstrate
    a great degree of historic integrity and are designated as Preserve
    America Communities. These grants support heritage tourism and
    educational programming activities that maximize the economic and
    educational value of historic assets. These communities include
    distinctive American places like: Wichita, Kansas; Spokane, Washington;
    Annapolis, Maryland; Biloxi, Mississippi; and Dayton, Ohio. There are
    now approximately 400 Preserve America Communities all representing our
    Nation's unique heritage. We ask that you appropriate $10 million for
    the Preserve America program this year.
                           resource inventory grants
        Finally, we ask that you provide funding that would complement
    decades of work at the State and local level, and provide $10 million
    for competitive historic resource inventory grants. Digital inventory
    information is invaluable during natural disasters, such as the 2005
    hurricanes. Knowing what historic resources are located within disaster
    areas expedites response time and provides as basis for establishing
    recovery costs and opportunities. Invaluable in times of crisis, the
    same information is useful for Federal agencies engaged in projects in
    the States, and for local communities as they plan thoughtfully. Much
    of this work is ongoing around the country and needs to be pulled
    together into a central database. An investment now will save money in
    the future.
        By adequately funding the offices and programs that support
    preservation nationwide (State Preservation Offices, Tribal
    Preservation Offices, Save America's Treasures, Preserve America and
    the historic resource inventory, you are validating and facilitating
    the hard work of countless individuals who believe in the value of
    community. These individuals have recognized that without a discernable
    connection with a shared past, we cannot move ahead with a sense of
    identity that leads to informed decisions about our present and future.
    Parks, houses, barns, courthouses, schools, landscapes, bricks and
    mortar--the elements of a place, public or privately owned--are
    functional reminders of a common past with slightly different meaning
    to each of us. This rich and abiding legacy cannot survive without your
    help.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of our members.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Public Service Company of New Mexico
        Chairman Feinstein and Senator Craig: I am requesting your support
    for appropriations in fiscal year 2008 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, consistent
    with the President's recommended budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds to the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS to continue its essential
    participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program.
        2. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    within the $45,147,000 item entitled ``National Fish Hatchery
    Operations'' to support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray
    National Fish Hatchery in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $200,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet FWS's Region 2
    expenses in managing the San Juan Program's diverse recovery actions.
        We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request
    your assistance for fiscal year 2008 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Pueblo Board of Water Works
        I am requesting your support for appropriations in fiscal year 2008
    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, consistent with the President's recommended
    budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds to the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS to continue its essential
    participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program,
        2. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    within the $45,147,000 item entitled ``National Fish Hatchery
    Operations'' to support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray
    National Fish Hatchery in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $200,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet FWS' s Region 2
    expenses in managing the San Juan Program's diverse recovery actions.
        We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request
    your assistance for fiscal year 2008 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 for 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 2008 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. We look forward to working with the 110th 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 the 3,705 Puyallup tribal
    members and the members from approximately 345 Federally recognized
    Tribes who utilize our services are included in the budget.
        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 345 Tribes and Alaskan
    Villages. The Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division currently has 27
    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 7 days a
    week, 24 hours a day. With the continuing increase in population,
    increase in gang related activities on the Puyallup Reservation and the
    impact of the manufacturing of methamphetamines 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 Detention
    Facility. Due to damages from the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake,
    we have had to relocate to modular/temporary facilities. Operated as a
    ``regional detention facility'' the Puyallup Tribe was able to provide
    detention service to surrounding Tribes. Since the relocation to
    modular facilities, the Tribe's ability to effectively and safely
    incarcerate detainees has been compromised due to the condition of the
    temporary detention facilities. These and other issues regarding the
    deplorable conditions existing in Indian Detention facilities are
    documented in the September 2004 report issued by the U.S. Department
    of Interior Inspector General's Office. In an effort to protect the
    safety and welfare of the native community the Puyallup Tribe has
    initiated the planning and development of a Justice Center to be
    located on the Puyallup Indian Reservation. The Justice Center will
    provide necessary facilities for the delivery of judiciary services
    including a Tribal Court, Court Clerk, Prosecution, Probation, Public
    Defender and Law Enforcement services including Police Headquarters and
    a 32 bed Adult Detention facility. As stated earlier, the current
    facility is inadequate in size/number of beds, was designed as a
    temporary facility and was not built to any Federal/State or tribal
    health or construction standards.
      --Request subcommittee support to fund the BIA Public Safety and
            Justice Law Enforcement activities at the $201 million level
            proposed in the fiscal year 2008 budget to operated law
            enforcement services;
      --Support from the subcommittee on the Tribe's request for funding to
            design and construct a regional 32 bed Detention Facility on
            the Puyallup Reservation. The Tribe has committed 1.5 acres of
            tribal land for the facility valued at $816,750 and $100,000
            for the initial ``space needs assessment'' study(s). For fiscal
            year 2008 the Puyallup Tribe is requesting appropriations
            assistance in the amount of $374,850 for the A/E Construction
            Drawing phase of the project;
      --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 fishermen, 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 for
            additional fisheries staff. We further ask that 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 2008 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
            2008 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 2009 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 to establish annual base
            funding of $95,000 for the Hunting-Wildlife Management Program.
        Operation of Indian Programs & Contract Support Costs.--The
    President's fiscal year 2008 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 2007 enacted
    level. For the fiscal year 2008 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 2008 request, at a minimum, at the requested amount of
            $1.99 billion, an increase of $28.7 million over current level;
      --Support by Congress to restore funding for the Johnson O'Malley
            Program in the amount of $16 million.
        Another concern the Puyallup Tribe has with the fiscal year 2008
    budget request is the on-going issue of contract support costs. The
    President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for contract support is for
    $149 million which is $19 million less than the fiscal year 2007
    request. At a minimum, we request your support and endorsement in the
    following;
      --The Puyallup Tribe is in agreement with the U.S. House of
            Representatives Committee on Natural Resources and requests
            support by Congress to fund BIA Contract Support Costs for
            fiscal year 2008 at $187 million, a $37 million increase over
            the President's fiscal year 2008 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. 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 added
    staff without the IHS funding to match the workload. An additional $4.8
    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 $212 million over the
    fiscal year 2007 level for pay costs, population growth, inflation and
    staffing requirement at new facilities. Budget analysis by the
    Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board indicate that the actual
    increase for the IHS budget at only $115.3 million and that the
    President's fiscal year 2008 budget will leave $356 million in unfunded
    mandatory costs. It is estimated that it will take an increase of $471
    million to maintain current facilities and services in fiscal year
    2008. We request congressional support for the fiscal year 2008 IHS
    budget in the following areas:
      --Fund IHS Contract Support Costs at 100 percent. While the
            President's budget includes an increase of $6.9 million for
            Contract Support Costs funding, this will not fund tribes'
            actual contract support costs. It is estimated that IHS
            Contract Support Cost real funding need to inflation requires
            an additional $22 million. Funding for IHS Contract Support
            Costs at 100 percent is requested at $288 million;
      --We oppose the proposed elimination of the Urban Indian Health
            Program, which was funded at $32.7 million in fiscal year 2007.
            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 2009 budget;
      --Fund the Puyallup Tribal Health Authority contract health care fund
            an additional $4.8 million to match documented expenditures
            paid with Puyallup Tribal resources;
      --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
            funded at $606 million for fiscal year 2008;
      --The Indian Health Care Improvement Act (Public Law 94-437) provides
            funding for the Indian Health Services and has been pending re-
            authorization since fiscal year 2000. IHCIA re-authorization
            has been introduced in the 107th, 108th, 109th Congress. While
            the Health and Human Services Secretary has pledged support for
            the IHCIA, the bill has failed to satisfy the administration
            for re-authorization. In fact, amendments to the IHCIA, S.
            1057, were derailed from passage during the pre-election
            session of the 109th Congress by a Department of Justice white
            paper released to Senate offices in the last hours of the
            session. The Puyallup Tribe supports all efforts by Congress
            and the administration to pass the Indian Health Care
            Improvement Act during the 110th session of Congress.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Rivers & Trails Conservation Coalition
        Madame 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 $12 million in fiscal year 2008.
        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
    provides 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 was cut by $200,000 in fiscal year 2006 and remains
    flat funded at just above $8 million for fiscal year 2007. As a result,
    the program's real budget has declined significantly and resulted in
    substantial staff reductions. Cuts have also reduced staff
    participation in on-the-ground projects diminishing essential services
    of this field-based program. RTCA had 90 positions (FTE's) in 2002, and
    currently has only 66 program staff in 2007.
        RTCA receives .003 percent of the total funding for the NPS yet it
    succeeds in leveraging this investment many times over in local, State,
    and partnership direct funding and in-kind matches. Each year, the
    modest amount of NPS funding 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 for fiscal year 2008 calls for a program
    increase of $650,000 to provide technical assistance to connect trails
    to parks through new trail partnership projects. Although the Coalition
    heartily endorses this increase, it is still well below the amount
    required to restore this program to its former status. Members of the
    Coalition believe that the RTCA budget should be increased by $3.8
    million in fiscal year 2008 to $12 million to remedy the program's
    steady erosion, compensate for losses due to inflation, and enable the
    program to respond effectively and efficiently to growing needs and
    opportunities in communities throughout the country.
        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 the subcommittee to fund the Rivers, Trails and
    Conservation Assistance program at $12 million in the fiscal year 2008
    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.
        Respectfully submitted by the Rivers & Trails Conservation
    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; Bay Circuit Alliance; 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 Yor; 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; andWashington Water Trails Association.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
        Mrs. Chairwoman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to present testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $6.3 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    for the acquisition of the Moose Lake property as well as other key
    properties within the Wisconsin Wild Waterways of the Chequamegon
    National Forest in Wisconsin. I also would like to commend the
    committee for its leadership and general support of Federal land
    acquisition funding for programs such as the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund.
        We are fortunate to be facing some wonderful opportunities to
    protect critical properties for their wildlife values and undeveloped
    lakeshores. Not only are these properties important from a wildlife
    perspective, but with their loss and development we lose a part of
    Wisconsin's Northwoods culture that is dependant upon providing ample
    space for the public to enjoy the outdoors. The Rocky Mountain Elk
    Foundation is committed to preserving this habitat through our Great
    Lakes Conservation Initiative. We are fortunate to have the Forest
    Service and other land trusts as key partners in this effort, and we
    are working with them to protect these properties for the public and
    natural good. Several properties included in this current funding need
    are expected to be important to the future of Wisconsin's wild elk herd
    as it grows and expands into new areas. And the demand on public lands
    is sure to increase as we see more private timberlands sold and closed
    to public use.
        The northern hardwood forests of Wisconsin are a considerable
    natural treasure in our State. The forests are interspersed with an
    abundance of lakes, rivers, and streams, providing residents and
    visitors outstanding recreational opportunities. They also provide tens
    of thousands of acres of prime habitat for a variety of fish and
    wildlife.
        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, we have the opportunity to protect a
    large contiguous tract at Moose Lake and other key inholdings.
        The Moose Lake property is a 1,040-acre contiguous tract that the
    Elk Foundation is especially concerned with as it is surrounded by the
    Chequamegon-Nicolet National forest. The property and the National
    Forest share a common 8-mile boundary. The tract includes two entire
    small lakes and 50 acres of wetlands. It is within the territory of a
    known gray wolf pack that I have personally seen on the property, and
    is habitat for fisher and a variety of other game and non-game animals.
    Again, this property is expected to be important elk habitat for the
    Wisconsin elk herd.
        Also available in Bayfield country is a 987-acre assemblage of
    inholding parcels consisting of 10 tracts ranging in size from 33 to
    240 acres. These inholdings are nearly surrounded by national forest
    land and share a common 12 mile boundary. They include a one-quarter
    mile of creek frontage, a tributary to Trapper Lake, 40 acres of
    wetlands, an entire small lake, and the remaining private ownership on
    three other small lakes. The tracts are within the planned habitat
    range of the released Wisconsin elk herd.
        The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation supports these acquisitions for
    their benefits to elk and other wildlife. These acquisitions enhance
    hunting opportunities as well as other multi-season recreation
    including snowmobiling, fishing, hiking, camping, birding, cross-
    country skiing and snowshoeing. RMEF is involved with the purchase of
    the Moose Lake property and is working with other organizations to
    permanently conserve and secure this property.
        Due to increased development and conversion of land from forest
    uses in northern Wisconsin, these properties and their important
    natural and recreational resources are highly threatened. An
    appropriation of $6.3 million will protect Moose Lake and several other
    properties in the Chequamegon National Forest and ensure the continued
    success of the Wild Wisconsin Waterways program.
        I thank you, Mrs. Chairwoman, for your consideration of this
    testimony in support of these acquisitions, and for your leadership in
    general support for land acquisition funding of the Land and Water
    Conservation fund account.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Roots and Shoots for the Jane Goodall Institute
        Madam Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of funding for land
    conservation in New Mexico and, particularly, for two current important
    land acquisition projects: A $3 million appropriation from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund to permit the purchase of 75-acre Canyon River
    Ranch by the Bureau of Land Management in the La Cienega ACEC, and, a
    $4.05 million appropriation for the acquisition of a conservation
    easement protecting 6,000 acres of the Vallecitos High Country property
    under the New Mexico Forest Legacy program.
        New Mexico continues to grow at a rapid pace and lands of
    tremendous ecological and cultural significance are being converted
    into developed lands every day. During the 1990's alone, the population
    of New Mexico increased 20 percent. Unlike many States experiencing
    enormous growth, New Mexico does not have dedicated State funding to
    acquire open space and parkland or protect our farms and ranches.
    Without Federal funds through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, New
    Mexico will lose the opportunity to protect our trails, parks, ranches,
    farms, and natural areas that are vital to our heritage and our future.
    These protected lands are critical to our physical, economic, and
    environmental health, and they provide us all with the places where we
    can form a deep and meaningful connection with the natural world and
    with each other. A relationship between people and nature is essential
    for healthy people and a healthy landscape.
        Specifically, these two project requests exemplify the historic
    importance of both the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund and
    Forest Legacy programs in assisting communities to protect our Nation's
    most critical landscapes. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been
    the primary funding source to protect our most prized conservation and
    recreation lands through our Federal parks and forests for over 40
    years. In addition, over the past 15 years, the Forest Legacy program
    has prevented the loss of over 1 million acres of forest and leveraged
    an equal amount of matching State, local, and private funding. I
    commend the chairwoman and committee members for your leadership in
    supporting adequate land conservation spending in these accounts.
        By way of introduction, I am a veterinarian and I received my
    Doctorate of Veterinary Medicine from Tufts University, with emphasis
    in wildlife rehabilitation, in 1985. I received my Bachelor's degree in
    Anthropology and Biology, and a Master's degree in Botany and Plant
    Ecology from the University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque.
        In the early 1990's I served as Special Assistant to Governor Bruce
    King, with responsibility for environment, natural resources, health,
    and recreation. I learned how critical it was to invest in protecting
    sensitive and unique lands for the future and what an enormous cost is
    incurred when you don't.
        During my tenure as the elected New Mexico State Land Commissioner
    from 1993-2002 I was responsible for 13 million acres of State trust
    land. I worked to establish collaborative and cooperative partnerships
    with numerous public and private groups to protect sensitive lands for
    future generations while earning revenues to support our public
    schools, universities, and hospitals.
        As a former President of the 22 member Western States Land
    Commissioners Association I saw the clear difference in the quality of
    life and economic prosperity between States that took care of their
    unique and special lands and those that did not.
        As a member of the United States Secretary of Agriculture's Foreign
    Animal Disease Board I became acutely aware of the need for healthy
    landscapes in the prevention of disease among humans, wildlife
    populations, companion animals, and domestic animals used for
    agriculture.
        During my career I have worked very hard to bring various groups
    together to find common ground and solve problems and I strongly
    believe that the projects mentioned in this testimony represent
    important efforts to protect critical lands. These projects represent a
    true investment in our future and I strongly believe that this type of
    effort will pay important dividends for generations to come.
                 vallecitos high country forest legacy request
        The State of New Mexico has identified the Vallecitos High Country
    project as its number one Forest Legacy Program priority for fiscal
    year 2008. The Federal request for $4.05 million, to be matched by $1.3
    million in land value donation, will protect the first 6,000 acres of
    this 11,375 acre heavily forested property. Other partners in this
    project include the New Mexico Forestry Division, New Mexico Department
    of Game and Fish, the Carson National Forest, Natural Resources
    Conservation Service, Forest Trust, Continental Divide Trail Alliance,
    Rio Chama Watershed Group, Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, the
    Forest Guild, The Trust for Public Land, and Vallecitos Mountain
    Refuge.
        The Vallecitos High Country property, located within the Rio
    Vallecitos watershed in Rio Arriba County, is an 11,375-acre parcel of
    mixed conifer, aspen, and spruce-fir forests interspersed with mountain
    meadows and creeks. It adjoins Carson National Forest on three sides
    and is visible from the Continental Divide Trail. The Rio Vallecitos,
    an important cold water fishery, is managed by the U.S. Forest Service
    as a Wild and Scenic River. It provides irrigation and municipal
    domestic water to the downstream villages of Vallecitos and La Madera.
    The property boasts critical wildlife habitat that includes old growth
    forest, wet meadows and clear creeks. The wide diversity of wildlife on
    the property includes several threatened and endangered species. In
    addition, several miles of riparian woodlands, considered relatively
    rare in New Mexico, are found along the Rio Vallecitos, Jarosa Creek,
    and North Creek. The important Rio Vallecitos runs five miles across
    the property near the national forest boundary, and another 12 miles of
    tributary creeks on the property feed the Rio Vallecitos.
        The old growth mixed conifer and spruce-fir forests on this
    property provide suitable habitat for the Federally threatened Mexican
    spotted owl and the State threatened boreal owl and pine marten. The
    property also provides important habitat for peregrine falcon, bald
    eagle, northern goshawk, and king fisher. Since it is a large forested
    property, it is capable of supporting populations of territorial
    wildlife species with large home ranges such as black bear, mountain
    lion, bobcat, turkey, and birds of prey. The property is within an area
    classified as a major wildlife dispersal corridor by the Southern
    Rockies Ecosystem Project, whose goal is to maintain a network of
    undeveloped habitats and migratory pathways in the region. The wet
    meadows and beaver ponds on the property are suitable reintroduction
    sites for the extirpated boreal toad. This State-endangered amphibian
    may still exist as an undiscovered remnant population on the property.
    Recognizing these critical habitat lands, the landowner has been
    working with the New Mexico Department Game and Fish to protect the
    boreal toad habitat.
        I respectfully request that the subcommittee provide the necessary
    $4.05 million in Forest Legacy funding for this critical New Mexico
    project.
     canyon river ranch, la cienega acec land and water conservation fund
                                    request
        Also available for acquisition in fiscal year 2008 is the 75-acre
    Canyon River Ranch property located within the Bureau of Land
    Management's La Cienega Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC),
    near the historic village of La Cienega.
        The La Cienega ACEC is made up of over 4,500 acres of ecologically
    and historically significant lands just 8 miles from the city of Santa
    Fe. In an arid region with little rainfall and few perennial streams,
    the Santa Fe River, which flows through the ACEC, sustains a thick
    canopy of cottonwoods and coyote willows, habitat to nesting songbirds
    such as the southwestern willow flycatcher and numerous other wildlife.
    Ancient rock art can be found etched into the canyon walls, most likely
    produced in the 14th through the 17th centuries by the inhabitants of
    La Cieneguilla Pueblo, a prehistoric Native American site with remnants
    of adobe rooms and stone and pottery artifacts.
        The 75-acre Canyon River Ranch property is located at the
    confluence of the Santa Fe River and La Cienega Creek. Another stream,
    Alamo Creek, also flows through this property. The property's western
    mesa includes petroglyphs and pit houses, erected by ancient Pueblo
    Indians. It has more than one-half mile frontage on the Santa Fe River,
    meandering hundreds of feet below the deep canyon walls.
        The location of this property and its important historical themes
    and unique environmental conditions make the protection of Canyon River
    Ranch extremely important to the future management of the ACEC. The El
    Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail, the main road
    that led from colonial New Mexico to Chihuahua and Mexico City, runs
    near the property. The road dates back to 1598 when the Spanish made
    their way to northern New Mexico and established the first capital city
    near San Juan Pueblo. La Cieneguilla Pueblo lies along this historic
    route, as does a nearby 17th century Spanish hacienda that was burned
    in the Pueblo Revolt of 1680.
        Support for this acquisition has come from the community, local and
    State governments, archaeological groups, environmental groups, and
    local pueblos to protect this property. The ACEC and surrounding lands
    contain important historical and ecological resources that need to be
    protected as growth from the city of Santa Fe puts additional
    development pressure on outlying areas.
        In fiscal year 2008, $3 million is needed from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund to protect 75 acres of the Canyon River Ranch
    property, before the opportunity to protect this outstanding resource
    is lost forever. I respectfully request that the subcommittee provide
    funding to permit the acquisition by the Bureau of Land Management for
    this project.
        Thank you, again, for the opportunity to submit this testimony in
    support of funding for land conservation in New Mexico and especially
    these two important New Mexico land conservation initiatives.
    Protecting our special places gives our communities their character and
    reminds us of what we value and appreciate in our relationship with the
    natural world.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the San Diego County Water Authority
        Your support is needed to secure adequate funding for the Bureau of
    Land Management (BLM) for the subactivity that assists the Title II
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program (Program). To continue
    the essential work of the Program, the Water Authority urges funding of
    $5.9 million for fiscal year 2008 with $1.5 million to be designated
    specifically to salinity control efforts that have been identified.
        The Program has been carried out through the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act (1974) (Public Law 93-320) and the Clean Water
    Act. The salinity control projects through the Program benefit water
    users from seven States through more efficient water management and
    reduced salinity concentrations in Colorado River water. In addition,
    the Program assists the delivery of quality water to Mexico in
    accordance with Minute 242 of the 1944 Water Treaty.
        The Colorado River is the primary and single most important 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, and hundreds of millions of dollars
    nationally.
        For every 30 milligrams per liter increase in salinity
    concentrations there are $75 million in additional damages in the
    United States. Locally, impacts of excess salinity in the San Diego
    region include, but are not limited to, the following:
      --Reduced crop yields, impacting more than $1 billion of agricultural
            products in the San Diego region.
      --Decreased useful life of commercial and residential water pipe
            systems, water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes
            washers, and dishwashers.
      --Increased household use of expensive bottled water and water
            softeners.
      --Increased water treatment facility costs and a decrease in the life
            of the treatment facilities.
      --Increased treatment to meet Federal and California wastewater
            discharge requirements.
      --Fewer opportunities for water recycling due to excess salt in the
            product water, which limits usefulness for commercial and
            agricultural irrigation.
        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.
        Due to geological conditions, much of the lands that are controlled
    and managed by the BLM, the largest landowner in the Colorado River
    Basin, are 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,
    the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to
    proceed 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.
        In keeping with the congressional mandate to maximize the cost-
    effectiveness of the salinity control program, the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Forum (California and the other six Basin States) has
    recommended that Congress appropriate $5.9 million to BLM in fiscal
    year 2008 for activities that help control salt contributions from BLM
    managed lands in the Colorado River Basin. In the past, BLM has used
    $800,000 of this funding for salinity control project proposals
    submitted by BLM staff for consideration. The BLM has now identified
    projects that in fiscal year 2008 could use $1.5 million. We believe
    this amount of funding should be specifically marked for the Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Program, consistent with subcommittee
    direction in past years.
        The Program has proven to be a very cost-effective approach to
    mitigate the impacts of increased salinity in the Colorado River, which
    is an investment that avoids millions of dollars in economic damages
    caused by excess salinity.
        The Water Authority supports the recommendation for BLM funding and
    urges this subcommittee to support this level of funding for fiscal
    year 2008. The Water Authority appreciates your assistance in securing
    adequate funding for this vital water resource.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the San Juan Water Commission
        I am requesting your support for appropriations in fiscal year 2008
    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, consistent with the President's recommended
    budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds to the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS to continue its essential
    participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program.
        2. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    within the $45,147,000 item entitled ``National Fish Hatchery
    Operations'' to support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray
    National Fish Hatchery in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $200,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet FWS's Region 2
    expenses in managing the San Juan Program's diverse recovery actions.
        We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request
    your assistance for fiscal year 2008 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

                      Prepared Statement of Save the Sound
        Madam Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: I
    appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of a $710,000 Land
    and Water Conservation Fund appropriation for the Stewart B. McKinney
    National Fish and Wildlife Refuge in Connecticut to acquire the 20-acre
    Menunketesuck Salt Meadow Marsh property. Although this testimony
    focuses on this one important land acquisition need in Connecticut, it
    is representative of the general importance of Federal land acquisition
    funding provided by the Land and Water Conservation Fund program.
    Therefore, I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the
    Chairman and subcommittee members for your leadership in supporting
    LWCF and other land acquisition accounts, and to urge you to provide
    increased funding for these programs in fiscal year 2008.
        Save the Sound, a Program of Connecticut Fund for the Environment,
    is dedicated to the protection and restoration of Long Island Sound and
    its watershed through advocacy, education and research. Save the Sound
    collaborates with government agencies and other non-profits on the
    restoration and stewardship of key areas around the Sound. As an active
    member of the Long Island Sound Stewardship Initiative Work Group of
    the of the EPA Long Island Sound Study, we collaborate with the
    Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Connecticut
    Audubon, the Trust for Public Land, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    and other partners to identify critical areas needing increased
    protection and stewardship. Salt marshes are recognized as a priority
    habitat type, providing important ecosystem functions such as flood
    control, filtering of polluted runoff, provision of wildlife habitat,
    and recreational opportunities. The protection of the Menunketesuck
    Salt Marsh as a component of the Stewart B. McKinney Wildlife Refuge is
    an important step in increasing the protection of critical habitats
    with high ecological, educational and recreation value.
        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. The refuge, which is located on the
    southeastern coast of the Connecticut on the Long Island Sound, was
    initially designated with 150 acres located in four separate units.
    Since that time, additional protected lands have more than doubled the
    habitat in the area, significantly increasing populations of shore and
    wading birds. 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.
        This area is one of the most important fall migratory stopover
    areas for Neotropical migratory landbirds along the Long Island Sound,
    providing important habitat for numerous species of songbirds. At least
    29 species of warblers have been recorded in the fall migration. This
    habitat type of relatively unfragmented coastal forest, scrubland and
    high salt marsh are extremely rare in Connecticut.
        Available for refuge acquisition in fiscal year 2008 is the 20-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 such a
    large undeveloped marsh area in Connecticut. Under imminent threat of
    development into condominiums, the refuge must acquire this parcel if
    it is to continue to serve as an island of forested habitat land on an
    otherwise highly developed coastline.
        The total cost of this property is approximately $1.11 million, and
    the FWS has already directed $400,000 of existing funds towards this
    purchase. In order to complete the acquisition of the Menunketesuck
    Salt Meadow Marsh property, an appropriation of $710,000 is needed from
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2008. This priority
    acquisition will increase wildlife habitat protection at the Stewart B.
    McKinney National Wildlife Refuge and ensure the public continued
    opportunities for recreation and environmental education along
    Connecticut's coastline.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony
    about this important Connecticut protection effort at the Stewart
    McKinney National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Association.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Sharon Land Trust
        Madam Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: The Sharon
    Land Trust (SLT) appreciates the opportunity to present this testimony
    in support of a $770,000 appropriation to the State of Connecticut from
    the Forest Legacy Program for the second phase of the Skiff Mountain
    project. SLT is a non-profit land conservation organization with a
    mission to preserve important conservation lands in the Town of Sharon,
    Connecticut. Founded in 1982, the SLT owns over 1,000 acres and manages
    another 1,000 acres under conservation easement.
        Our organization strongly supports the effort to protect the
    assemblage of forested properties on Skiff Mountain, due to its high
    conservation value and the recurring threat of development in the area.
    In 2004, the SLT purchased over 200 acres of adjacent forestland that
    was slated for residential development and is now managing it for
    conservation purposes. This opportunity to protect hundreds of acres of
    forested lands on Skiff Mountain through the Forest Legacy Program will
    greatly enhance our ongoing conservation efforts in the area.
        Located on the town line between Sharon and Kent, the Skiff
    Mountain properties are within a patchwork of other protected lands and
    are in an area with significant development pressures. The assemblage
    is directly west of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and the
    Housatonic River (a major supplier of freshwater to Long Island Sound)
    and is located within the newly legislated Upper Housatonic National
    Heritage Area.
        The protection of these properties will curb additional development
    pressures in the northwestern part of the State, help preserve the
    Housatonic watershed, and conserve a large tract of unfragmented forest
    that provides linkages to over 7,000 acres of other protected land. The
    protection of forests on Skiff Mountain will also enhance efforts to
    preserve wildlife habitat within the Housatonic watershed. In fact,
    forty-four species identified as endangered, threatened, or species of
    special concern by the CT Department of Environmental Protection are
    found on or near Skiff Mountain.
        In fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $1.182 million in Forest
    Legacy funding for the protection of the first 473 acres. In order to
    complete the project in fiscal year 2008, $770,000 is needed from the
    Forest Legacy Program to help preserve the remaining 292 acres and keep
    intact this conservation corridor of the Housatonic River Watershed and
    four-state Highlands region. These funds will be matched by local
    funding and land value donation. We hope that you will provide the
    $770,000 to ensure the success of this effort in the fiscal year 2008
    Interior appropriations bill.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Fort Hall Business
                                    Council
        BIA Facilities Construction.--The Tribes are operating our Police
    Department, detention center, and Tribal courts in unsafe and
    deteriorated conditions. Our corrections facility operates at 132
    percent over capacity. Many buildings were built in the late 19th
    century. The tribal courts building was built in 1868 and the building
    is now condemned and will be preserved as a historic site. We have
    designed a comprehensive, state-of-the-art facility to house all three
    programs and have contributed $4 million of our own funds toward this
    project. The site work was completed in June 2006, but without adequate
    BIA and other Federal funds to assist us in this effort--an additional
    $13.7 million is required--the project will be delayed and the costs
    only increase. We will need to purchase a trailer to house a portion of
    our Tribal Court staff since the existing structure is too old and too
    costly to renovate and it is currently unsafe. We encourage you to
    support requested funding to construct and properly staff the Tribal
    Justice Center.
        Sanitation Facilities Construction.--Restore and increase the IHS
    Facilities Construction budget by at least $75 million above previously
    enacted levels so that Indian tribes may address issues such as water
    contamination on their reservations. We are building a 145 mile water
    line to provide safe drinking water for Fort Hall Reservation
    communities. Ethylene Dibromide and nitrates have contaminated our
    Reservation's drinking water to unsafe levels. We should not have to
    wait a generation to provide safe drinking water to our Reservation,
    yet Federal funds remain inadequate for this critical program. Over $68
    million is needed to complete this vital project.
        BIA Fisheries.--Many of the Tribe's streams and tributaries have
    been negatively affected by various environmental factors which have
    caused a loss of riparian vegetation, down-cutting, spawning and
    rearing substrates. The Tribes resident fisheries program works to
    restore and protect Reservation streams so that they can support native
    fish populations. Please increase funding to the BIA's Wildlife and
    Parks budget so the Tribes can protect our fish and wildlife.
        Local Tribal Programs.--By far the greatest consequence to the
    Tribes will be the planned cut of $20.5 million in Tribal Priority
    Allocations (TPA) funding from fiscal year 2007 levels, while military
    spending is increasing dramatically. Instead of escalating funding in
    foreign lands, it would be far better to increase funding for the
    health and safety of the first Americans. This reduction in Tribal
    Priority Allocations will undermine Law Enforcement and Tribal court
    efforts, as well as Social Service programs (which include child
    protection and child welfare initiatives). Our members will feel these
    impacts in job creation, job training, economic development efforts,
    scholarships, training for Indian youth and adults, and the management,
    protection and preservation of natural resources such as fisheries,
    forestry, minerals/mining and agriculture and water resources.
        The Tribal Priorities Allocations account funds thousands of jobs
    in Indian country. Unless planned cuts are restored, many tribal
    employees will lose their jobs and the efficiency and capabilities of
    many Tribal and agency offices will be compromised.
        BIA Budget Cuts.--The administration's announcement that current-
    year funds would be shifted away from Indian programs to pay the fees
    of Cobell attorneys adds insult to injury by compounding cuts for
    Indian programs in the fiscal year 2007 budget proposal. The impact to
    elderly, women and children is unfathomable, and is a violation of the
    Federal trust responsibility. We are opposed to any legislation that
    will terminate the Federal trust responsibility and end any pending
    litigation for mismanagement of trust assets.
        Johnson O'Malley Funding.--The Tribes support full restoration of
    $16.4 million in funding for the Johnson O'Malley grant program which
    supports Indian children attending public schools. The program provides
    grants to tribes so that tribes can distribute the money to public
    schools for tutoring, counseling and other services for Indian
    students.
        FDIR Programs.--Another change comes from the Commodity
    Supplemental Food Program at the Department of Agriculture. The USDA
    program is initiating a new funding methodology for allocating funds to
    tribes for a gradual implementation of a funding methodology that will
    take several years to stabilize and will not impact current funding
    levels. Some smaller tribes receive more funding than larger tribes and
    this will be changed in the future. The new methodology seeks to
    improve funding on a more equitable basis which provides monthly food
    packages to low-income women, infants, children and elderly in 32
    States.
        Indian Health Care Improvement Act.--We are entering the seventh
    year without reauthorization of this important act, which authorizes
    funding for Indian health care. The administration proposes to cut
    funding for urban health care center facilities. In previous year, the
    administration has failed to provide access to better health care for
    families in Native communities. It is essential that the government
    lives up to the promises of providing better access to health care for
    Indians, which is the reason why the government should reauthorize the
    Indian Health Care Improvement Act.
        Urban Health Clinics.--Impending budget cuts for urban health care
    will end health care for Indians living in urban areas. The urban
    population must find jobs in cities or do not have housing. This
    creates problems for Tribal elders who cannot afford to or cannot drive
    to reservations located hundreds of miles from their homes. Federal
    trust responsibility does not end at the reservation boundaries.
        Indian Housing.--Currently, 40 percent of Americans are under-
    housed, but the administration has terminated the BIA's Housing
    Improvement Program (HIP)--a vital initiative that provides native
    families with money to repair a leaky roof, or provide heat and
    electricity for their families. Sanitation funding has also been
    slashed in the Presidents budget, failing to take into account the
    long-standing backlog of needs for basic sanitation facilities and
    clean drinking water.
        Welfare Assistance.--We oppose the administration's intent to
    significantly decrease BIA Welfare Assistance grants program, because
    48 percent of the American Indians residing on the Fort Hall
    reservation are below the poverty level and 50 percent of the Indian
    people are unemployed or under-employed.
        Contract Support.--Full Funding for Contract Support Costs must be
    provided in order to provide quality health care for contract programs.
    The proposed increase is inadequate and forces tribes to subsidize IHS
    programs by using direct program funds to pay for administrative costs
    not paid for by the IHS as mandated by Public Law 98-638 and the 2005
    Supreme Court decision in Cherokee Nation v. Leavitt. The subcommittee
    should fund the estimated $92 million short fall in IHS Contract
    Support Costs in the fiscal year 2008 budget.
        Trust Management.--The management of trust assets for Indian tribes
    needs great improvement. Such improvement should not include
    interruption of services to Indians and for drastic changes in BIA
    regulations and reduction of employees to manage trust assets that
    ensure tribal sovereignty and the trust responsibility, including
    government to government relationships. The bill also includes $226.1
    million for the Office of the Special Trustee, with $58 million for
    historical accounting activities.
        Indian Education.--Education of our youth is a high priority for
    Indian tribes. For that reason, we cannot understand the
    administration's plans to reduce funding for safe and drug free schools
    program, the JOM Program, TRIO Upward Bound, comprehensive school
    reform, vocational education, handicapped and many more programs
    assisting Indian schools. The White House budget for special programs
    for Indian Children is $19.4 million, but only $5.7 million is
    available for programs similar to JOM, a fact not mentioned in the OMB
    report. Further, the administration is proposing to severely cut funds
    for the Morris K. Udall Foundations Native Nations Institute, which,
    for years has provided training for over 1,700 tribal leaders
    representing 360 tribes to attend its executive education courses.
        BIA Law Enforcement.--We encourage funding for the COPS program. We
    are experiencing an alarming increase in gang violence and the presence
    of methamphetamines on our reservation. We strongly urge the
    subcommittee to build on the administration's proposal and
    significantly increase BIA Law Enforcement funding above the $16
    million proposed by the administration for staffing new detention
    facilities, hiring officers, and fighting Methamphetamine abuse. This
    funding is far too limited to provide adequate law enforcement
    services, especially on large Indian reservations such as the Fort Hall
    Indian Reservation which has witnessed an increase in crime and gang
    violence.
        Other Program Reductions.--The proposed budget cuts includes
    reductions in programs due to mismanagement of Indian trust funds and
    neglect of the Federal trust responsibility. These reductions include
    $11 million for welfare assistance, $2.6 million for road maintenance,
    $1.1 million for community fire protection, and $1.9 million for water
    management and planning. Indian tribes, and their members, served by
    the programs of the Interior Department deserve adequate funding of
    Federal programs designed to improve their living conditions.
        Thank you for affording the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes the opportunity
    to present testimony on the fiscal year 2008 Interior and Related
    Agencies budget.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Skokomish Tribe of Washington State
        My name is Denese LaClair, I am Chair 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 5,300 acre Reservation is a fraction of the 2.2
    million acre of the Tribe's Treaty area. The Skokomish Tribe
    appreciates the work of the subcommittee and asks that you provide
    funding in areas that are key to the continuing development of tribal
    communities: Law Enforcement, Education, Environment and Health Care.
        Law Enforcement.--The Skokomish Tribe respectfully requests
    increased funding for our law enforcement programs within the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs. We commend the BIA's requested increase of $16 million
    for law enforcement services, but more needs to be done.
        In the last 11 years, the Skokomish Department of Public Safety has
    grown from one untrained officer, to a force of 10 Washington State
    certified/Washington State equivalency trained or BIA certified law
    enforcement officers. To be fully staffed at a baseline minimum for the
    area and scope of service that the Skokomish Department of Public
    Safety is tasked with, we need a total of 18 officers. Thus, we are
    almost 50 percent below what is needed to safely serve our community.
        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. In the last 4 months, our tribal police officers have
    responded to approximately 1,600 calls for service, which are
    classified as Part One and Other than Part One Offenses or Other
    Service Incidents.
        It is not uncommon to find our officers working shifts alone. Our
    tribal police agency has used strategies such as requesting assistance
    from outside agencies to respond and provide the second officer for
    backup during high risk incidents. We have been lucky so far that those
    other agencies, in the time of our officer's need, were available.
    Increasingly however this resource is becoming almost nonexistent
    because surrounding agencies are also finding themselves with less
    staff due to continued population growth and cost of living increases.
        These cost of living increases are forcing officers to consider
    other departments for employment because of the higher pay and
    additional benefits which also magnifies our inability to attract
    qualified applicants.
        The scope of our service responsibility is broad because the
    Skokomish Department of Public Safety frequently provides immediate
    marine law enforcement and boat rescue services in Hood Canal.
        Our tribal officers also play a pivotal role in the suppression of
    crimes related to illicit drug and alcohol abuse on the reservation. By
    our continued working relationship with non-tribal law enforcement
    agencies, we combat the scourge of drug problems in this isolated rural
    area by sharing; gathered intelligence, conducting surveillance on
    suspected traffickers and or their residences as well as forwarding
    completed felony drug investigations to the Mason County Sheriff`s
    Office for prosecution. As an example, the latest case forwarded
    involved two adults being charged with soliciting a minor to sell pills
    at his school
        Despite the growth in law enforcement need, there has not been a
    corresponding growth in law enforcement funding. The Skokomish Tribe
    does not received an appropriate share of funding from the BIA, as
    compared to other Tribes in the State. In fact, the Skokomish Tribe
    receives only $90,000 in BIA law enforcement base funding. This is the
    same amount we have received for the last several years. This is the
    lowest in our Region. The next closest Tribe, the Shoalwater Bay Tribe,
    receives $142,000 in BIA law enforcement funding. The Shoalwater Bay
    Tribe has approximately 235 members as compared to Skokomish's
    approximately 700 members. Consequently, to adequately fund our
    department, we are forced to cut other programs like education and
    social services. To address this, we ask that Congress increase the
    overall funding for law enforcement by at least twice the amount BIA
    has requested (an additional $16 million) and that the additional funds
    be earmarked for personnel and equipment.
        Education.--The BIA once again proposes to eliminate 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, most of our
    children 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.
        The Skokomish Tribe is especially disheartened by the
    administration's proposed elimination of higher education scholarships.
    For any of our children who are lucky enough to be accepted into a 4
    year college or a community college, it is important that the Tribe
    have some resources to help them succeed. I can spend an entire day
    sharing stories of people who would not have made it through college if
    they did not have this assistance from the BIA. These people will be
    our nurses, doctors, business managers and biologists in the future. We
    need to be able to invest in them now.
        Environmental Protection Agency.--We greatly appreciate the
    subcommittee's continuing support of funding for critical programs
    within the Environmental Protection Agency. We ask for increased
    funding for the Clean Water Act Revolving Loan Fund and State Tribal
    Assistance Grants (STAG). We are especially concerned CWA--Section 106
    funding may be at risk. This program has provided successful base-
    funding for many tribes, improving tribal capacity.
        Our homeland, the Hood Canal, is considered the jewel of the Puget
    Sound. Unfortunately, the health of the Hood Canal is in danger. Last
    year, our Natural Resource and Fisheries staff identified a 6 mile Dead
    Zone in the Hood Canal. Nothing in this 6 mile area was alive--not
    shellfish, finfish or plant life. In one fifty foot area, we found 25
    dead Dungeness crab. Apparently, once life entered the area it could
    not escape and it died. The floor of the Hood Canal in this area was
    covered with white bacterial mats and the surface with a jelly like
    substance.
        We know the cause of the Dead Zone is the Low Dissolved Oxygen
    Levels (LDOLs) in the Hood Canal, which creates a breeding ground for
    the bacteria Beggiatoa. Essentially the animal and plant life are
    suffocating in the Hood Canal. We also know the primary causes of the
    LDOLs are man-made. Sewage waste discharged directly into the Hood
    Canal and nonpoint source agricultural runoff in the Hood Canal are the
    biggest contributors.
        This issue is so important to the Skokomish people, because the
    Hood Canal is not just a place where we live and recreate, it is the
    very life blood of the Skokomish People. It is the foundation of our
    economy and more importantly it is the foundation of our culture.
    Consequently, anything that threatens the health and vitality of the
    Hood Canal threatens the health and vitality of the Skokomish people.
    Thus, improving the health of the Hood Canal is a top priority for the
    Skokomish Tribe. We are committed to working with all local, State, and
    Federal agencies to address what we believe to be a crisis. We cannot
    stand by and allow this issue to only be studied. We believe the
    solutions already exist to the known problems, and we want to be part
    of the team that brings these solutions to the table.
        Specifically, we urge the subcommittee to continue funding for the
    efforts to build regional sewage treatment facilities for the people
    who live and work on the Hood Canal. We greatly appreciate the
    subcommittee's past support of these efforts and hope for your
    continued support through the STAG process and the Clean Water Act
    Revolving Loan fund.
        Forest Service.--The Skokomish Tribe strongly supports the
    Skokomish Watershed Action Team's (SWAT) request for $4.6 million. The
    Skokomish Watershed Action Team--a diverse, informal partnership of
    governments, land managers, and others who are working collaboratively
    to restore the Skokomish watershed--has a 3-year action plan to help
    inspire and guide Skokomish River restoration work. The Skokomish River
    lies within a critical watershed for recovery of multiple species of
    endangered fish and wildlife, for recovery of our troubled Hood Canal
    marine ecosystem, and for rejuvenation of local communities threatened
    by significant, persistent flooding. Salmon recovery for the Hood Canal
    and Puget Sound is keyed on Skokomish River restoration.
        The requested $4.6 million funding will be used for road
    stabilization, culvert repair and road decommissioning on roads within
    the Olympic National Forest. Undertaking these activities will reduce
    the delivery of fine and coarse sediment into the South Fork Skokomish
    River mainstem and its tributaries, which contributes to the channel
    aggradation and decreased carrying capacity of the mainstem Skokomish
    River. This will improve aquatic and terrestrial species habitat and
    decrease flooding. Significantly, these efforts will also increase the
    quality of water flowing into the Hood Canal, which will assist in
    addressing the low dissolved oxygen problem in the Hood Canal.
        Indian Health Service.--The need for increased funding for health
    care throughout Indian country is well known. While we support the
    President's proposal to increase the budget for Indian Health Services,
    the amount of that increase ($212 million from the current funding
    level) 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. At Skokomish, like Indian people throughout the Nation,
    we face disproportionately higher rates of diabetes and the
    complications associated with diabetes. 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. We supports the unified tribal effort to increase funding
    so that all tribes receive 100 percent of the Level of Need Formula
    (LNF), which is absolutely critical for tribes to address the serious
    and persistent health issues that confront our communities. We
    understand that an additional $800 million is necessary to bring tribes
    to this level.
        Notwithstanding our significant need, we have been able to do a
    great deal with the limited resources that we have. We have eight
    health professionals at our clinic (one Doctor, one Physicians
    Assistant; one Nurse Practitioner; two Nurses, three CHRs), who provide
    primary care, women's health services, and diabetes prevention
    services.
        However, we do not have a pharmacy. Consequently forty-percent of
    our contract health dollars are spent to purchase medicine for our
    patients who have chronic illnesses like hypertension, heart disease
    and diabetes and because we are a small ambulatory clinic, the
    remainder of our contract health funds are used for our patient who
    must be hospitalized at the local hospitals in Shelton and Olympia or
    if the case is serious to Seattle. These facilities provide terrific
    care to our patients, but when we have reached the limit of funding for
    contract health care we have no ability to pay for the care that our
    patients have received. Consequently, our contract health care program
    remains at Priority I, which means that only those patients who are in
    need of life or limb care can receive care. As many have said, this is
    penny wise and pound foolish in terms of health care treatment and
    prevention.
                                   conclusion
        I want to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to present
    testimony on these important issues.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation
        The Society for Animal Protective Legislation (SAPL) respectfully
    requests that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior,
    Environment and Related Agencies appropriate a total of $215.8 million
    to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for Endangered Species Act
    enforcement, and an additional $45 million to the FWS Office of Law
    Enforcement (OLE). The President's fiscal year 2008 proposed budget
    falls far short of providing the funds needed by agencies within the
    Department of the Interior to preserve, recover and manage America's
    wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, as required by
    law and by their public trust obligations to the American people. SAPL
    also asks Congress to reign in the mismanagement of America's wild
    horses and burros by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
                    endangered species listing and recovery
        The FWS is the principal agency responsible for implementing the
    Endangered Species Act. The ESA is a landmark law that has provided
    protection and prevented the extinction of thousands of species since
    it was promulgated in 1972.
        FWS biologists estimate that 200 currently listed species are on
    the verge of extinction because of a lack of funding for recovery
    activities. An additional 280 candidate species are waiting to be
    listed under the ESA, with some languishing without ESA protection for
    years due to insufficient funds to cover the costs of listing. Despite
    these facts, the President has again proposed a budget that is
    inadequate to the many responsibilities under the ESA. SAPL
    respectfully requests that Congress appropriate a total of $215.8
    million for the FWS endangered species program with $13.6 million, $30
    million, $55.5 million, and $113.6 million allocated to candidate
    species conservation, listing, consultation, and recovery,
    respectively.
                           office of law enforcement
        A seeming increase for this function in the President's budget is
    actually a decrease when higher uncontrollable and fixed costs are
    taken into account. SAPL requests that an additional $45 million be
    allocated to the FWS to increase and expand the activities of its
    Office of Law Enforcement in its critical role of combating wildlife
    crime. The OLE investigates both domestic and international wildlife
    crimes that involve the transgression of over a dozen Federal wildlife
    and conservation laws. Though it is well known that the illegal trade
    in wildlife and wildlife products is second only to the trade in
    narcotics in terms of revenue generated globally, and despite the fact
    that the United States remains a source of or destination for much of
    this contraband, the OLE has consistently been underfunded and
    understaffed and, thus, shortchanged in its efforts to combat this
    illegal trade.
        SAPL has heard that, for budgetary reasons, the FWS has closed or
    has proposed to close its covert wildlife crimes investigation unit.
    Given the severity of the illegal wildlife trade problem and the
    inherent underground nature of the trade, covert investigations are
    essential for enforcing wildlife laws and identifying, capturing, and
    prosecuting those responsible for wildlife crimes. The OLE and its
    employees cannot effectively enforce Federal wildlife laws without a
    covert investigations unit. Congress must direct the Secretary of the
    Interior to reinvigorate the OLE, including its covert investigations
    unit and provide the funding necessary to restore the OLE as the
    preeminent wildlife law enforcement organization in the world.
        FWS Special Agents.--Federal and State wildlife law enforcement
    agents perform what is consistently ranked as one of the most dangerous
    jobs as they attempt to fulfill their mandate to protect this Nation's
    and this world's wildlife heritage. In fiscal year 2006, FWS agents
    inspected over 180,000 wildlife shipments; they pursued over 15,000
    investigations resulting in over $11 million in fines, 60 years of jail
    time for the perpetrators, and 446 years of probation. Following are a
    few examples of cases resolved. An investigation of illegal interstate
    trafficking in live endangered ocelots resulted in Federal criminal
    charges against six individuals in four States and secured civil
    penalties from three others. A Chicago couple involved in the unlawful
    purchase and sale of 101 leopard sharks in the pet trade agreed to pay
    $10,000 to the Lacey Act Reward Account. Prosecutions were completed in
    a multiyear investigation of the illegal harvest and sale of U.S.
    paddlefish in the black market caviar trade. Defendants paid $470,941
    in fines and restitution and were sentenced to serve 93 months in
    Federal prison.
        Despite these impressive statistics, the illegal trade in wildlife
    and wildlife products continues to imperil wildlife species in the
    United States and around the world. The ability of the OLE to expand
    its efforts to combat this trade requires far greater funding than what
    has been proposed in the fiscal year 2008 budget.
        Currently, there are only 207 FWS agents responsible for the
    enforcement of Federal wildlife laws throughout the entire United
    States. This number is 4 fewer than in fiscal year 2006, which was 11
    fewer than existed in 2005 and is 56 fewer than the number of agents
    that are authorized. Filling these 56 vacancies is essential to
    protecting wildlife and stemming the increasing threat of illegal
    trade. SAPL respectfully requests an additional $11.2 million ($200,000
    each) to fill these 56 agent vacancies and an additional $12 million to
    ensure sufficient operational funds for the existing agents and for
    those hired in the future.
        Port Inspectors.--Given the events of September 11, 2001, and the
    recent scrutiny applied by Congress on the security of U.S. ports, the
    value of FWS inspectors should be indisputable. In addition to being
    the first and only line of defense against the illegal import of
    protected wildlife and wildlife products into this country, FWS
    inspectors along with their colleagues from the U.S. Coast Guard,
    Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies involved in port
    inspections, represent America's best hope of intercepting bioterrorism
    agents or items that may represent a security threat to America. Often
    contraband is hidden in the body cavities of wildlife or in their
    transport containers; who except FWS wants to look inside the box of a
    dangerous animal?
        Though it may be hard to see that thwarting an illegal shipment of
    wildlife is as important as thwarting an illegal shipment of weapons,
    wildlife pose much greater risks to America due to the potential for
    the wildlife to be vectors for non-native diseases or insects that
    could pose a threat to public health (e.g. avian flu), domestic
    wildlife health, domestic livestock health (e.g. Newcastle's disease,
    foot and mouth disease), or to our native flora. A recent news report
    noted that ``five of the six diseases the [CDC] regards as top threats
    to national security are zoonotic'' Because legal shipments, which
    amounted to 650 million animals in the last 3 years, are not screened
    properly, Americans are left ``vulnerable to a virulent disease
    outbreak that could rival a terrorist act.'' \1\ Couple the threats
    from the legal trade with those from the illegal trade, including the
    surge in the amount of bushmeat entering the country, and the potential
    for catastrophe is mind boggling.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ (``Imports of exotic animals mean health risks,'' AP, Nov. 27,
    2006).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The North American Free Trade Agreement has exacerbated the problem
    through increased movement of wildlife and wildlife products across the
    United States border with Mexico. Such contraband includes highly
    endangered neotropical parrots, cacti, reptiles, and exotic wildlife
    leather products. The United States border with Canada is a conduit for
    the illegal import of a variety of international species including the
    Asian arowana fish, the rare Madagascar radiated tortoise, and
    protected corals and domestic species including black bear gall
    bladders, bald eagle parts, and other wildlife products. The current
    lack of sufficient operational funds for the FWS port inspection
    program weakens FWS efforts to promote the conservation of species of
    international concern, to protect all natural resources, and to sustain
    biological processes. The virtually unregulated smuggling of parrots
    not only has put new pressure on Western hemisphere parrot species, 30
    percent of which are already on the brink of extinction, but also
    presents a disease transmission risk to the U.S. poultry industry and
    native U.S. birds. The illegal import of parrots into California has
    been linked to an outbreak of Newcastle's disease in that State.
    Moreover, smugglers are dealing in both illegal wildlife and illegal
    aliens. For example, a cooperative investigation by FWS, Immigration
    and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Coast Guard documented the
    smuggling of illegal aliens and live Clarion angelfish from Mexico. A
    Los Angeles man was sentenced to 46 months in Federal prison and
    ordered to pay a $60,000 fine.
        Clearly, then, to protect domestic and international wildlife and
    to secure our borders, Congress must provide the funding to hire and
    train a sufficient number of FWS inspectors to ensure round-the-clock
    coverage at each designated U.S. port of entry. $3.1 million is
    requested for the ports of entry. An example of how understaffed the
    FWS port inspection staff may be can be found at the United States/
    Canada border crossing at Blaine, Washington, where a single inspector
    is responsible for inspecting all imports even though that point of
    entry has experienced a 45 percent increase in the number of wildlife
    shipments in the past decade.
         clark r. bavin national fish and wildlife forensics laboratory
        We respectfully request that Congress appropriate $4 million for
    the FWS forensic laboratory in fiscal year 2008. Despite the lab's
    expanding workload and a $1.7 million increase in fixed costs, the
    President's budget calls for a $1.4 million decrease in funds.
        The FWS forensic laboratory is a key resource used by FWS
    investigators and inspectors for prosecuting wildlife crimes. It uses
    complex tests and tools to identify wildlife products as to species,
    determine cause of death, and make other findings critical to a
    successful legal case. All such findings must adhere to exacting
    evidentiary standards to be used in court, thus increasing the cost of
    testing each sample. Due to an increasing backlog of samples (from16 at
    the end of fiscal year 2002 to 3,451 in fiscal year 2006), the lab is
    running 6 to 18 months behind in its casework, causing FWS
    investigators, inspectors, and Federal prosecutors to wait longer to
    continue their investigations or initiate prosecutions. The new
    protocols that will be needed in the crackdown on shark finning will
    only worsen this problem. This lab is the only such facility in the
    world and it has historically aided the fish and game departments of
    all 50 States and the 162 CITES countries. But the backlog jeopardizes
    this cooperation and has forced it to stop accepting samples from State
    and international wildlife investigators, weakening the longstanding
    partnerships supporting cooperative conservation efforts in this
    country and around the world.
        The backlog is largely a product of staffing shortages. These
    shortages, combined with a loss of expertise when seasoned veteran
    forensics experts retire before new experts are trained, threaten the
    forensics lab's ability to help solve wildlife crimes. To reduce both
    these staffing shortages and the existing analytical workload and
    backlog, SAPL respectfully requests that Congress appropriate $4
    million for the lab. Such funds would allow both for the hiring of
    three new senior forensics examiners (for mammals, birds and reptiles),
    one new chemist, one new technician, and for much needed spending on
    training, travel, equipment, and supplies.
                    multinational species conservation fund
        Since 1988, the U.S. Congress has made clear its commitment to
    global conservation efforts through the passage of a number of funds to
    benefit specific species. These funds include the African Elephant
    Conservation Fund, the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund, the Rhinoceros
    and Tiger Conservation Fund, and the Great Ape Conservation Fund. To
    address these problems, SAPL respectfully requests that Congress
    appropriate an additional $4 million above the President's request for
    each of these funds.
                          captive wildlife safety act
        In December 2003 the Captive Wildlife Safety Act was signed into
    law. It is intended to prevent the interstate and foreign commerce in
    lions, tigers, leopards, cheetah, jaguars, or cougars, or any hybrid of
    such species--for personal possession as ``exotic'' pets. This law is
    needed to reduce the number of big cats kept by inexperienced persons
    who do not have the training or facilities to properly, humanely or
    safely care for these animals. Such ``exotic'' pets frequently become
    news when they bite, maul, or kill those responsible for their care or
    innocent victims. The legislation authorized an appropriation of up to
    $3 million to ensure that the FWS can enforce this important law yet we
    are unaware of any funding specifically earmarked for this purpose.
    SAPL, therefore, respectfully requests that Congress appropriate a
    minimum of $2 million for the implementation of this law.
                            wild horse and burro act
        The BLM continues to use virtually all of its budget simply to
    remove and warehouse wild horses and burros, despite the fact that
    numerous herds have already been eliminated and many others are
    currently managed at population targets that seriously jeopardize their
    genetic health and viability. To make matters worse, the BLM has
    embraced a devastating rider requiring the sale of certain wild horses
    and burros without restrictions. With no legal authority to protect
    these horses once sold, they will be re-sold for slaughter--the very
    thing which prompted Congress to act to protect wild horses over 30
    years ago.
        From the very inception of the act in 1971, the BLM has ignored the
    clear intent laid out in the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs
    Committee report, which said, ``It is the expressed intent of the
    committee to remove the possibility of monetary gain from the
    exploitation of these animals.'' Thirty-five years later the Congress
    must swiftly act again before the BLM's reckless actions wipe out our
    wild horses and burros forever. With nearly as many, if not more,
    animals in holding facilities as are in the wild today, SAPL
    respectfully requests that Congress instruct the BLM that, until such
    time as the agency either finds qualified adopters for those animals
    now being held and/or returns animals to suitable herd areas
    (particularly those from which all wild horses and burros have been
    removed or whose populations are not self-sustaining), that no funds be
    used to conduct further round-ups. In addition, we request that
    Congress instruct the BLM to use its statutory authority to explore the
    potential for further designating and maintaining specific ranges on
    public lands as sanctuaries for the protection and preservation of wild
    horses and burros as provided in the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and
    Burros Act.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Southwestern Water Conservation District
        On behalf of SWCD, I am requesting your support for appropriations
    in fiscal year 2008 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, consistent with the
    President's recommended budget. The SWCD was established by the
    Colorado legislature in 1941 to ensure the waters of the Dolores and
    San Juan Rivers in all or parts of nine counties in southwest Colorado.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds to the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS to continue its essential
    participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program.
        2. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    within the $45,147,000 item entitled ``National Fish Hatchery
    Operations'' to support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray
    National Fish Hatchery in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $200,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet FWS's Region 2
    expenses in managing the San Juan Program's diverse recovery actions.
        We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request
    your assistance for fiscal year 2008 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

           Letter From the State Engineer's Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming
                                       State Engineer's Office,
                                     Cheyenne, Wyoming, April 18, 2007.
    Hon. Dianne Feinstein, Chairman,
    Hon. Larry Craig, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Support for funding of $5,900,000 in fiscal year 2008 within the
    Bureau of Land Management's Soil, Water and Air Account Management
    Program for implementing Colorado River Salinity Control Program
    measures; Requesting the Specific Designation of $1,500,000 be spent on
    identified salinity control and salinity control-related projects and
    studies.

        Dear Chairman Feinstein and Ranking Member Craig: This letter is
    sent in support of fiscal year 2008 funding for the Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM) for activities directly benefiting the Colorado River
    Salinity Control Program. The activities needed to control salts
    reaching the Colorado River system from lands managed by the BLM fall
    within that agency's Land Resources Subactivity--Soil Water and Air
    Management Program. We request $5,900,000 be directed to enhancing
    Colorado River water quality and accomplish salt loading reduction in
    the Basin.
        The State of Wyoming is a member State of the seven-State Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Forum, established in 1973 to coordinate
    with the Federal Government to assure maintenance of basin-wide Water
    Quality Standards for Salinity that have been in place for more than
    three decades. The Forum is composed of gubernatorial representatives
    who interact with the involved Federal agencies on the joint Federal/
    State efforts to control the salinity of the Colorado River. The Forum
    annually makes funding recommendations, including the amount believed
    necessary to be expended by the Bureau of Land Management for its
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. Overall, the combined
    efforts of the Basin States, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of
    Land Management and the Department of Agriculture have resulted in one
    of the Nation's most successful non-point source control programs.
        The basin-wide water quality standards for salinity consist of
    numeric water quality criteria established and maintained at three
    Lower Colorado River points (Below Hoover Dam, Below Parker Dam and At
    Imperial Dam) and a Plan of Implementation that describes the Program's
    components, including the specific salinity control projects being
    implemented to remove sufficient salt from the River system to assure
    the River's salinity concentrations at the Standards' three points do
    not exceed the numeric criteria values. Pursuant to the Clean Water
    Act, the water quality standards for salinity are reviewed at least
    once each 3 years. At those intervals, the Plan of Implementation is
    jointly adjusted and revised by the States and involved Federal
    agencies, including representatives of the Bureau of Land Management,
    to ensure that the planned actions are sufficient to maintain
    continuing compliance with the numeric criteria.
        Successful implementation of land management practices by the
    Bureau of Land Management to control soil erosion and the resultant
    salt contributions to the Colorado River system is essential to the
    success of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program and
    compliance with the water quality standards adopted by each of the
    seven Colorado River Basin States and approved by the Environmental
    Protection Agency. Inadequate BLM control efforts will result in
    significant additional economic damages to downstream water users.
        The BLM's fiscal year 2008 Budget Justification document reports
    that the agency continues to implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate
    progress in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation and the
    Department of Agriculture and report salt-retaining measures in
    furtherance of implementing the Plan of Implementation. As noted in the
    testimony subjected by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
    (as submitted by Jack A. Barnett, the Forum's Executive Director), the
    Forum's member States, including the State of Wyoming, believe that
    fiscal year 2008 Soil, Water and Air Management Program funds should be
    used, in part, to continue efforts that will directly reduce salt
    contributions from BLM-managed lands within the Colorado River Basin,
    consistent with BLM's fiscal year 2008 Budget Justification document.
    At its recent October 2006 meeting, the Forum, in consultation with BLM
    officials, recommended that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management should
    expend $5,900,000 in fiscal year 2008 for salinity control.
    Accordingly, we request that the BLM be directed to expend from Soil,
    Water and Air Management Program funds not less than $5,900,000 for
    activities to reduce salt loading from BLM-managed lands in the
    Colorado River Basin in fiscal year 2008.
        As one of the five principal Soil, Water and Air Program priorities
    identified by the BLM, projects that will directly provide salinity
    control should also be funded. In the past, the BLM has used $800,000
    of Soil, Water and Air Program funding for specific salinity control
    project proposals submitted by BLM staff in the seven Colorado River
    Basin States to BLM's salinity control coordinator. Through this
    competitive proposal consideration process, the funds have been awarded
    to those projects having the greatest merit (as measured by their salt
    loading reduction and ability to quantify the salinity reduction that
    would be accomplished). At the October 2006 Forum meeting, the BLM and
    the member States of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
    cooperatively determined that BLM has proposals in hand totaling over
    $1,500,000 that are of sufficient merit that they should be funded.
    Accordingly, the Forum's testimony to this subcommittee requests
    designation of $1,500,000 for this purpose. As one of Wyoming's Forum
    members, I wish to advise that the State of Wyoming concurs in that
    request.
        Through studying hundreds of watersheds in the States of Utah,
    Colorado and Wyoming, the collaborative efforts of the collective
    State/Federal agencies and organizations working through the auspices
    of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum have selected
    several watersheds where very cost-effective salinity control efforts
    can be implemented without additional delay or study. In keeping with
    the congressional mandate to maximize the cost-effectiveness of
    salinity control, the State of Wyoming joins with the Forum in
    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 described in the adopted Plan of
    Implementation.
        The State of Wyoming appreciates the subcommittee's funding support
    of the Bureau of Land Management's statutorial responsibility to
    participate in the basin wide Colorado River Salinity Control Program
    in past years. We continue to believe this important basin-wide water
    quality improvement program merits funding and support by your
    subcommittee.
                With best regards,
                                            Patrick T. Tyrrell,
                                                Wyoming State Engineer.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Swan Ecosystem Center
        Madam Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: My name is
    Neil Meyer from the Swan Valley of Northwest, Montana. I am chairman of
    the nonprofit Swan Ecosystem Center. We thank you for the opportunity
    to testify in support of continued Federal investment in the Swan
    Valley conservation effort, specifically a fiscal year 2008 $8 million
    appropriation to the U.S. Forest Service from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF) and a $4 million appropriation to the State of
    Montana from the Forest Legacy Program (FLP).
        I've been a logger all my life. My wife and I have managed the
    timber on our land for over 50 years and we still have trees for the
    future. As a longtime resident of this place, myself and others have a
    deep concern for what is happening. This area has been rural forest-
    based with woods jobs--logging, outfitting and small ranches. It is the
    best, most diverse, healthy wildlife and fish habitat in the State and
    probably the best tree-growing site. Bull trout and other endangered
    species in the Swan Valley have the best habitat in Montana. This
    provides for a diversity of plant species and the scenic and recreation
    opportunities are superb.
        Now the problem we face with land ownership issues: The valley
    floor is every other section industrial timber ownership, with the
    balance in State forest, national forest and small private ownership.
    The industrial forestland, some 80,000 acres, that has historically
    been managed for timber and open for public access is now being put on
    the market, a few sections at a time for real estate development. Such
    development means land clearing, private roads, houses, fences, and No
    Trespassing signs--the results being a big impact on wildlife and
    public access and added risk to streams and fisheries. These changes in
    forestland use not only reduce acreage under forest management but also
    constrain the management of adjacent forestlands.
        Swan Valley residents are being closed out of lands long cherished
    for hunting, fishing and huckleberry picking. Native wildlife species,
    such as grizzly bears, are increasingly at risk as second-home
    development encroaches on their habitat. State and county resources for
    roads and other services are stretched thin. Fire fighters are spending
    more time than they should protecting homes, due to new development,
    when they are needed to fight wildfires.
        People in the Swan Valley have been working effectively since 1999
    on a multi-partner effort that has resulted in considerable
    conservation success. Yet, much remains to be accomplished if the Swan
    Valley and Mission Mountains Wilderness are going to remain connected
    to the greater Bob Marshall Wilderness. Residents care deeply about
    this place and need help protecting it. As I look around this Swan Land
    it occurs to me that at sometime every one of us will leave this place.
    Shouldn't we leave it as good or better than it is today. Please read
    our written testimony and support this program.
        Swan Ecosystem Center (SEC) 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. SEC staff and volunteers with diverse backgrounds and
    opinions annually contribute over 6,000 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 landowner's, 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, 1,222 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 910 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 2008
    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 Teaming With Wildlife National Steering
                                   Committee
        On behalf of the Teaming with Wildlife National Steering Committee,
    we urge you to support funding in the amount of $85 million for the
    State Wildlife Grants Program in the fiscal year 2008 Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
        Teaming with Wildlife is a coalition of more than 5,000
    organizations, agencies and businesses who support increased funding
    for state-level wildlife programs of conservation, education, and
    recreation aimed at keeping wildlife from becoming endangered. The
    Teaming with Wildlife coalition includes wildlife biologists, hunters
    and anglers, birdwatchers, hikers, visitors' bureaus, nature-based
    businesses and other conservationists who believe that working together
    to advance proactive wildlife conservation will save both wildlife and
    tax dollars over the long term.
        The State Wildlife Grants Program supports 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
    is the Nation's core program for preventing wildlife from becoming
    endangered in every state. As a coalition of conservation
    organizations, wildlife management professionals, outdoor enthusiasts,
    and other supporters of wildlife conservation we have seen the tangible
    benefits of these projects in the communities where we live and work.
    Now, in response to a charge from Congress, the state wildlife agencies
    and their many conservation partners have worked together to complete
    Wildlife Action Plans for every state and territory. These plans were
    all officially approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
    January 2007. Organizations like ours and the State wildlife agencies
    we work with are eager to take the next step and begin implementation,
    but we are counting on funding from the State Wildlife Grants Program
    to help us put these plans into action. It is the only funding
    nationwide that is dedicated for this purpose.
        We understand the difficult decisions you have to make during this
    time of tight budgets. Now more than ever, Congress should be focusing
    limited resources on this kind of smart, proactive conservation
    investment. Experience shows that efforts to restore imperiled wildlife
    are difficult and costly. State Wildlife Grants enable States to be
    proactive and avert such conservation catastrophes, concurrently saving
    wildlife and taxpayer dollars, and improving our quality of life by
    conserving wildlife for the benefit of millions of Americans. The
    program also leverages significant funding from private, State, and
    local sources to magnify the impact of Federal dollars.
        We are very pleased that the President has recognized the
    significance of this program and supported an increase above fiscal
    year 2007's enacted level of $67.5 million. A funding level of $85
    million would help bring this program back up to the highest level of
    funding it has ever received, in fiscal year 2002, and would send an
    important message about the Congress's commitment to following through
    on providing the support needed to implement the state wildlife action
    plans. By restoring funding to this program at this critical juncture
    in the program, the Congress would help protect the foundation of the
    investment it has made in this program to date. We are pleased that at
    least 58 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.
        Additionally, the President's budget proposes that $5 million of
    the new funds recommended for State Wildlife Grants be set aside for a
    new competitive grants program. The Teaming with Wildlife Steeling
    Committee strongly believes that it would not be an effective use of
    taxpayer dollars to carve out a new program at current funding levels.
    The strength of the State Wildlife Grants Program has been the boost it
    has provided to the capacity of every State to address wildlife
    conservation. However, considerable work remains to be done at current
    funding levels. Injecting a competitive program in the current context
    would serve primarily to reward states that already have high-capacity
    conservation programs and punish those that are still developing.
    Allocating funds in this manner would aggravate disparities rather than
    advance the national interest in keeping wildlife from becoming
    endangered. We recommend that the Congress hold off on carving out any
    kind of competitive program until funding for State Wildlife Grants has
    reached the stable, increased levels that were outlined when the
    program was created.
        We are very grateful for your leadership in funding this program
    over the last several years. You have helped make this program and its
    emphasis on preventive conservation a priority for the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service. Although the budget is tight, we look forward to the
    U.S. Congress continuing to provide reliable and adequate funding to
    ensure the continued success of the State Wildlife Grants Program.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Theatre Communications Group
        Theatre Communications Group--the national service organization for
    the American theatre--is grateful for this opportunity to submit
    testimony on behalf of our 445 not-for-profit member theatres across
    the country and the 32.5 million audience members that the theatre
    community serves. We urge the subcommittee to support an increased
    appropriation of $176 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.
        Indeed, the entire not-for-profit arts industry stimulates the
    economy, creates jobs and attracts tourism dollars. The not-for-profit
    arts generate $134 billion annually in economic activity, support 4.85
    million jobs and return $10.5 billion in Federal income taxes. Art
    museums, exhibits and festivals combine with performances of theatre,
    dance, opera and music to draw tourists and their consumer dollars to
    communities nationwide. Federal funding of the arts creates a
    significant return, generating many more dollars in matching funds for
    each Federal dollar awarded, and is clearly an investment in the
    economic health of America. In a difficult economy where corporate
    donations and foundation grants are diminished, and increased ticket
    prices would undermine efforts to broaden and diversify audiences,
    these Federal funds simply cannot be replaced. Maintaining the strength
    of the not-for-profit sector, along with the commercial sector, will be
    vital to restoring the economic health of our Nation.
        Our country's not-for-profit theatres develop innovative
    educational activities and outreach programs, providing millions of
    young people, including ``at-risk'' youth, with important skills for
    the future by expanding their creativity and developing problem-
    solving, reasoning and communication abilities--preparing today's
    students to become tomorrow's citizens. Our theatres present new works
    and serve as catalysts for economic growth in their local communities.
    These theatres also nurture--and provide artistic homes for the
    development of--the current generation of acclaimed writers, actors,
    directors and designers working in regional theatre, on Broadway and in
    the film and television industries. At the same time, theatres have
    become increasingly responsive to their communities, serving as healing
    forces in difficult times, and producing work that reflects and
    celebrates the strength of our Nation's diversity.
        Here are some examples of NEA funding impact:
              from the nea's access to artistic excellence program
        Through a grant of $30,000, Perseverance Theatre in Douglas, AK,
    will present the world premiere production of The Raven Odyssey. The
    project will weave together folkloric Raven stories to create a
    contemporary pan-Alaskan celebration of the State's history and
    indigenous cultures. Combining traditional song and dance, and gathered
    through interviews with Elders and storytellers, this theatrical
    retelling brings together Alutiiq, Athabascan, Haida, Inupiaq, Siberian
    Yup'ik, Tlingit and Yup'ik performers from around the State.
        The Idaho Shakespeare Festival in Boise, ID, has received a $25,000
    grant to support its educational touring programs. The annual tour of
    Idaho Theater for Youth will bring 50-minute contemporary plays to
    elementary schoolchildren, and the Shakespearience program will bring
    fully staged Shakespeare productions to middle and high school
    students. The Festival annually reaches over 50,000 school-age
    children, particularly those in rural and underserved communities, and
    integrates theatre arts programming into the curricula of approximately
    95 percent of the school districts in Idaho as well as to parts of
    Oregon, Wyoming and Nevada.
        The National Endowment for the Arts has been a major contributor to
    Greenbrier Valley Theatre. NEA funding has enabled the theatre to
    further its arts educational outreach programs into the State of West
    Virginia, in addition to enriching the experience of the 15,000 patrons
    that are served yearly. Most recently the Access to Artistic Excellence
    Award (2006) afforded Greenbrier the ability to produce The Diary of
    Anne Frank for 3,000 middle and high school students in State of West
    Virginia. This project encompassed a multi-disciplinary approach to
    history, theatre, literature and current events to students, many of
    whom have never attended a theatrical event. Greenbrier is grateful to
    the NEA for the financial assistance and the prestige that accompanies
    an award from such an important agency.
        Support from the NEA is allowing California Shakespeare Theater to
    realize an immediate and revelatory production of Shakespeare's King
    Lear and to expand and deepen their relationships with community-based
    organizations serving at-risk youth in Oakland and San Francisco as
    part of their New Works/New Communities program. Targeted Oakland
    participants are primarily low-income, African American and Latino
    youth, hailing from neighborhoods suffering from high rates of
    unemployment and violent crime, lack of services, and low-scoring
    public schools. San Francisco youth partners are at-risk gay, lesbian,
    transgender, and questioning teens, whose sense of isolation, fear of
    discovery, and experiences with verbal and physical harassment have led
    to high risk behavior. Cal Shakes will engage 280 of these youth in
    discovering and creating short plays inspired by King Lear, then host a
    culminating event at the Theater. At this event, professional actors
    will present these original plays written by participating youth, whose
    unique voices will be affirmed before an audience of their peers, adult
    mentors, and Cal Shakes patrons. This reading will be followed by a
    picnic lunch and a matinee performance of King Lear on the main stage.
    California Shakespeare's target population for the full run of King
    Lear includes 5,000 subscribers, and 4,500 single and group ticket
    buyers, including 1,000 patrons developed through the New Generations
    program, which targets 18 to 35 year-olds. Funding from the NEA is
    vital to achieving their goals of stimulating individual creative
    expression, giving voice to the experience and perspective of
    marginalized communities, and developing the academic engagement and
    performance of participants. The impact that this process will have on
    youth in seeing their work performed by professional actors, is
    expected to boost their confidence in their own unique voices and their
    investment in creative pursuits.
        These are only a few examples of the kinds of extraordinary
    programs supported by the National Endowment for the Arts. Indeed, the
    Endowment's Theater Program is able to fund only 40 percent of the
    applications it receives, so 60 percent of the theatres are turned away
    because there aren't sufficient funds. Theatre Communications Group
    urges you to support increased funding for fiscal year 2008 for the
    NEA, so that more not-for-profit professional arts organizations can
    continue to educate and entertain audiences, train the next generation
    of artists, and generate local revenue nationwide.
        The American public favors spending Federal tax dollars in support
    of the arts. Today, Federal arts funding enjoys solid bipartisan
    support in the House and Senate. Unfortunately, the NEA is funded at
    only $124 million in the present fiscal year (fiscal year 2007); it has
    never recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in fiscal year 1996 and
    its programs are seriously under-funded. It has had only small
    incremental increases in the past 6 years. A total appropriation of
    $176 million for fiscal year 2008 would represent an increase of $52
    million, restoring the agency to its 1992 level of $176 million, which
    was then equal to 69 cents per capita. In 2007, 15 years later, the
    Federal Government spends only 41 cents per capita. If adjusted for
    inflation, this per capita spending cut would be even deeper.
        Thank you for considering this request.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of The Wildlife Society
        The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to provide
    comments on the proposed fiscal year 2008 budget for the Department of
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The Wildlife Society is
    the association of over 7,500 professional wildlife biologists and
    managers dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship through
    science and education.
                         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 $69.5 million request, but we
    strongly encourage even greater funding to achieve species
    conservation. States have recently completed their comprehensive
    wildlife conservation 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 implementation of on-the-ground actions associated with
    the plans. We recommend that $85 million be appropriated for State
    Wildlife Grants in fiscal year 2008.
        Federal programs, such as the State Wildlife Grants and the
    Partners for Fish and Wildlife Programs provide key support for
    Wildlife Action Plan implementation but equally critical is the
    Landowner Incentive Program, which acts in a unique way to bring a
    source of funds to landowners from the States. TWS urges you to fund
    the Landowner Incentive Program at the fiscal year 2006 level of $21.7
    million. This program is both an essential tool for wildlife
    conservation and a cost-saving mechanism that institutes actions on the
    ground that prevent wildlife species from becoming threatened or
    endangered. Funds invested in LIP today mean potential savings of
    millions in the future, by preventing species from declining to a point
    that requires listing under the Endangered Species Act. Maintaining
    funding for LIP is essential to sustaining the investment in delivery
    infrastructure already in place at State agencies, as well as
    supporting participation by private landowners in cooperative
    conservation.
        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 recommend that you
    appropriate $50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation
    Fund in fiscal year 2008.
        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 $5.5 million in fiscal year 2008.
        We are pleased by the $29.52 million request for Migratory Bird
    Management in fiscal year 2008, especially since public interest in
    migratory birds and the need for migratory bird management are
    increasing, and support funding at the recommended level.
        Over the last several years, the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
    Enhancement (CARE), a broad coalition of 21 conservation organizations,
    including The Wildlife Society, 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 seek your support as Congress considers fiscal year
    2008. The backlog in operations and maintenance needs within the Refuge
    System budget now total more than $2.5 billion. Several years of
    stagnant or declining budgets have also exacerbated the operations and
    maintenance backlog, and forced a dramatic 20 percent cut in staff
    across the Nation. The FWS stopped filling vacant positions in the
    Refuge System after its centennial in 2003, in recognition that funding
    was not keeping pace with cost of living increases and inflation. The
    reduction in staff has already impacted the day-to-day services and
    achievements of the national wildlife refuge system. Refuge visitors
    often find roads and visitor centers closed, biological and education
    programs eliminated and a reduced or non-existent law enforcement
    presence.
        Congress provided modest but significant funding increases leading
    up to the Refuge System's centennial in fiscal year 2004. Since then,
    however, annual appropriations have consistently failed to keep pace
    with ever-increasing fixed costs and inflation. Based on an analysis of
    rising fixed costs, the Refuge System needs an annual $15 million
    increase just to break even each year. Simply put, to keep the modest
    fiscal year 2004 budget on pace with inflationary costs, the Refuge
    System needs $451.5 million for its operations and maintenance accounts
    for fiscal year 2008.
        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 $5.5 million from
    fiscal year 2006 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. We
    recommend that Congress restore the $5.5 million to the Endangered
    Species Program for use in recovery efforts.
        The Wildlife Society is very disappointed that funding for the
    Science Excellence Initiative has been discontinued. The $493,000
    reduction will prevent the Office of the Science Advisor from expanding
    the Service's on-the-ground scientific capacity in adaptive resource
    management (ARM), structured decision analysis, and conservation
    genetics. These key programs have allowed FWS to partner with USGS in
    the application of ARM principles and practices on National Wildlife
    Refuges in Regions 3 and 5, improving refuge planning and management;
    to ensure that FWS employees in the field have access to the expertise
    and assistance they need to make more frequent use of the principles
    and practices of ARM in managing natural resources; to apply structured
    decision analysis principles and practices in documenting, explaining
    and defending its decisions more thoroughly and more effectively; and
    to focus on expanding the Service's capacity in conservation genetics.
    We are concerned that the elimination of these programs will reduce the
    Service's capacities in these key areas and prevent the expansion of
    these programs to other regions of the Service. The Wildlife Society
    strongly recommends that Congress reinstate the proposed reduction and
    fund the Science Excellence Initiative at $493,000 in fiscal year 2008.
                           bureau of land management
        The proposed fiscal year 2008 budget for BLM's Wildlife Management
    program is $28.347 million, a $181,000 increase over fiscal year 2006.
    This will allow BLM to maintain and restore wildlife and habitat by
    conserving and monitoring habitat conditions, conduct inventories of
    wildlife resources, and develop cooperative management plans. However,
    in light of the many wildlife management needs on our public lands, The
    Wildlife Society urges Congress to increase the Wildlife Management
    budget by an additional $3 million to meet ongoing needs.
        The President has requested a $740,000 increase in BLM's Threatened
    and Endangered Species Management Program from fiscal year 2006 levels.
    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 2008 request is woefully
    inadequate to meet identified needs or allow the BLM to carry out its
    important 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 2008 budget.
              u.s. geological survey biological resources division
        As a member of the USGS Coalition, The Wildlife Society supports
    $1.2 billion in funding for USGS in fiscal year 2008. This level of
    support would enable USGS to meet new challenges while continuing to
    provide essential 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 critical environmental and societal challenges.
        We also request sufficient fiscal year 2008 funding to make greater
    use of the U.S. Geological Survey's Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
    Research Units (CFWRU) in this Nation's pressing natural resource
    challenges. To begin meeting the CFWRU's high priority research and
    training needs in fiscal year 2008, we ask that you request
    establishment of a competitive, matching fund program within existing
    CFWRU legislative authority that would make available $20 million
    annually in new funds beyond base operational costs. These new funds
    would support future cooperative, high priority research efforts and
    essential training of new natural resource professionals to replace the
    large number who will retire within the next decade.
        In order to fill current scientist vacancies, restore seriously
    eroded operational funds for each CFWRU, and enhance national program
    coordination, the fiscal year 2008 budget for the CFWRUs must increase
    by approximately $5 million over the recommended fiscal year 2007
    funding level. This support would restore necessary capacity in the
    CFWRU program and allow it to meet the Nation's research and training
    needs. It would also ensure that the Interior Department provides the
    Federal scientist scientific staffing agreed to with partners, so that
    the return on their continuing investment in the CFWRUs is realized and
    fully leveraged. Without an infusion of funds, one quarter of all CFWRU
    scientist positions (29) will be vacant by the end of fiscal year 2008.
                              u.s. forest service
        The Wildlife Society is deeply concerned that the President's
    budget proposes a $14 million decrease from fiscal year 2006 for the
    Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management Program. We urge Congress to
    restore $17 million, for a total of $135 million in fiscal year 2008.
    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 utility of
    programs in achieving measurable land and resource objectives.
        The Wildlife Society is very concerned about the Forest Service's
    proposal to sell about 175,000 acres of National Forest System lands
    around the Nation for a total of $800 million, through the National
    Forest Land Adjustment for Rural Communities Act. The National Forest
    System lands provide valuable habitat for our Nation's wildlife, as
    well as research and recreational opportunities for our members and
    others. The proposal to sell 175,000 acres of public land to raise
    funds for rural schools is shortsighted and unwise. While we understand
    the need to find alternate funding for rural schools in light of
    decreasing timber revenue, the best way to meet these needs is not by
    permanent reduction of the Federal land base. The land targeted for
    sale provides important habitat for wildlife and is necessary to
    maintain healthy and productive terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on
    our Federal lands. We understand that land exchanges, and in some cases
    sales, can serve important management purposes, where they are
    carefully planned and analyzed. However, we see a clear distinction
    between decisions made to exchange land and thereby improve available
    habitat and the current proposal to permanently reduce the Federal land
    base for short-term profits.
        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 Wilderness Society
        Madam Chairman, The Wilderness Society (TWS) would like to thank
    you for the opportunity to provide recommendations and comments on the
    fiscal year 2008 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
    2008 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.
        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. Unfortunately, the
    administration's proposed fiscal year 2008 budget provides only $58
    million for LWCF's core programs--funding Federal land acquisition at
    $22.5 million and eliminating the stateside assistance grants
    completely. National treasures from the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto
    Mountains National Monument and Long Island near the Boundary Waters
    Canoe Area Wilderness to our neighborhood parks will suffer unless
    funding is increased for the LWCF program.
        We urge the subcommittee to provide $220 million for Federal land
    acquisition and $100 million for stateside assistance grants in fiscal
    year 2008, and to make a commitment to fully fund these programs at the
    authorized level of $900 million annually in the coming years. 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
    $58 million proposed for fiscal year 2008. Americans have long relied
    on Federal land acquisition to protect and complete its parks, forests
    and refuges. The administration's cuts would result in degraded lands
    and fewer recreation experiences.
        We recommend LWCF Federal land acquisition funding for 49 priority
    projects for fiscal year 2008, listed in Appendix A. Federal
    acquisition of these lands is necessary to avert immediate and
    permanent environmental damage, and to protect and restore wildlands of
    significance (e.g. those with rare ecosystems, endangered species, and/
    or other special qualities).
        Forest Legacy.--We urge the subcommittee to allocate $100 million
    for the Forest Legacy program. The Forest Legacy program is a popular
    and effective 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 2008, 41 States submitted 82 projects totaling $192 million in
    need from Forest Legacy. Despite these enormous needs, the President's
    budget proposed only $29 million for 14 projects, leaving many forests
    at risk. Funding to the Forest Legacy program must rise to respond to
    these increasing development pressures and better meet demand from
    participating States.
        Fish and Wildlife Service.--National wildlife refuges throughout
    the country face a crippling $2.5 billion budget backlog. A
    restructuring of the Refuge System workforce cut national staffing
    levels 20 percent and eliminated 565 essential employees. Nearly $800
    million annually is needed to fully fund the Refuge System, but for
    fiscal year 2008 President Bush requested a mere $396 million. This
    amount fails to factor-in inflation costs and falls $55 million short
    of the amount needed to keep pace with current needs. As a step toward
    full funding of the Refuge System, we urge the subcommittee to
    appropriate $451.5 for fiscal year 2008.
        National Park Service.--We support increased funding for operations
    of the National Park System at $206 million over the enacted fiscal
    year 2007 funding level. Investing in interpretation, enforcement, and
    natural resource protection staff is critical in order for the agency
    to provide visitors with safe, enjoyable, and educational experiences
    in the park system. We continue to have serious concerns about the
    growing backlog on critical systems deferred maintenance which has
    reached over $1 billion according to the agency as well as a
    significant back log for land acquisition needs. A crumbling
    infrastructure will only get worse over time. We strongly recommend a
    larger investment in the maintenance backlog than the administration's
    proposal.
        Forest Service Open Space Preservation.--The Forest Service has
    identified the loss of open space as one of the four major threats to
    forests across our Nation. The United States loses approximately 6,000
    acres of open spaces and forests every day (the equivalent of 240
    football fields per hour). These are fish and wildlife habitats, the
    sources of clean water, and places where Americans recreate. In
    addition to funding programs like Forest Legacy and LWCF, which aid in
    the acquisition and protection of open spaces, other programs within
    the Forest Service also aid in protecting our open spaces and require
    funding adjustments. We urge that the Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat
    Management program receive $160 million, Recreation, Heritage, &
    Wilderness program receive $64 million for Wilderness and Wild & Scenic
    Rivers, Road Maintenance be increased to $500 million to address the
    maintenance backlog and to decommission roads that cannot be
    sustainably maintained, and Urban and Community Forestry receive at
    least the fiscal year 2003 funding level of $36 million. Reducing
    timber funding levels to the fiscal year 2000 level of $237 million and
    reducing the construction and reconstruction funding for new logging
    roads would also prevent the degradation of wildlife habitat, soils,
    streams and recreation sites and aid in the protection of open spaces.
        Forest Service Wildfire Management.--The Wilderness Society
    believes there are two key actions that can address the escalating cost
    of suppressing wildland fires: expanding Wildland Fire Use (WFU) and
    increasing funding for the community fire assistance program. We urge
    Congress to provide increased resources specifically for WFU training
    and staffing and increase funding for State Fire Assistance to $145
    million to meet projected needs for local communities throughout the
    country.
        BLM's Oil and Gas Program.--We support the administration's
    proposal to repeal provisions of Sec. 365 of the Energy Policy Act of
    2005 and the $3.1 million request for inspection and monitoring.
    However, any allocations for this purpose should be accompanied by a
    clear directive that such funds be used solely for inspection and
    enforce activities, and not be diverted to other uses, such as
    processing drilling permit applications, as has been the case in recent
    years.
        The BLM's oil and gas program budget has ballooned from $57.8
    million in fiscal year 2000 to a record $121.2 million request for
    fiscal year 2008, a more than doubling in appropriations for this
    program during a period when overall appropriations for the BLM's
    conservation programs have either stagnated or declined. Despite the
    fact that about 24 million acres of leased public lands are idle, the
    BLM continues to issue new leases to industry on demand, often in
    environmentally sensitive areas, some of which have been proposed by
    Members of Congress for Wilderness designation. We recommend that this
    overall request be reduced by $15 million and the savings be used to
    cover other BLM programs that are badly in need of funding, such as the
    National Landscape Conservation System and the ``Healthy Lands
    Initiative.''
        The committee should demand from the BLM more information about the
    ``Healthy Lands Initiative''--for example, how much money will be spent
    on what activities over how long a period of time. Since a major
    rationale for the ``Healthy Lands Initiative'' is to address the damage
    that has occurred to public lands as a result of oil and gas
    activities, the committee should insist on precise information from the
    BLM about what the industry's responsibilities are for preventing
    damage to wildlife, fisheries, and other environmental values, and to
    what extent the industry will be held responsible for financing the
    clean-up and restoration efforts that are needed. Sufficient funds
    should also be allocated to the National Academy of Sciences to
    complete the coal bed methane water study authorized in sec. 1811 of
    the Energy Policy Act, but which heretofore the BLM has refused to
    fund.
        Oil Shale.--We urge the committee to adopt language to prohibit the
    BLM from developing a commercial oil shale lease program in fiscal year
    2008. The BLM has recently issued a number of research and development
    oil shale leases however, the results of this program will not be known
    for several years. Nevertheless, the BLM intends to finalize commercial
    oil shale regulations by the end of this year, and issue commercial
    leases by the end of calendar year 2008. The BLM should await the
    results of the R&D programs of its various lessees, take into account
    the results of that program, incorporate the relevant knowledge into
    its regulatory program, and only then decide whether it is prudent to
    offer commercial oil shale leases.
        BLM and Forest Service Land Sales.--The administration has once
    again proposed to sell BLM and Forest Service lands for ``deficit
    reduction'' and other purposes. This proposal is virtually identical to
    the administration's proposal last year, which was not accepted by the
    committee. We urge the subcommittee to reject this proposal again this
    year.
        National Landscape Conservation System.--We urge the committee to
    provide $69 million in fiscal year 2008 for operations and maintenance,
    to conserve the unique National Monuments, National Trails, and other
    areas that comprise the 26 million acre System. This modest increase in
    funding will help address priority unmet needs including additional
    rangers, investments in monitoring and restoration, cultural site
    protection, and volunteer program support. We also ask the committee to
    support member requests for Conservation System units in their
    districts. To promote accountability, we urge the committee to request
    expenditure and accomplishment reports for each of the System's
    Monuments and Conservation Areas for fiscal year 2007 and inclusion of
    unit-level allocations by major sub-activities for all System units but
    Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). These unit-level
    allocations should be combined with Wilderness and WSAs under a new
    System activity account.

        TABLE A.--RECOMMENDED FEDERAL LWCF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State                     Project name                        Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       AL Alabama National Forests                              $1,800,000
       AR Ouachita National Forest                               1,500,000
       AZ San Pedro National Conservation Area (rail-              500,000
           trail)
       CA Sierra Nevada Checkerboard                                 2,500
       CA Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National          4,200,000
           Monument
       CO Uncompahgre National Forest (Ophir Valley)             2,500,000
       CO Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area                856,000
       CO Canyons of the Ancients National Monument              7,000,000
       CT Stewart McKinney National Wildlife Refuge                710,000
           (Menunketesuck)
       CT Highlands Conservation Act                             2,500,000
       CT Silvio Conte National Fish & Wildlife Refuge           3,250,000
       GA Chattacchoochee River National Recreation Area         5,000,000
           (Hyde Farm NPS portion of project)
       GA Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests--Riparian        4,000,000
           Project (USFS portion of project)
       KY Cumberland Gap National Historic Park (Fern            1,900,000
           Lake)
       LA Bayou Savage National Wildlife Refuge                  3,000,000
           (Brazilier)
       LA Tensas National Wildlife Refuge (Chicago Mill)           500,000
       MA Cape Cod NS                                            4,000,000
       MA Silvio Conte National Fish & Wildlife Refuge           4,000,000
       ME White Mountain National Forest (Haystock Notch)          550,000
       MI Ottawa National Forest (Sturgeon River Gorge)          4,000,000
       MN Superior National Forest (Long Island)                 1,500,000
       MT Flathead National Forest                               8,000,000
       MT Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Sun Ranch)              4,500,000
       NC Uwharrie National Scenic Trail                           800,000
       NC Appalachian National Scenic Recreation Trail,            270,000
       NH Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge                  1,000,000
           (Mollidgewock)
       NH Silvio Conte National Fish & Wildlife Refuge           1,230,000
       NJ E.B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge                 1,375,000
       NJ Delaware Water Gap (Minisink Bluffs)                   1,200,000
       NJ Highlands Conservation Act                             2,500,000
       NM La Cienega ACEC                                        3,000,000
       NY Highlands Conservation Act                             2,500,000
       OH Cuyahoga National Park                                 8,000,000
       OR Rogue WSR (Winkle Bar)                                 1,500,000
       OR Cascade Siskiyou National Monument                     1,800,000
       OR Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and             1,800,000
           Protection Area
       PA Delaware Water Gap (Santos Farm)                       4,000,000
       PA Highlands Conservation Act                             2,500,000
       TN Rocky Fork                                             7,000,000
       TN Chickamauga Chattanooga NMP                            2,200,000
       TN Appalachian National Scenic Recreation Trail,            500,000
       TX Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge            275,000
       TX San Bernard NWR                                        3,000,000
       VI Virgin Islands National Park (Maho)                    4,500,000
       VT Silvio Conte National Fish & Wildlife Refuge             261,000
       VT Green Mountain National Forest                         2,883,000
       WA Mt. Ranier (Carbon River)                              1,500,000
       WA Central Cascades (Dandy Pass)                          1,925,000
       WI Chequamegon National Forest                            6,200,000
                                                           -----------------
                Total                                          129,487,500
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of The Wilderness Society
        The Wilderness Society (TWS) appreciates this opportunity to
    provide recommendations and comments on the fiscal year 2008
    appropriations for wildfire management (at both the Department of the
    Interior and the U.S. Forest Service) in the Department of the Interior
    and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. There are four areas in which
    we would like to provide recommendations or convey concerns: (1)
    Wildland Fire Use (WFU), (2) insufficient funding for State and Local
    Assistance programs, (3) hazardous fuels treatments, and (4)
    suppression funding.
                            wildland fire use (wfu)
        The default response to most fires, even those burning in remote
    areas, has been to fight them; contributing to $1 billion in
    suppression costs in four of the last seven fire seasons. Ironically,
    the resulting absence of fire has lead to unnaturally dense vegetation
    in many areas, resulting in more intense fires that require more
    aggressive attack. Fire spending has already eroded other agency
    programs--like improving fish and wildlife habitat, managing
    wilderness, and providing needed assistance to States. In fact, funding
    for non-fire Forest Service programs decreased 14 percent between
    fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2006 (adjusted for inflation). Fire
    costs now threaten to totally eclipse the agencies' other mission
    areas. The Forest Service's (USFS) wildland fire costs increased from
    13 percent of their budget in fiscal year 1991 to a staggering 45
    percent projected in fiscal year 2008, and experts are predicting that
    global climate change will only lengthen the fire season. It's clear
    that something needs to change--a mandate for restoration is needed. To
    put us on a path towards restoration, fire must be returned to the
    landscape, where safe and where appropriate. A tool that land managers
    can use to accomplish this is WFU, the practice of actively managing
    naturally-ignited fires in designated sections of forests to accomplish
    resource management goals.
        WFU is widely accepted by scientists and practitioners alike as an
    important tool to help restore forests, and reduce fire suppression
    costs. For example, in 2006 the Sequoia National Monument completed a
    9,000 acre WFU fire in the South Sierra Wilderness for only $149 an
    acre. The USDA IG recently recommended that the Forest Service expand
    its WFU program and other policy initiatives, including the National
    Fire Plan (NFP), the 10-year Strategy, and the Healthy Forests
    Restoration Act (HFRA), have endorsed the use of fire to improve
    ecosystem health. The Forest Service's fiscal year 2008 budget proposes
    some important shifts in the way fire is managed, introducing the
    concept of a ``risk-based fire suppression approach'' that acknowledges
    that wildland fires should be managed according to the risk they pose.
    TWS supports this shift in wildland fire management. However, we
    recognize that while these are promising changes, institutional shifts
    like this one require resources and the right incentives to be
    successful and measurable milestones to mark progress. Currently, the
    agencies have inadequate funding and staffing to expand WFU, and
    internal policies act as disincentives. It is critical that Congress
    engage to both increase opportunities for the application of WFU as
    well as provide the additional resources necessary to capitalize on
    these opportunities. As such, we recommend that the subcommittee: (1)
    designate funding from the suppression or preparedness line items to
    increase training and staffing for WFU at DOI and USFS; (2) direct the
    agencies to make fire policy changes that allow a wildland fire to be
    managed for both suppression and WFU and that allow the agencies to
    ``get credit'' for hazardous fuels treated using WFU; (3) direct the
    agencies to develop performance measures for WFU; (4) direct the
    agencies to recognize that WFU, not suppression, should be the
    ``default'' fire management action, with the land management plan and/
    or Fire Management Plan designating specific areas (like near
    communities) where WFU is not appropriate; (5) use the fiscal year 2008
    Interior Appropriations bill to strongly endorse WFU.
                           state and local assistance
        To successfully reduce suppression costs and restore forests, we
    must approach fire management on the terms dictated by fire itself--
    across ownership boundaries. Significant investments must be made in
    cross-jurisdictional management. In 2001, the USFS and the Department
    of the Interior identified over 11,000 communities adjacent to Federal
    lands that are at risk from wildland fire; State Foresters estimate at
    least 45,000 communities at risk. 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. State and Local Assistance programs have
    been designed to help promote fire-adapted communities in fire-
    dependent landscapes, but funding for these programs has been minimal
    and continues to decline--the fiscal year 2008 budget proposes a 17
    percent reduction in community fire funding. In fact, total funding
    dedicated to forest and fire management activities by non-Federal
    partners \1\ amounts to less than 10 percent of the $14 billion
    appropriated to the NFP in the last 5 years. One of the most important
    community assistance programs is State Fire Assistance (SFA). It is a
    key part of a long-term strategy to reduce suppression costs because it
    funds proactive fire risk reduction activities, fire prevention
    campaigns, public education, and most critically, Community Wildfire
    Protection Planning (CWPP). This program has significant and wide-
    ranging support; TWS has joined with over 40 diverse groups, ranging
    from the Society of American Foresters to the Idaho Conservation
    League, to ask for increased and sustained funding for SFA.
    Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2008 Budget proposes
    reducing the already woefully underfunded State Fire Assistance program
    by 14 percent (from $78.7 million to $68.1 million). The National
    Association of State Foresters estimates fiscal year 2008 SFA funding
    needs at a minimum of $145 million--the program's fiscal year 2008
    proposed budget is less than half that. We appreciate that the
    subcommittee has consistently provided stable SFA appropriations
    responsive to on-the-ground realities. We again request your leadership
    to restore and enhance SFA funding. TWS recommends no less than 20
    percent of the 5-year average of NFP appropriations be allocated to
    State and Local Assistance Programs generally, and 50 percent of that
    be targeted specifically to SFA, through a steady increase over 3
    years. The first year should reflect an 80 percent increase above the
    historical average for SFA, resulting in a $144 million appropriation
    that would meet the State Forester's projected 2008 needs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Specifically 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 and
    Volunteer Fire Assistance under State and Private Forestry
    Appropriations, as well as other State and Private Forestry programs
    that assist communities in managing forests, including the Economic
    Action Program, Forest Stewardship, Urban & Community Forestry and
    Forest Research & Information Analysis (except Forest Legacy) Data
    source: USFS Budget Justifications 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For restoration to be successful and suppression costs reduced, the
    agencies also need programs that deliver technical assistance, business
    training, and grants to build restoration-based businesses and
    community capacity to participate in collaboration, planning and
    monitoring. The Forest Service's Economic Action Programs (EAP)
    provided this assistance, served as leverage for additional private
    dollars, and was another critical Federal funding source for CWPPs. TWS
    supports Chairman Rahall's recommendation that funding for this program
    be restored and increased to $52.6 million, with $40 million for the
    base program and $12.6 million for the NFP portion.
        TWS also recommends that funding for the BLM's Rural Fire
    Assistance program be restored to $10 million or an additional $10
    million be added to USFS's Volunteer Fire Assistance program.
                                hazardous fuels
        While it is agreed that many forest types have been altered by fire
    suppression and thus require active fuel reduction, the debate over
    where to target these projects is contentious. Current methods for
    identifying treatment priorities and tracking and reporting
    accomplishments hamper efforts to achieve the desired outcomes. Current
    incentive structures strongly favor treating a high number of acres,
    without requiring consistent priority-setting or ensuring those acres
    treated actually reduce risk. This is because most targets are in the
    form of ``acres treated''.
        To identify those acres, the agencies largely rely on a method of
    classifying vegetation called Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC), which
    purports to represent the degree of departure of current vegetation
    from historical conditions. FRCC has been misinterpreted as a measure
    of ``fuel load'' and has widely--and inappropriately--been applied to
    identify treatment priorities. Excitement over the use of FRCC in
    priority setting has led to its incorporation into agency performance
    measures and inclusion in HFRA. FRCC has never undergone formal
    scientific scrutiny, and many in the scientific and management
    communities have expressed concerns about over-reliance on FRCC for
    priority-setting. TWS supports the concept behind FRCC. However, we
    have identified a number of ambiguities and methodological flaws that
    undermine our confidence in using it to prioritize fuel treatments,
    assess performance, and measure financial return on taxpayer
    investments. For example, FRCC classification relies on subjective,
    unrepeatable expert opinion; FRCC tells us nothing about reducing risk
    to communities; and FRCC accounts for any and all departures from
    historical conditions, including disturbances that are not likely to
    result in fuel build-up, like grazing or road-building. Accordingly,
    TWS recommends that the subcommittee (1) require an objective,
    scientific review of FRCC and (2) direct the agencies to review the
    efficacy of all the current performance measures that use FRCC as a
    metric.
        In addition, despite the HFRA requirement that community
    priorities, as expressed in a CWPP, are considered when implementing
    hazardous fuel treatments, it is unclear if this is occurring, as
    reported recently by the USDA IG. TWS recommends that the subcommittee:
    (1) ask the agencies to report on the status of CWPPs, how priorities
    identified in CWPPs are incorporated into fuel treatments, and the
    number of fuel treatment projects that resulted from a CWPP and (2)
    direct the agencies to prioritize funding for those projects that are
    developed collaboratively.
        Lastly, despite problems identifying priorities for hazardous fuels
    treatments, some Forests have implemented hazardous fuels projects that
    are successful in reducing risk, particularly using prescribed fire.
    TWS has specifically documented these successes in National Forests in
    California, particularly in mixed conifer, ponderosa pine and other
    short interval fire regimes. We have found that reintroducing low
    severity fire has significantly reduced both potential fire intensity
    and beetle risk in these forest types. For example, a prescribed fire
    on the Los Padres National Forest in 2004 virtually ``fire-proofed'' a
    stand of old growth pine. When the 130,000 acre Day Fire burned through
    this area last year it killed almost no trees and left a green healthy
    stand in this prescribed fire treatment area. On the Mendocino National
    Forest, fire managers are regularly using prescribed fire in pine
    stands as young as 35 years old, safeguarding adjacent communities and
    preventing bark beetle epidemics. Despite widespread support from local
    communities, this is unfortunately happening only on a very small scale
    on in these California Forests because of lack of funding. Accordingly,
    TWS recommends that the subcommittee: (1) designate increased hazardous
    fuels funding for Forests that have demonstrated success in
    implementing hazardous fuels projects that reduce risk and are cost
    effective, like the Los Padres National Forest and the Mendocino
    National Forest in California.
                              suppression funding
        The cost of suppression continues to grow and threatens to eclipse
    the agencies' other critical mission areas (as described above).
    Despite increases in suppression funding, appropriated dollars often
    fall short. As a result, the agencies have to borrow money from other
    programs. Recognizing that past borrowing caused significant problems,
    Congress provided emergency funding intended to preclude this practice
    in 2004 through a supplemental appropriation of $500 million ($100
    million to the DOI and $400 million to the USFS) that the agencies
    could use when their normal suppression appropriations were exhausted.
    Congress also included similar authority and funding in its fiscal year
    2005 appropriations. Both the House and Senate Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittees have requested that authority and funding in this year's
    emergency supplemental (which is still pending passage). TWS supports
    maintaining this reserve account and appreciates that the subcommittee
    included it in the supplemental.
        While this reserve account will help to reduce the negative impacts
    associated with transferring funds, it is a short-term solution.
    Longer-term solutions are also needed, including those outlined above:
    increasing WFU and better funding community fire assistance programs.
    Another option is to take a portion of suppression funding out of the
    agencies' suppression budgets and place it in an emergency account.
    Though we recognize that off-budget accounting does nothing to lessen
    our national deficit, in some emergency situations, it may be
    warranted. This funding would be used to pay for those large fires that
    can be correctly categorized as ``emergencies'' (generally those
    approximately 2 percent of fires that are responsible for over 85
    percent of all suppression costs). For example, in 2006 the 20 largest
    fires cost more than $400 million to suppress. TWS encourages the
    subcommittee to explore this possibility, with appropriate sideboards.
    Those sideboards should require that a portion of the funding ``freed
    up'' from suppression be returned to the agencies' base funding to be
    used only for (1) core mission programs outside of Wildland Fire that
    have been reduced due to increased suppression costs--like Recreation
    and Wilderness and Fish and Wildlife Management; (2) those activities
    that are part of Wildland Fire that are proven to reduce suppression
    costs, like community fire assistance and expanded WFU.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of The Wilderness Society, Pacific Northwest Region
        Thank you, Chairman Feinstein and members of the committee, for
    this opportunity to present testimony in support of funding to the USDA
    Forest Service for watershed restoration in Washington State's national
    forests. The Wilderness Society requests appropriations for two
    complementary restoration proposals--one for the Skokomish River
    Watershed on the Olympic Peninsula, and the other for national forest
    watersheds throughout the Puget Sound and Hood Canal Basin (including
    the Skokomish). Both proposals deal with a common theme--the impacts of
    old Forest Service roads on water quality, flooding, and fish habitat.
    The proposals request funding for the Forest Service in fiscal year
    2008 to fix road problems and improve watershed conditions through
    appropriations of (a) $4.6 million in the Skokomish Watershed and (b)
    $30 million in the Puget Sound/Hood Canal Basin.
                        skokomish watershed action team
        The Skokomish River Watershed in the southeast corner of the
    Olympic Peninsula exemplifies many of the challenges and opportunities
    in fixing roads and restoring watershed health. The Skokomish River is
    the largest source of freshwater in the southern end of Hood Canal. It
    is notorious as the most frequently flooded river in Washington State.
    It is also one of the most heavily logged and roaded national forest
    watersheds in the Pacific Northwest, due to accelerated timber
    production after World War II. Excessive sediment and gravel have
    washed down from roads, ditches, and culverts in the upper watershed's
    steep slopes and deposited in the river channel that runs through the
    flat and fertile Skokomish Valley. Consequently, the river overflows
    its banks much more frequently and floods the valley's farm lands and
    homes, including the Skokomish Indian Reservation near the mouth of the
    river. Furthermore, in recent years portions of the river have gone
    completely dry by late summer, blocking all salmon migration into the
    upper watershed during spawning season.
        Recognizing the dire condition of the watershed, a diverse
    partnership quickly came together in 2005 to form the Skokomish
    Watershed Action Team (SWAT). The SWAT includes representatives from
    more than 20 organizations, including the Skokomish Tribe, Mason
    County, State and Federal regulatory agencies, conservation groups, and
    the timber industry. The Olympic National Forest staff participates in
    an ex-officio capacity and has been very cooperative in providing
    technical information and logistical assistance to the group.
        The SWAT works together to promote and implement appropriate
    restoration projects in the Skokomish Watershed. While our primary
    focus is on projects in the upper watershed on Forest Service lands, we
    also share information and provide mutual support for restoration work
    throughout the watershed. I am pleased to say that the SWAT has been
    remarkably successful in fostering cooperation and coordinated action
    in the Skokomish. One sign of our success has been to raise more than
    $2 million for restoration work in the watershed, including $250,000
    generated last year through timber sale receipts from the Flat
    Stewardship Project.
        This winter, the SWAT reached another milestone when it produced a
    detailed 3-year action plan and funding strategy to restore the
    Skokomish Watershed. For the upper watershed, based on information
    provided by the Forest Service at the SWAT's request, the plan
    identifies a total of $17.8 million of projects, with a need for
    Federal funds totaling $15.5 million. On the basis of our 3-year action
    plan, the SWAT has submitted an appropriations request of $4.6 million
    for the Forest Service in fiscal year 2008.
        The 3-year plan's upper watershed actions will improve water
    quality and flows, promote recovery of endangered salmon and bull
    trout, and reduce flooding impacts, primarily through implementation of
    road treatments such as decommissioning, stabilization and drainage
    upgrades, and culvert replacements. The watershed restoration work will
    benefit the Skokomish Tribe and other residents of the lower watershed
    whose homes and livelihoods have been so devastated by the frequent
    winter flooding.
        In the lower watershed, the SWAT's plan identifies projects
    totaling $24.5 million, along with $1.73 million to complete the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers' General Investigation of the Skokomish River
    Basin.\1\  The SWAT recognizes that implementation of these restoration
    projects will require funding from a variety of sources. Accordingly,
    the 3-year plan includes a Capital Improvement Program and funding
    strategy for Skokomish Watershed restoration that identifies 25
    separate sources of financial support. However, most of these funding
    sources are only available for projects in the lower watershed and
    estuary. Restoration of the upper watershed will likely have to rely
    predominantly on Forest Service funding.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Mason Conservation District, Skokomish Tribe, and Mason
    County have submitted a separate appropriations request for the
    Skokomish General Investigation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
               washington state watershed restoration initiative
        While the Skokomish is a dramatic example of watershed restoration
    needs and collaboration, many other Pacific Northwest watersheds are
    also in serious need of help. Unfortunately, Federal funding to fix
    roads and restore watersheds has greatly diminished in recent years.
    Currently in Washington State, the Federal budget provides only $3
    million annually for Forest Service road maintenance, allowing the
    maintenance backlog to grow by at least $8 million each year.
    Inadequate maintenance is largely to blame for more than $30 million of
    road damage in Washington's national forests following heavy rains last
    November. According to the Forest Service, if the needed road work
    begins now, it will cost an estimated $300 million to bring
    Washington's national forests into compliance with today's standards.
        What should be done about the roads problem? A coalition including
    Governor Gregoire, the Washington State Department of Ecology,
    Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Western Washington Treaty Tribes,
    and 12 conservation groups has prepared a ``Watershed Restoration
    Initiative'' for the State's national forests. Our coalition is
    suggesting the following 6-step solution.
        First, the Federal Government should significantly increase funding
    to fix Forest Service roads. Wiping out the Forest Service road
    maintenance backlog in the next decade state-wide will cost about $30
    million annually. We think it makes sense initially to prioritize the
    national forests watersheds that flow into the already ailing Puget
    Sound and Hood Canal Basin--i.e. the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National
    Forest and the eastern Olympic National Forest. We believe we must pay
    attention to the top of the watersheds if we are going to heal Puget
    Sound and Hood Canal.
        Second, the Forest Service and its restoration partners should pick
    watersheds where road work will deliver the biggest bang for the buck.
    These are areas with threatened or endangered fish, sensitive
    geologies, partnership opportunities, and complementary restoration
    projects occurring elsewhere in the watershed. Within the priority
    watersheds, we are encouraging restoration projects to emphasize--
      --re-routing road runoff to eliminate or reduce direct delivery of
            sediment to streams;
      --decommissioning high-risk, unstable, and unneeded roads;
      --improving fish passage;
      --renovating road drainage features to minimize future maintenance
            and risk of road failures.
        Third, the Initiative calls for improved inventories of road
    systems so we are able to use sound, field-based information to make
    road management decisions. Fortunately, the Forest Service has already
    collected useful data through Access and Travel Management Plans and
    Watershed Analyses that provide a good starting point in some areas.
        In addition, more Forest Service staff are needed to support
    project partnerships with landowners, tribes, and other agencies and
    organizations. One potential solution to inadequate funding for staff
    is to bring in outside Federal agency personnel with expertise in
    project implementation.
        Finally, watershed restoration projects must be monitored to ensure
    that road work is properly implemented and is effectively achieving the
    intended environmental benefits. The Initiative suggests dedicating 2
    percent of project funds to monitoring.
        The Watershed Restoration Initiative for national forest roads
    would be consistent with the road restoration work by hundreds of
    private timberland owners in Washington State to protect fish habitat
    and water quality under the auspices of the statewide Habitat
    Conservation Plan. According to industry statistics, road maintenance
    plans have been developed covering 8,000 miles of stream; already 1,400
    fish blockages have been repaired, opening 800 miles of stream.
        In conclusion, The Wilderness Society and our partners in
    Washington State want to emphasize our commitment to work with Congress
    to take on the serious challenge of watershed restoration to heal the
    Skokomish River, Hood Canal, and Puget Sound. Thank you for considering
    the information and funding requests that we have provided, and we look
    forward to working with you to solve the problems associated with
    Forest Service roads.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Town of Ophir, Colorado
        Madam Chairwoman and honorable members of the committee: As Manager
    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 2008 budget from the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund for the Ophir Valley Project. These funds will be used for the
    400-acre second phase of the proposed public purchase of 1,200 acres of
    privately owned patented mining claims in the Ophir Valley by the
    Uncompahgre National Forest. In the fiscal year 2007 budget, $850,000
    was appropriated for the initial phase of the Ophir Valley Project.
    This is a great start, but in order to complete the project, additional
    funding is needed in subsequent years. In fiscal year 2008 an
    appropriation of $2.5 million from the LWCF will permit acquisition of
    the 400-acre phase II of this outstanding land conservation project.
        The Ophir Valley 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 breathtaking places,
    and is a cherished corner of San Miguel County. Against a backdrop of
    unsurpassed alpine scenery, the Ophir 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 Ophir 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, later 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--including the
    Pauls 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 13 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 200 acres of remote lands, which are
    protected through conservation easements and are open to the public for
    recreational purposes.
        The Ophir Valley Project is part of a larger regional preservation
    project, the San Juan Skyway Initiative, which seeks to protect key
    natural landscapes in order to develop and ensure outdoor recreational
    opportunities along the San Juan Skyway, one of only 21 designated All
    American Roads in the National Scenic By-ways Program. An extension of
    the successful Red Mountain Project, funding for the Ophir Valley
    Project will be used as matching funds for a $5.7 million grant awarded
    in 2004 from the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund to purchase and
    protect public access on additional mining claims along the San Juan
    Skyway.
        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 which attract visitors from around the globe.
    Protection of the high country open space will guarantee the future
    existence of the 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 Town of West Fairlee
        Madame Chairwoman and Honorable Members of the subcommittee: Thank
    you, Madame Chairwoman, for the opportunity to provide testimony in
    support of a $1.5 million request from the Forest Legacy Program to
    protect the 1,800-acre Brushwood Community Forest property connecting
    the towns of West Fairlee and Fairlee, Vermont.
        West Fairlee, like most Vermont towns, is still blessed with an
    abundance of forestland despite the rate of new development in our
    area. New residents are moving to the Upper Valley with good reason:
    it's a fabulous place to live and raise a family. By establishing the
    Brushwood Community Forest--a municipally-owned working town forest
    that will be open to the public--West Fairlee will be grabbing its
    destiny in its own hands. We will be conserving a key community asset
    under local control for the long-term well being of our culture,
    community, and quality of life. By creating this new community forest,
    we believe we can retain--and even enhance--the land-based economy and
    rural way of life our current residents treasure.
        As a member of West Fairlee's Selectboard, I am one of the three
    elected officials on the town's governing body. Our town, chartered in
    1797, is small: we have 726 residents according to the 2000 census. We
    are also a community of moderate means. Our per capita income is just
    $18,000, 15 percent below the State average. Some of our residents have
    deep roots in town with local ties dating back two centuries. They are
    most likely to work in town, perhaps plowing our roads, logging our
    forests, or repairing our cars. Other residents are new, drawn to the
    area because of its quality of life. They are most likely to commute 45
    minutes to an office job or telecommute from home. Due to our cultural
    and economic differences, our community often does not see eye to eye
    on issues. But there is one topic we all do agree on: creating a town
    forest.
        The selectboard and town have been discussing the idea of creating
    a town forest in the Brushwood area since the idea was first proposed
    in 1971. The Orange County Natural Resource Technical team recommended
    the town establish a town forest with the vision of consolidating ``a
    [single, expansive] tract in public ownership.'' Consistent with their
    vision, the Brushwood Community Forest will strategically link town
    forests in the adjacent communities of Fairlee and Bradford to create
    more than 3,300 acres of contiguous public lands.
        In 2004, 86 percent of respondents in a town-wide survey said that
    ``the town should work with landowners and land trusts to conserve
    land.'' To our surprise, no other question received as strong a
    response as this one. Then, at our Town Meeting in March 2006, we voted
    unanimously in favor of the town establishing a community forest
    through the purchase of privately owned forestland. Today, we are
    hoping to secure a Federal Forest Legacy grant of $1.5 million in order
    to realize our shared dream.
        Town forests and woodlots are a tradition in Vermont. In the past,
    harvested wood might have been used to pay the local schoolmaster or
    provide firewood to residents. Historically, these woodlands have been
    managed primarily for timber production but often also looked to for
    public recreation, wildlife, and watershed conservation.
        I would also like to take this opportunity to urge your support for
    a significant increase in funding for the Forest Legacy Program in
    fiscal year 2008 to enable the protection of more forest resources than
    are proposed in the President's budget. As you may know, States and
    territories submitted 92 projects this year, but only 14 are proposed
    for funding. This is inadequate if we are to ensure the continued
    existence of forests across this country, and your support is
    appreciated. For example, the Brushwood Community Forest property was
    not among those included in the President's budget.
        The Forest Legacy Program in Vermont seeks to achieve significant
    conservation goals for the State by protecting large contiguous and
    productive forest blocks, wildlife habitats dependent on such large
    contiguous forest blocks, threatened and endangered species habitat,
    State fragile areas and undeveloped shoreline, significant wetlands,
    and important recreation corridors.
        The State's top Forest Legacy Program priority for fiscal year 2008
    is the 1,800 acre Brushwood Community Forest. Located between the towns
    of West Fairlee and Fairlee in Vermont, the Brushwood Community Forest
    initiative is a collaborative effort to conserve and connect 3,300
    acres by consolidating 11 separate ownerships into one contiguous
    forested parcel and connecting it with previously created town forest
    lands that encompass 1,500 acres. By reversing the pattern of forest
    fragmentation that is occurring in Vermont and other forested States
    across the Nation, the Brushwood Community Forest project will ensure
    public access to a variety of recreational opportunities and protect a
    highly productive and diverse forest for wildlife habitat and water
    quality protection.
        The Brushwood Community Forest conservation effort is particularly
    significant because it will help protect the ecological integrity and
    water quality of the upper Connecticut River, an important ecological
    focus area for Vermont and New Hampshire. The assembled properties are
    located in the upper Connecticut River watershed and encompass more
    than 10 miles of stream frontage, numerous vernal pools, and the entire
    40-acre Mill Pond Brook wetland complex. In addition, the Brushwood
    Forest project is located within the focus area of the Silvio O. Conte
    National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, which was designated by Congress for
    the purpose of preserving, protecting and enhancing the Connecticut
    River watershed.
        Trails throughout the Brushwood Forest connect people to each other
    and the landscape, by not only connecting towns, but also by providing
    a place for year-round recreation. Conservation of the Brushwood
    Community Forest would help complete one of the last missing links in
    the 40-mile Cross Rivendell Trail, which connects to the Appalachian
    National Scenic Trail in New Hampshire. Residents hike, snowshoe,
    cross-country ski, snowmobile, hunt, trap, and watch wildlife in the
    Brushwood Forest. There are miles of mountain bike trails throughout
    the Brushwood Forest, and there are over ten miles of hiking trails
    maintained by Lake Morey Trails Association. The Vermont Association of
    Snow Travelers (VAST) also maintains trails for snowmobiling that run
    through this property.
        Wildlife abounds in the Brushwood forest property due to its
    unfragmented nature, diverse mixture of forest cover types and
    proximity to the ecologically-rich Connecticut River Valley. Since the
    property has an abundance of mast-producing trees, such as beech and
    red oak, and also many shelter species such as hemlock and pine, the
    Brushwood Forest supports a large concentration of wildlife, including
    deer, moose, bear, bobcat, snowshoe hare, beaver, and a mix of
    amphibians and birds. The University of Vermont recognizes the
    Brushwood Community Forest as a ``hot block'' for bird conservation due
    to its species richness and diverse habitat areas. A 15-20 acre old
    growth northern hardwood forest--approximately 185 years old--and an
    old growth hemlock forest are located within the Brushwood Forest on
    the West Fairlee/Fairlee town border. The northern hardwood forest
    includes a wet cove forest and a scrubbier hardwood forest on the
    ledges and borders adjacent to the ridge tops.
        This area of New England is in high demand for residential
    development as outlined in the U.S. Forest Service's ``Forests on the
    Edge'' report. Already adjacent properties are being marketed for
    potential residential development, and construction of private
    residences is already occurring. Since affordable low and moderate
    priced housing in the Hanover region is scarce, towns such as West
    Fairlee and Fairlee are within easy commuting distance and targets for
    housing developments. Agreements to sell for conservation have been
    reached with several private landowners and negotiations are ongoing
    with the remaining owners to secure these acres and ensure their
    permanent protection.
        In fiscal year 2008, $1.5 million in Forest Legacy Program funds is
    needed to acquire and protect the properties that will make up the
    Brushwood Community Forest. Federal funds will be matched by $500,000
    in private donations and land value donations. In addition to the Town
    of West Fairlee, partners in this project are the State of Vermont
    Department of Forest Parks and Recreation, Town of Bradford, Town of
    Fairlee, Quebec-Labrador Foundation, the Northern Forest Alliance, the
    Eastern Forest Partnership, the Vermont Town Forest Project, Upper
    Valley River subcommittee of the Connecticut River Joint Commission,
    and the Cross Rivendell Trails Association.
        I thank you again, Madame Chairwoman, for the opportunity to
    present this testimony and to express my support of this project to the
    subcommittee.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Tribal Council of the Confederated Salish and
                     Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation
        Honorable Chairman Feinstein, Ranking Member Craig, and members of
    the subcommittee, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the
    Flathead Nation (CSKT or Tribes) present testimony on the President's
    fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Department of the Interior. Our
    testimony will address our concerns and specific budgetary requests for
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of the Special Trustee for
    American Indians, Indian Health Service, and National Park Service.
    Overall, our goal is to promote and perpetuate our sovereignty, self-
    determination, and self-sufficiency as all are key to our prosperity
    and survival. In the immediate, we strive to improve the well-being of
    our people and to preserve and protect our homeland and resources for
    future generations.
                                  introduction
        The CSKT's homeland, the Flathead Indian Reservation, is a result
    of the cession of tribal lands made by the Salish, Kootenai, and Pend
    d'Oreille 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 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 trust 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. As of December 31, 2006,
    the enrolled membership of the Tribes is 7,101.
        The CSKT is a Self-Governance 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. In addition to the more traditional
    programs that many tribes operate, we operate the Land Realty program,
    operate and manage the electric power utility (Mission Valley Power),
    and the Financial Trust Services program, including Individual Indian
    Money (IIM) accounts, as well as most Indian Health Service functions.
    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.
               requests for the fiscal year 2008 interior budget
        The CSKT participated in the DOI Tribal/Budget Advisory Committee
    (TBAC) meetings in fiscal year 2006 when the fiscal year 2008 budget
    priorities were formulated. In general, the CSKT does not object to the
    DOI's priorities of Public Safety and Justice, Education, Natural
    Resources, and Contract Support Costs. However, we are compelled to
    advocate for issues specifically impacting our people and our homeland
    as described in the following.
                              health care funding
        The CSKT is greatly encouraged that the United States Senate
    Committee on Indian Affairs, in its views and recommendations regarding
    the fiscal year 2008 budget, is giving great emphasis on health care
    funding for Indians. The CSKT has continually advocated for substantial
    increases in the Indian Health Service's budget, particularly in the
    funding appropriated for Contract Health Services (CHS), which is the
    cornerstone of our health care system on the Flathead Reservation with
    a beneficiary population of almost 11,000 people in a four-county area.
    We do not have an IHS or Tribal Hospital or any type of a large
    facility with direct care and we are therefore especially dependent on
    contract heath services. For the entire IHS-funded system, the funding
    requested for CHS is about $550 million while the true need is at least
    $1 billion. The most important aspect of CHS funding is that it
    provides services beyond the limited care that is provided in IHS-
    funded clinics and hospitals. CHS funding provides services for
    specialty care, surgical procedures, and other services that the
    average American can receive through mainstream health insurance plans.
    With the limited funding presently allocated to CHS, Indian people
    receive health care on a ``threat to life and limb'' basis. The CSKT
    knows firsthand the tremendous need for CHS funding because we operated
    that program under self-governance from 1993 through 2005, and with
    great reluctance had to return the program to the Indian Health Service
    due to increasing financial liability for health care claims. In fiscal
    year 2005, the final year that CSKT operated the CHS program, the
    funding we received from the IHS budget was just over $8 million but
    our actual CHS expenditures were over $17 million. On a final note, the
    infusion of CHS funding benefits the non-Indian community on the
    Flathead Reservation because it supports the private health care sector
    of doctors and hospitals.
                      flathead land consolidation project
        The CSKT requests funding in the amount of $658,000 for our ongoing
    ILCA program. We have received money from the BIA ILCA program for the
    past 3 years (fiscal year 2004, 2005, and 2006) and it is critical that
    it be continued. Our congressional delegation has written to the
    Interior Department urging continued funding in fiscal year 2007, which
    would have been directed via report language had an fiscal year 2007
    Interior bill been enacted. To our knowledge the CSKT are the only
    Tribes in the country that are using limited tribal dollars to
    supplement the ongoing BIA ILCA program, essentially creating a local
    match and further demonstrating the importance of this program to our
    people. Additionally, we can demonstrate progress in reducing
    fractionated parcels, and we frankly wonder if such progress can be
    demonstrated in areas where OMB has pressured BIA to direct ILCA funds.
    While the CSKT has purchased hundreds of undivided fractional interests
    of trust and fee land allotments using both Tribal and Indian Land
    Consolidation Act (ILCA) funding, we still have surface interests and
    severed mineral interests that remain fractionated.
        The fractional surface interests and severed mineral interests are
    negatively impacting Tribal ownership and land management including
    negative impacts on Tribal economic development initiatives. This
    committee is aware of how surface acres became fractionated. Beyond
    that surface acreage became separated from mineral ownership through
    BIA policies which encouraged Indians to retain mineral ownership when
    selling or deeding surface ownership. Fractionation limits economic
    development in several ways. For example, without consent from a
    majority of the owners, Indian trust land cannot be leased. With
    hundreds of owners in some allotments, obtaining consent can be time-
    consuming and prohibit a lease agreement. Once leased, rental income
    for small-interest owners can be as little as a few cents and higher-
    return business leases cannot be negotiated if most owners do not agree
    on the type of use proposed. Some ownership interests are so small that
    subdividing the land into portions for each owner would result in
    parcels too small for building even a home.
        With additional funding, Tribal Land Acquisition Technicians would
    contact landowners with fractional interests to determine if they are
    willing to sell their undivided, ownership interests. If they are a
    land sale application is developed; fair market value determined; a
    deed is prepared to transfer undivided, fractional interests to the
    Tribe; and the owners paid for their fractionated parcel. In our
    meetings last year with staff in the BIA's Indian Land Consolidation
    Office we were told that the ILCA monies could be used to consolidate
    both surface and mineral fractions but only if the mineral interests
    were appraised by someone certified in that field. Under our proposal
    we will budget money for land and subsurface appraisals and
    consolidation efforts and believe that over the course of 2 years we
    can make significant progress is fixing this problem on our
    reservation.
                           trust programs management
        The White House, Congress, and the Department of the Interior
    continue to be challenged by resolution of the Cobell litigation. In
    the interim, it is imperative that funding for trust programs
    management be sufficiently allocated to achieve trust reform whether
    the programs are managed by the Federal Government or by tribes.
    Nationwide, there continue to be significant backlogs in probates,
    appraisals, leasing, and fee-to-trust transactions. The backlogs
    contribute to delays and other issues affecting Indian beneficiaries as
    well as the tribes. As a self-governance tribe, the CSKT is the only
    tribe in the United States that operates all trust resource programs
    (lands, forestry, water, etc.) in addition to Individual Indian Money
    Accounts. As with Indian health care funding, trust programs funding
    must double in order to make meaningful progress. In fiscal year 2006,
    the CSKT documented an additional funding need in trust programs of
    $2.7 million for land planning, records, forest management, individual
    indian money accounts supervision, and other program needs.
        The CSKT further requests that Interior funding for trust programs
    include earmarks for the CSKT, Salt River-Pima Maricopa Community,
    Chippewa-Cree Tribes, and California Tribal Trust Reform Consortium to
    demonstrate the funding, staffing, and program capacity needed to
    operate our trust programs as envisioned in the Fiduciary Trust Model
    developed by the Department of the Interior. The CSKT's earmark totals
    $2.7 million, but the funds requested by the other tribes are unknown
    at this time. The aforementioned tribes were excluded from the Trust
    Reorganization of the Department of the Interior due to those tribes
    operating trust programs under self-governance.
                            water rights negotiation
        The CSKT's need is $450,000 for stream gaging, litigation and
    negotiation support, development of the Tribal/Federal work plan,
    groundwater resource evaluation and other activities.
        In 1979, the State of Montana established the Reserved Water Rights
    Compact Commission (RWRCC) as part of a statewide General Stream
    Adjudication. The Montana RWRCC negotiates water rights settlements
    with Tribal governments and Federal agencies claiming Federal and
    Indian reserved water rights in the State of Montana. The CSKT first
    met with the Montana RWRCC in the mid 1980's. In 1995 the United States
    created the Federal Flathead Water Rights Negotiation Team (Federal
    Team), chaired by Chris Kenney, Bureau of Reclamation. In 1996 and
    1997, the CSKT and Federal Team established a data sharing agreement.
    In 1998, the CSKT, State, and Federal teams established a Memorandum of
    Understanding to create a framework for communications between the
    parties.
        At the December 19, 2002, formal negotiation meeting, the CSKT
    requested clarification from the State of Montana on their
    consideration of the CSKT's proposed framework for negotiations. The
    State of Montana would not consider the proposed framework and the CSKT
    proceeded to develop our claims. Meanwhile, the State of Montana is
    moving ahead on the water right adjudication process. On July 3, 2003,
    the Montana Water Court filed an Order directing the Montana Department
    of Natural Resources and conservation (DNRC) to examine claims in the
    Jocko River hydrologic sub-basin 76L within the exterior boundaries of
    the Flathead Indian Reservation.
        Funding is critical to the continued progress and success of the
    water rights negotiations for the CSKT. The CSKT first submitted a
    proposal to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for funding in 1996, and have
    continued to submit proposals every year. While the level of
    negotiation activities has increased, the level of funding is
    decreasing. For instance, the CSKT have received only partial funding
    each year and in the last few years have been funded only for stream
    gaging (USGS and Tribal) and Tribal participation. This is a concern
    for CSKT with the Montana Water Rights Compact Commission scheduled to
    terminate in June 2009. The Tribal water rights negotiations are
    currently funded primarily with Tribal funds. It has operated as such
    since fiscal year 1982. In fiscal year 1995, its size and
    responsibilities increased substantially in preparation for water
    rights negotiations with the State of Montana. Partial funding from the
    BIA, as has been pointed out, has been inadequate for this effort. The
    requested $450,000 for 2008 funding is necessary to continue this
    important effort.
                            ancestral trails project
        The CSKT requests $223,000 through the National Park Service for
    this project. For the Salish, Kootenai, and Pend d'Oreille people,
    ancestral trails are woven into nearly every facet of tribal history,
    culture and tradition. They form the foundation upon which legends,
    place names, cultural practices, sacred areas, daily life and life
    patterns of the people converge. Creation of a resource toolbox
    including video, audio, oral histories, aerial images and written
    documentation is essential to ensuring long-term understanding of the
    ancestral trails and their impact upon the past and present people of
    this region. Drawing upon previous studies conducted by local Tribes,
    Federal and State agencies, and academic institutions in the northern
    Rockies, the CSKT will develop a baseline trails map of the study area
    using GIS. A comprehensive review of tribal oral history archives and
    linguistic resources will be undertaken including oral history
    interviews with tribal elders and historical experts to obtain
    information about trail systems used by the CSKT. A special emphasis
    will be placed on working with language specialists and archived oral
    history resources at the CSKT in documenting Salish and Kootenai
    language place names that identify the travel routes and important
    natural and cultural features contained within these corridors.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Tri-County Water Conservancy District
        I am requesting your support for appropriations in fiscal year 2008
    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, consistent with the President's recommended
    budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds to the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS to continue its essential
    participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program.
        2. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    within the $45,147,000 item entitled ``National Fish Hatchery
    Operations'' to support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray
    National Fish Hatchery in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $200,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet FWS's Region 2
    expenses in managing the San Juan Program's diverse recovery actions.
        We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request
    your assistance for fiscal year 2008 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

                      Prepared Statement of William Ullman
        I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of a
    request for a $550,000 Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriation
    in fiscal year 2008 to permit the U.S. Forest Service to acquire the
    664-acre Haystack Notch property in the White Mountain National Forest
    in Maine.
        I would also like to commend the Chairman and other subcommittee
    members for your support for Federal land acquisition and urge you to
    increase funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is so
    vital to protecting critical resource and recreation lands nationwide.
        I am a resident of Mason Township, active in Outward Bound and the
    National Outdoor Leadership School. I am in the process of donating my
    property to a non-profit organization that will use it for outdoor
    educational purposes.
        With 770,000 acres of endless great granite stretching from New
    Hampshire to Maine and located just over an hour and a half drive north
    of Boston, the White Mountain National Forest is one of the most
    popular recreation areas in the highly developed Northeastern area of
    the United States. The forest contains the majestic Presidential Range,
    which includes Mt. Washington, one of the highest and most visited
    mountains in the United States. In addition, the heavily traveled
    Appalachian Trail runs throughout the forest. Moose, black bear, bald
    eagles and American peregrine falcons find home in the White Mountains,
    and a thorough network of trails provides easy access to the forest for
    the 6.5 million campers, hikers, hunters, fishermen, swimmers, boaters,
    skiers and other outdoor enthusiasts who annually visit the forest.
    Over 184 species of birds find habitat in the forest and numerous
    aquatic species such as the Eastern Brook trout and Atlantic salmon are
    found in the many pristine rivers that run throughout the forest. A
    small portion of the WMNF is located in Maine and includes the Caribou-
    Speckled Mountain Wilderness Area, designated by Congress in 1990 and
    covering 12,000 acres of public land on the WMNF. It is the largest and
    one of only two Wilderness areas in Maine, located south of Route 2
    near the small town of Gilead.
        Immediately adjacent to the Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness
    Area and surrounded on three sides by U.S. Forest Service ownership is
    the 664-acre Haystack Notch property available for acquisition in
    fiscal year 2008 that will provide significant public access into the
    wilderness area. The property is located in Mason Township in western
    Maine, where recently a large amount of timber company lands are being
    disposed of and turned over to development and subdivision. The local
    public desires that opportunities continue for traditional uses such as
    hiking, sightseeing, fishing, hunting, trapping and snowmobiling. In
    particular, the Miles Notch and Haystack Notch trailheads are located
    on this property and link to other trails, including the Red Rock and
    Great Brook trails, which also pass through the Caribou-Speckled
    Wilderness. From a recreational perspective, this acquisition would
    solidify access to these trails, trailheads, and this part of the
    wilderness and these opportunities could be lost if the tract is sold
    to another private entity and the property is subdivided.
        This property also provides important wildlife values and has
    natural wetlands and two key perennial streams, the West Branch of the
    Pleasant River and Miles Brook, which are tributaries of the
    Androscoggin River, along with several intermittent streams. The WMNF
    recently evaluated the West Branch of the Pleasant River and found it
    to be eligible for Wild and Scenic designation. Lower reaches of the
    West Branch are believed to have important habitat for the wood turtle,
    a Regional Forester's Sensitive Species. The river also offers
    significant fishing opportunities as it contains runs of wild rainbow
    trout and brook trout. Purchase of the property will provide additional
    protection for the watershed and the fisheries and aquatic species
    dependent on high water quality.
        The White Mountain National Forest is one of most intensively used
    national forests in the country and is within a day's drive of over 70
    million people. If this land is not acquired and protected by the U.S.
    Forest Service, it is likely that it will be developed and subdivided
    soon. Thus, the recreation, watershed, wildlife and fisheries, and
    vegetation management values would be foregone. The acquisition has
    support from the community in and around the town of Mason.
        An appropriation of $550,000 in fiscal year 2008 from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund is needed to ensure the addition of this
    critical public access property to the forest.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for this opportunity to provide
    testimony.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association
        I am requesting your support for appropriations in fiscal year 2008
    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, consistent with the President's recommended
    budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds to the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS to continue its essential
    participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program.
        2. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    within the $45,147,000 item entitled ``National Fish Hatchery
    Operations'' to support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray
    National Fish Hatchery in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $200,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet FWS's Region 2
    expenses in managing the San Juan Program's diverse recovery actions.
        We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request
    your assistance for fiscal year 2008 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the United Tribes Technical College
        For 38 years, United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) has been
    providing postsecondary vocational education, job training and family
    services to Indian students from throughout the Nation. We are governed
    by the five tribes located wholly or in part in North Dakota. We have
    received funding through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (now Bureau of
    Indian Education) every year since our founding, and since 1978 under
    Public Law 93-638 (Indian Self Determination Act) contract authority.
        The administration's proposal to eliminate funding for UTTC for
    fiscal year 2008 signals a failure in understanding our educational
    mission and our accomplishments in Indian education. We do appreciate
    that the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior
    determined that UTTC meets merit-based criteria and should be provided
    funding for the balance of fiscal year 2007, under the appropriations
    approved by Congress on February 15 of this year.
        UTTC is an educational institution that consistently has excellent
    results, placing Indian people in good jobs and also enabling them to
    pursue education beyond UTTC. The elimination of BIE funding for UTTC
    would result in, among other things, cancellation of courses, laying
    off of instructors, and of course, denying services to students and
    their families. It would negatively affect our ability to compete for
    discretionary funds, such as those in the Department of Agriculture and
    the National Science Foundation, to enhance our curricula. BIE funds
    constitute half of our operating budget. We do not have a tax base or
    State funds on which to rely. We are hopeful that the North Dakota
    Legislature will soon enact legislation to provide modest support for
    the non-Indian students that attend UTTC and the other tribal colleges
    in the State.
        The request of the United Tribes Technical College Board for the
    fiscal year 2008 BIE budget is:
      --$4.5 million in BIE funds for UTTC, which is $1.01 million over the
            fiscal year 2007 level.
      --Requirement that the BIA/BIE place more emphasis on funding and
            administrative support for job training and vocational/
            technical education. The administration's fiscal year 2008
            request for Job Placement and Training is $8,051,000 with an
            additional $2,441,000 under TPA adult education for a total of
            $10.5 million. This is a $5 million reduction from fiscal year
            2005 a shadow of its former self. The fiscal year 1970
            appropriation for this program was $60 million. There is no
            BIA/BIE leadership or advocacy for job training or vocational/
            technical education at the central or regional office levels.
        UTTC Performance Indicators. UTTC has:
      --An 87 percent retention rate.
      --A placement rate of 95 percent (job placement and going on to 4-
            year institutions).
      --A projected return on Federal investment of 1 to 20 (2005 study
            comparing the projected earnings generated over a 28-year
            period of UTTC Associate of Applied Science and Bachelor degree
            graduates of June 2005 with the cost of educating them.).
      --The highest level of accreditation. The North Central Association
            of Colleges and Schools has accredited UTTC again in 2001 for
            the longest period of time allowable--10 years or until 2011--
            and with no stipulations.
        The demand for our services is growing and we are serving more
    students. For the 2006-2007 school year we enrolled 1,018 students (an
    unduplicated count). The majority of our students are from the Great
    Plains States, an area that, according to the 2003 BIA Labor Force
    Report, has an Indian reservation jobless rate of 76 percent. We are
    proud of our annual placement rate of 95 percent.
        In addition we served 237 students in our Theodore Jamerson
    Elementary school and 317 children in our Child Development Center age
    birth to five during school year 2006-2007.
        Course Offerings.--We offer 15 vocational/technical programs and
    award a total of 24 2-year degree and 1-year certificates, including:
        Licensed Practical Nursing.--This is our program with the highest
    number of students. We have an agreement with the University of North
    Dakota system that allow our students to transfer their credits to
    these 4-year nursing programs.
        Medical Transcription and Coding Certificate.--Our newest academic
    endeavor is our Medical Transcription and Coding Certificate Program
    which is offered through our Exact Med Training program and supported
    by Department of Labor funds.
        Tribal Environmental Science.--Through a National Science
    Foundation grant we are undertaking a 5-year project to establish and
    implement a 2-year Associate of Applied Science degree in Tribal
    Environmental Science.
        Injury Prevention.--Through our Injury Prevention Program we are
    addressing the injury death rate among Indians, which is 2.8 times that
    of the U.S. population. With IHS initial assistance, we now offer the
    only degree-granting Injury Prevention program in the Nation. Injuries
    are the leading cause of mortality among Native people for ages 1-44
    and the third for overall death rates.
        Online Education.--We are working to bridge the ``digital divide''
    by providing web-based education and Interactive Video Network courses
    from our North Dakota campus to Indians residing at other locations and
    as well as to students on our campus. This Spring semester 2007, we
    have 61 students registered in online courses, of which 48 students are
    studying exclusively online (approximately 34 FTE) and 13 are campus-
    based students. These online students come from Colorado, Georgia,
    Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,
    South Dakota, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
        Online courses provide the scheduling flexibility students need,
    especially those students with young children. Our online full degree
    programs are in the areas of Early Childhood Education, Injury
    Prevention, Health Information Technology, Nutrition and Food Service
    and Elementary Education. We are accredited by the Higher Learning
    Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools to
    provide associate degrees online. This approval is required in order
    for us to offer Federal financial aid to students enrolled in these
    online courses. We are the only tribal college accredited to offer
    associate degrees online. All totaled, 156 online course seats are
    filled by students this semester. Over 50 courses are currently offered
    online, including those in the Medical Transcription and Coding program
    and those offered through an MOU with Owens Valley Career Development
    Center.
        Our newest on-line course is suicidology--the study of suicide, its
    causes, and its prevention and of the behavior of those to threaten or
    attempt suicide--and we expect that with additional outreach that there
    will be a significant demand for this course. We are also offering a
    training program through the Environmental Protection Agency to
    environmental professionals in Indian Country. The Indian Country
    Environmental Hazard Assessment Program is a training course designed
    to help mitigate environmental hazards in reservation communities.
        Computer Information and Technology.--The Computer Support
    Technician program is at maximum student capacity because of
    limitations on learning resources for computer instruction. In order to
    keep up with student demand and the latest technology, we will need
    more classrooms, equipment and instructors. Our program includes all of
    the Microsoft Systems certifications that translate into higher income
    earning potential for graduates.
        Nutrition and Food Services.--UTTC will meet the challenge of
    fighting diabetes in Indian Country through education. Indians and
    Alaska Natives have a disproportionately high rate of type 2 diabetes,
    and have a diabetes mortality rate that is three times higher than the
    general U.S. population. The increase in diabetes among Indians and
    Alaska Natives is most prevalent among young adults aged 25-34, with a
    160 percent increase from 1990-2004. (fiscal year 2008 IHS Budget)
        As a 1994 Tribal Land Grant institution, we offer a Nutrition and
    Food Services Associate of Applied Science degree in an effort to
    increase the number of Indians with expertise in nutrition and
    dietetics. Currently, there are only a handful of Indian professionals
    in the country with training in these areas. Among our offerings is a
    Nutrition and Food Services degree with a strong emphasis on diabetes
    education, traditional food preparation, and food safety.
        We also established the United Tribes Diabetes Education Center to
    assist tribal communities and our students and staff in decreasing the
    prevalence of diabetes by providing diabetes educational programs,
    materials and training.
        Business Management/Tribal Management.--Another of our newer
    programs is business and tribal management designed to help tribal
    leaders be more effective administrators. We continue to refine our
    curricula for this program.
        Job Training and Economic Development.--UTTC is a designated
    Minority Business Development Center serving Montana, South Dakota and
    North Dakota. We also administer a Workforce Investment Act program and
    an internship program with private employers in the region.
        Economic Development Administration funding was made available to
    open a ``University Center.'' The Center is used to help create
    economic development opportunities in tribal communities. While most
    States have such centers, this center is the first-ever tribal center.
        Upcoming Endeavors.--We continue to seek a Memorandum of
    Understanding with the BIA's Police Academy in New Mexico that would
    allow our criminal justice program to be recognized for the purpose of
    BIA and Tribal police certification, so that Tribal members from the
    BIA regions in the Northern Plains, Northwest, Rocky Mountain, and
    Midwest areas would not have to travel so far from their families to
    receive training. Our criminal justice program is accredited and
    recognized as meeting the requirements of most police departments in
    our region. We also anticipate providing similar training for
    correctional officers, a vital need in Indian country.
        We are also interested in developing training programs that would
    assist the BIA in the area of provision of trust services. We have
    several technology disciplines and instructors that are capable of
    providing those kinds of services with minimum of additional training.
        Facility/Housing Needs.--The 1998 Carl Perkins Act required the
    Department of Education to study the facilities, housing and training
    needs of our institution. That report was published in November 2000
    (``Assessment of Training and Housing Needs within Tribally Controlled
    Postsecondary Vocational Institutions, November 2000, American
    Institute of Research''). The report identified the need for $17
    million for the renovation of existing housing and instructional
    buildings and $30 million for housing and instructional facilities.
    These figures do not take into account the costs of inflation since the
    study was completed in 2000.
        While we continue to identify housing as our greatest need, UTTC
    has worked hard to combine sources of funding for desperately needed
    new facilities--within the past few years we have built a 86-bed
    single-student dormitory on campus, a family student apartment complex,
    and a Wellness Center.. Sources of funds included the U.S. Department
    of Education, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the American Indian
    College Fund, the Shakopee-Mdewakanton Sioux Tribe, among others. We
    still have a critical housing shortage and more housing must be built
    to accommodate those on the waiting list and to meet expected increased
    enrollment. We also have housing which needs renovation to meet safety
    codes.
        UTTC has acquired an additional 132 acres of land. We have also
    developed a master facility plan. This plan includes the development of
    a new campus on which would be single-student and family housing,
    classrooms, recreational facilities, offices and related
    infrastructure. A new campus will address our need for expanded
    facilities to accommodate our growing student population. It will also
    enable us to effectively address safety code requirements, Americans
    with Disabilities Act requirements, and to become more efficient in
    facility management.
        Thank you for your consideration of our request. We cannot survive
    without the basic core vocational/technical education funds that come
    through the Bureau of Indian Education. They are essential to the
    operation of our campus and to the welfare of Indian people throughout
    the Great Plains region and beyond.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy
                                    District
        We are requesting your support for appropriations in fiscal year
    2008 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, consistent with the President's
    recommended budget.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds to the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS to continue its essential
    participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program.
        2. Appropriation of $475 in operation and maintenance funds within
    the $45,147,000 item entitled ``National Fish Hatchery Operations'' to
    support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
    in Utah.
        3. Allocation of $200,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet FWS's Region 2
    expenses in managing the San Juan Program's diverse recovery actions.
        We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request
    your assistance for fiscal year 2008 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

      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), including: State
    Water Pollution Control Grants, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund,
    State Nonpoint Source Grants, the Hypoxia Action Plan, and the
    Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. The UMRBA States are
    also concerned that the EPA has not adequately addressed the need for
    coordinated interstate implementation of the Clean Water Act on the
    Upper Mississippi River, and are therefore requesting that specific
    funding be directed to such an effort.
               state water pollution control grants (section 106)
        Under section 106 of the Clean Water Act, Federal funds are
    allocated to be used in combination with the States' matching dollars
    to support core State water quality programs. These core programs
    include water quality assessment and monitoring, water quality planning
    and standard setting, total maximum daily load (TMDL) development,
    point source permitting, training, and public information, as well as
    the implementation of rules governing concentrated animal feeding
    operations (CAFOs). 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.
        The administration's proposal for funding section 106 State Water
    Pollution Control Grants in fiscal year 2008 is essentially the same as
    its proposed fiscal year 2007 level ($221.7 million). While this amount
    is 2.5 percent greater than the fiscal year 2006 enacted funding level
    of $216.2 million, it is still slightly below the fiscal year 2005
    funding level of $222.4 million. Additionally, the UMRBA States have
    experienced a small, but consistent, decline in their allocation of
    section 106 funding in recent years, from $21.5 million in fiscal year
    2004 to $21.3 million in fiscal year 2007.
        The UMRBA States remain concerned with the adequacy of funding in
    the baseline section 106 program, which has remained largely static in
    recent years. UMRBA States are concerned that 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. Thus, the UMRBA recommends that
    Congress provide $300 million for section 106 grants, in accordance
    with the fiscal year 2008 authorized funding level in H.R. 720.
                       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 proposed fiscal year 2008 budget continues a trend of
    under-funding this critical infrastructure program. The UMRBA States
    are deeply concerned with the administration's continued lack of
    support for the CWSRF.
        The President's proposed CWSRF budget for fiscal year 2008 is
    $687.6 million, essentially the same as the proposed fiscal year 2007
    budget. However, the proposed fiscal year 2008 level is down 22.5
    percent from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $886.7 million, and
    represents a drop of nearly 50 percent from the $1.34 billion provided
    in fiscal year 2004. The five UMRBA States have experienced a reduction
    in CWSRF funding in excess of 50 percent over the same time period,
    receiving a total of $79.7 million in fiscal year 2007, down from
    $176.6 million in fiscal year 2004.
        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 CWSRF fiscal
    year 2008 appropriations to $2.0 billion, consistent with the
    authorization in H.R. 720, recently passed by the House.
                   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, equivalent to
    its fiscal year 2007 proposal, 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 sustained decline in section 319 funding is
    particularly troubling to the UMRBA. For each year from fiscal year
    2001 to fiscal year 2004, the five States in the Upper Mississippi
    River Basin were allocated a total of $34.0 million in nonpoint source
    grants. The proposed fiscal year 2008 funding level for section 319
    grants would result in $27.5 million for the UMRBA States, a reduction
    of 19 percent from the fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2004 period.
        Increased resources for the USDA's agricultural conservation
    programs have previously been cited as justification for decreases 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
    encourages coordination with USDA conservation programs, it continues
    to be essential to appropriately 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.
        The UMRBA States urge Congress to restore funding for State
    nonpoint source grants to the fiscal year 2004 level of $237 million,
    at minimum, 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
    2008 budget proposal does not include the resources needed to address
    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 stated 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 UMRBA States support the President's fiscal year 2008
    funding proposal for the Gulf of Mexico Program Office (a total of $4.5
    million), this effort does not supply the major resources needed for
    Upper Mississippi River efforts. Moreover, Targeted Watershed Grants,
    which in past years have supported some hypoxia-related efforts, have
    been proposed for elimination in the fiscal year 2008 budget. The UMRBA
    States are deeply concerned about terminating this successful and well-
    received program.
        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 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 $5.8 million cut to the Environmental
    Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) in fiscal year 2008. A portion
    of the EMAP program has been dedicated to Great River Ecosystems (EMAP-
    GRE), including the Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio Rivers. EMAP-GRE
    has worked to develop improved science and practical tools that States
    can use to assess the ecological conditions of these Great River
    ecosystems. The proposed cuts in the EMAP budget will likely result in
    the reduction or early termination of important collaborative efforts
    currently taking place between States and EPA on the Upper Mississippi
    River. Additionally, the proposed EMAP budget reduction would likely
    prevent EMAP-GRE from being able to conduct work in the lower
    Mississippi River and would impair the ability to share knowledge
    gained on the upper River with States on the lower River. While the
    UMRBA recognizes that EMAP was conceived as a ``technology transfer''
    effort rather than an ongoing monitoring program, premature reductions
    in funding will significantly impair knowledge transfer and undercut
    States seeking to implement statistically valid approaches to
    monitoring and assessment. Thus, the UMRBA States urge Congress to
    reject the proposed cut to EMAP's budget and restore EMAP funding in
    order to allow the program to complete its important technology
    transfer mission.
        coordinated implementation of the clean water act on the upper
                               mississippi river
        Under the Clean Water Act, each State is independently responsible
    for setting water quality standards, conducting water quality
    monitoring, and determining if its waters are ``impaired.'' While this
    framework is appropriate and successful for the waters contained within
    the boundaries of a State, it can be problematic for large border
    waters, such as the Mississippi River. On the Mississippi River,
    differences in States' approaches can result in an unequal and
    uncertain regulatory environment for economic investment, public
    confusion about the quality of the river, inefficient allocation of
    resources, and vulnerability to legal challenge.
        The Mississippi River is at a disadvantage compared to other major
    interstate waterbodies in the United States. There is no program
    designed exclusively to address the unique water quality problems of
    this greatest of all American rivers. While the States have worked
    diligently to protect the quality of the river, they must take funds
    from their budgets allocated to all their rivers, lakes, and streams to
    pursue work on the Mississippi River. The States currently dedicate
    approximately $600,000 annually to Upper Mississippi River water
    quality efforts from their overall water quality budget. In contrast,
    other nationally significant waterbodies receive substantial dedicated
    Federal funds. Examples include:
      --The Great Lakes EPA water quality program is funded at
            approximately $20 million per year.
      --The Chesapeake Bay Program is slated to receive over $28 million in
            EPA's fiscal year 2008 budget.
      --The Ohio, Delaware, Susquehanna, and Potomac Rivers all have
            interstate water quality agencies that receive funding under
            section 106 of the Clean Water Act, in addition to the funds
            received by their States. Annual funding for each interstate
            commission ranges between $500,000 and $1.2 million.
        In order to address the challenges of coordinated Clean Water Act
    program implementation, the UMRBA States propose the creation of a
    unified water quality monitoring, assessment, and standards program for
    the Upper Mississippi River, to be administered by the States of
    Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, through the UMRBA.
    To support this initiative, the UMRBA States request that Congress
    provide annual funding to the UMRBA, through the EPA budget, beginning
    at $200,000 in fiscal year 2008 and increasing, by fiscal year 12, to a
    level commensurate with the funding provided to other interstate river
    commissions. This Federal funding will be used in conjunction with
    funding contributions from the Basin States to support this coordinated
    program. Importantly, the UMRBA States believe that this dedicated
    funding for the Upper Mississippi River must be in addition to the
    allocation they currently receive under section 106 of the Clean Water
    Act, and not be taken from their existing section 106 allotments.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition
        Mrs. Chairwoman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to present testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $4 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    for the acquisition of 2,000 acres in the Sturgeon River Gorge
    Wilderness by the Ottawa National Forest in the Upper Peninsula of
    Michigan. Although I appear today to speak on behalf of this one
    important Forest Service acquisition need, I commend the chairman and
    subcommittee members for their overall support of Federal land
    acquisition accounts such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
        The Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition was a strong advocate
    for passing the Michigan Wilderness Act of 1987, in which Sturgeon
    River Gorge and other areas in Michigan were designated as U.S. Forest
    Service Wildernesses. I personally have a long, active involvement
    with, and attachment to, this very special place. As a volunteer I
    helped draft the Forest Service's initial management plan for the
    Wilderness. I worked for a number of years as an Ottawa National Forest
    wilderness ranger, primarily in Sturgeon Gorge, mapping out trails and
    campsites, interacting with the public, keeping records of visitor use
    statistics, supervising a prison crew that closed an old eroding trail
    to Sturgeon Falls and built a new trail in a better location, and much
    more. I have led numerous hikes into the gorge, primarily to look at
    the spectacular scenery and geology at and near the Falls, and each
    year I lead birders to several spots in the Wilderness to record bird
    counts for the Ottawa's annual Breeding Bird Census.
        As soon as I began working on the initial management plan, it
    became obvious to me that the core of the Wilderness, and the area that
    primarily made this place special, was on private land. The longer I
    worked there as a wilderness ranger, the more I realized that
    Wilderness visitors, both local and from elsewhere, spent most of their
    time in this area of private land, and it this area that received the
    most impact and contacts among visitors. One encounter with visitors is
    particularly telling. When hiking on the Sturgeon Falls Trail one day,
    I was approached by a hiker who said that he and his family were
    disturbed by a young man lying nude on the rocks by the Falls. Most
    disturbing, though, was that a handgun was on the rocks next to him.
    Unfortunately, since the incident took place on private land, I could
    do little besides write up an incident report. It is because of events
    like this, which represent potential serious problems for the public as
    well as difficult issues in terms of Forest Service management, that I
    am so strong an advocate of public ownership for this land. I am also a
    strong advocate of public ownership because if the land is sold to
    private investors, there is the risk of loss of public access for the
    thousands of people who annually visit the Falls and other parts of the
    Gorge.
        The Ottawa National Forest is located within the glaciated
    landscape of Michigan's Upper Peninsula, where hundreds of lakes and
    streams pool and tumble across nearly 1 million acres. The forest,
    which is defined by Lake Superior to the north, offers a remote sense
    of solitude that is unique to the Upper Midwest. The value of the
    forest lies in its many diverse ecosystems, and is known in particular
    for its hardwood forests, bountiful streams, rivers, lakes, spectacular
    fall foliage, and heavy winter snowfall. The forest offers a wide
    variety of outdoor recreation opportunities, and provides habitat for
    deer fox, snowshoe hares, bald eagles, loons, and bears.
        Located on the Kenton Ranger District of the Ottawa National
    Forest, the Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness Area was designated by
    Congress in 1987 and is approximately 14,000 acres in size. Among its
    outstanding attributes, the wilderness area includes the spectacular
    Sturgeon River Gorge, a distinctive landform and unique geologic
    feature that is unlike anything else in the Lake States. Congress
    designated the Sturgeon River part of the National Wild & Scenic River
    system in 1992, considered a national natural treasure by many.
        As it cuts through the gorge, the Sturgeon National Wild and Scenic
    River has carved falls, rapids, ponds, oxbows, and terraces along its
    13 mile run. The Wild segments of the Sturgeon River that rushes
    through the wilderness is a spectacular valley gorge 200 to 300 feet
    deep and a mile wide in places, making it the deepest valley in
    Michigan. Here, the river changes from large boulder expanses and sandy
    silt edges of bedrock to rocky, multicolored cliffs pressing on the
    sides of the River. There are numerous and substantial rapids at the
    20-foot Sturgeon Falls, a very prominent waterfall. From the eastern
    rim of the gorge, there are stunning views to take in, particularly in
    the fall when autumn colors create a vivid tapestry. With its rugged
    terrain, mature forests, and remote location, the Sturgeon River Gorge
    Wilderness offers outstanding recreational opportunities including
    hiking, primitive camping, canoeing, whitewater kayaking, hunting and
    fishing. A 10 mile portion of the North Country National Scenic Trail
    runs immediately adjacent to the wilderness on its eastern boundary.
        The Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness also hosts a variety of
    wildlife habitat, including gray wolves, ruffed grouse, minks,
    woodcocks, snowshoe hares, beavers, fishers, skunks, foxes, and black
    bears. During the winter, white tailed deer occupy the area as a winter
    range. The wilderness area also contains a Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU),
    used to monitor potential habitat for the threatened Canada lynx, and
    contains some of the best habitat in Michigan's upper peninsula for the
    wood turtle, a species listed as a Species of Special Concern by the
    State of Michigan. The Sturgeon River and its tributaries are also
    primarily trout streams, while bald eagles and osprey feed off of what
    is found in the river as well.
        An immediate and short-term opportunity exists this year to acquire
    the last remaining inholding within the Sturgeon River Gorge
    Wilderness, a 2,000-acre property that includes 6.6 miles of the
    Sturgeon Wild & Scenic River as well as Sturgeon Falls and is
    completely surrounded by Forest Service ownership on all sides. The
    available acreage is part of a larger landholding being placed on the
    open market by a utility company divesting portions of its ownership.
    The landowner has agreed to separate out this 2,000-acre natural
    resource gem in order to allow the Ottawa NF to purchase it. If this
    parcel were sold for development or split into fragmented ownerships,
    the Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness would be irreparably harmed and its
    wilderness character lost forever.
        An appropriation of $4 million from the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund in fiscal year 2008 is necessary for the immediate protection of
    the 2,000-acre Sturgeon River Gorge property, ensuring the integrity of
    the wilderness experience and the protection of a truly unique natural
    resource area.
        Thank you, Mrs. Chairwoman and other distinguished committee
    members, for this opportunity to tell you about this important land
    protection initiative in Michigan's Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness.
    Again, I commend the committee for your leadership in funding the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund so that our Federal public lands heritage
    in places such as the Ottawa National Forest can be preserved.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of the USGS Coalition
                                    summary
        The USGS Coalition appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony
    in support of increased appropriations for the United States Geological
    Survey (USGS) in fiscal year 2008. We continue to believe that the USGS
    budget request is below what is required to ensure the long term
    vitality of the agency. The USGS Coalition urges Congress to increase
    the budget of the U.S. Geological Survey to $1.2 billion in fiscal year
    2008.
        The USGS Coalition is an alliance of 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 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.
        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.
                               funding shortfall
        The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for the USGS is
    $975 million, a decrease of approximately $8 million or 1 percent below
    the fiscal year 2007 operating plan. The USGS budget has declined in
    real dollars for 5 consecutive years and it would decline for a sixth
    year if the fiscal year 2008 budget request is enacted (Figure 1).
        In real terms, funding for the USGS is currently at its lowest
    level since fiscal year 1996, when the National Biological Service was
    first integrated into the USGS (Figure 1). The decline in funding for
    the USGS during this time period would have been greater if Congress
    had not repeatedly restored proposed budget cuts. By contrast, overall
    Federal funding for research and development has increased
    significantly in real terms since fiscal year 1996.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Over the past several years, natural hazards negatively affected
    communities across the country, including flash floods in California
    and hurricanes in Florida. Forest fires, which burned a total of
    8,653,883 acres of land in the United States between January 1 and
    September 12, 2006, exceeded the totals for the same period of any
    other year since 2000. Since an earthquake generated a tsunami that
    caused approximately 230,000 fatalities near the Indian Ocean in 2004,
    people around the globe have a greater awareness and appreciation of
    the need to improve environmental monitoring, forecasting, and warning
    systems that can prevent natural hazards from becoming natural
    disasters
        Mitigating the impacts of natural disaster is a core function of
    the USGS. 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. The USGS plays a pivotal role in reducing
    risks from floods, wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic
    eruptions, landslides and other natural hazards that cost hundreds of
    lives and billions of dollars in damages every year.
        Equally as important, the USGS plays a critical role in
    bioinformatics and managing natural resources, essential to our
    economy, security, and environment. The. USGS provides fundamental
    scientific data for wildlife and ecosystem management (e.g., data for
    Fish and Wildlife Service on polar bear populations), control of
    invasive species (e.g., snakehead fish, zebra mussels, and tamarisk)
    and wildlife diseases (e.g., Chronic Wasting Disease) that can cause
    billions of dollars in agricultural losses.
        Evolving technology requires recurring USGS assessments of
    previously unexploited mineral and emerging energy resources, including
    unconventional fossil fuels, geothermal resources, and renewable energy
    sources such as biofuels.
        Greater investment in the USGS is required. This investment could
    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 2008, which is
    necessary for the agency to continue providing critical information to
    the public and to decisionmakers at all levels of government. The
    budget increase recommended by the Coalition would enable the USGS to
    restore the science cuts proposed in the budget request, including the
    Mineral Resources program, the Water Resources Research Institutes, the
    Priority Ecosystem Science program and the Contaminant Biology program,
    accelerate the timetable for deployment of critical projects (e.g., the
    National Streamflow Information Program and the multi-hazards
    initiative), and launch new science initiatives (e.g., pilot phase of
    the National Water Quality Monitoring Network).
        The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request would cut funding
    for the USGS by approximately $8 million or 1 percent to $975 million
    compared with the fiscal year 2007 operating plan. The budget request
    would add approximately $24 million for fixed costs as well as $5
    million to support the Healthy Lands Initiative and $3 million for the
    Ocean Action Plan. The USGS budget request would provide funding for
    several initiatives, including the continued development of Landsat 8,
    increased energy research, and cooperative research units. These
    initiatives deserve the support of Congress.
        The USGS budget request would cut more than $20 million from the
    Mineral Resources program, a decrease of more than 40 percent that
    would decimate the program and necessitate buyouts of hundreds of
    Federal workers. The budget request would also eliminate all funding
    for the Water Resources Research Institutes ($6.4 million in fiscal
    year 2006), which are located in all 50 States. It would also cut
    $650,000 from the Contaminant Biology program to study endocrine
    disruptors, particularly right here in the Nation's capital. We
    encourage Congress to restore these 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 the Nation's 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.
        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 directly affects all
    citizens through natural hazards monitoring, water resource studies,
    biological and geological resource assessments, and other activities.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our request. For
    additional information or to learn more about the USGS Coalition,
    please visit www.USGScoalition.org or 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 (schiffiies@NCSEonline.org).
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the USGS Streamgage Coalition
        The 27 undersigned organizations support the U.S. Geological
    Survey's Cooperative Water Program (CWP) and National Streamflow
    Information Program (NSIP) and urge your support for a significant
    funding increase for these two important programs. For fiscal year
    2008, we believe a $78 million appropriation for the CWP and a $34
    million appropriation for the NSIP are necessary. These levels of
    support are equivalent to the request presented to the Interior
    Department and the OMB in a September 30, 2005 letter endorsed by
    Senators Bingaman, Bunning, Cornyn, Craig, Domenici, Jeffords, Kyl,
    Murkowski, Sarbanes, and Smith. The $4.2 million increase requested by
    the administration for the NSIP is a step in the right direction, but
    we are concerned about a corresponding $4.2 million decrease proposed
    for the CWP.
        Many of our members are active, financial partners in the
    Cooperative Water Program and all of us rely on the trustworthy data
    collected and disseminated by both of these important programs.
        The fiscal year 2006 appropriation of $62.8 million for the CWP was
    not sufficient to stop the continuing erosion of program capability
    which has lead to the failure, elimination or obsolescence of many
    long-term streamgages and reduced our water-related planning,
    forecasting and emergency warning capabilities. This ongoing erosion
    has been amplified substantially by the loss of Cooperators' cost-
    share. An appropriation of $78 million this year would be quite modest
    in light of the $138 million the Cooperators have contributed annually
    since fiscal year 2004.
        Similarly, at $13.9 million for fiscal year 2006, NSIP was
    seriously under-funded. In 1998, given the Cooperators' inability to
    continue to absorb increasing Federal costs associated with many gages
    with long-term records of national significance, the Congress created
    the NSIP with the idea it would be 100 percent Federally funded. The
    National Research Council's Committee on Water Resources Research
    concluded in 2004 that USGS plans for NSIP would provide a ``sound,
    well-conceived program that meets the Nation's needs for streamflow
    measurement, interpretation, and information delivery.'' Still, NSIP
    appropriations have not covered even 20 percent of the annual program
    cost.
        The need for accurate streamflow, groundwater and other water
    resource data continues to increase as our population, economy and
    myriad uses of land and water continue to grow. Information from the
    NSIP and CWP is used on a regular basis by Federal, State, tribal, and
    local agencies and by many private businesses, landowners, public
    interest organizations and individuals. These two USGS programs have a
    proven record of providing reliable information that is essential to
    public and private decision makers for a wide variety of planning,
    design and management functions that include:
      --forecasting of flood and drought conditions and issuing emergency
            advisories;
      --identifying flood risk areas for protection of lives and property
            and reducing disaster relief expenses;
      --projecting future water needs and availability for agricultural,
            municipal, and industrial uses;
      --designing of bridges, dams and other infrastructure;
      --managing hydropower, water supply, environmental and navigation
            releases from reservoirs;
      --managing fisheries and protecting endangered species and their
            habitat;
      --protecting water quality; and
      --planning water-related recreation.
        The demand for timely information is clearly reflected in the
    number of requests to the USGS internet sites providing streamflow
    data, which are visited at an average rate of 1 million times each day;
    this rate has been increasing at approximately 30 percent annually.
        While so many depend on CWP and NSIP data, USGS funding for these
    programs--with flat or nearly flat appropriations in the face of
    continually rising costs--threatens the availability of critical data
    needed to inform many complex issues.
        The Cooperative Water Program has served for over 110 years as a
    Federal/non-Federal partnership. Historically, the CWP was funded
    through 50/50 cost-share agreements. Today, however, approximately 69
    percent of the funding for the CWP comes from non-USGS sources as
    Federal funding has not kept up with increases in personnel and
    operating expenses. During this decade, more than 1,100 valuable
    stations, many with over 30 years of continuous operation, have been
    lost. Another 216 stations are currently at risk due to the lack of
    adequate Federal funds.
        Severe and recurring flooding and drought have caused extensive
    loss of life, property damage and economic hardship in so many parts of
    our country, and reliable science to support sound water resource
    management has never been more important. Without timely information
    from the CWP and NSIP, our safety, health, property, businesses and
    many elements of our natural environment are at greater risk.
        Considering the magnitude of our ongoing disaster and emergency
    expenses and the wide range of Federal responsibilities and programs
    that depend on CWP and NSIP information, an increase of $35 million for
    these programs in fiscal year 2008 is clearly in the national interest.
    It would reverse the loss of long-term gages and provide essential
    information for analysis of climate change, forecasting floods and
    droughts, administration of water rights, managing interstate water
    supplies and fulfilling Federal treaty, compact and Native American
    trust responsibilities.
        Together, we urge you and the Senate Appropriations Committee to
    give a high priority to appropriating sufficient funds for these vital
    programs to better match non-USGS funding and fully realize the
    potential benefits to the Nation. If we can provide additional
    information, please contact Peter Evans at the Interstate Council on
    Water Policy (phe@riverswork.com or 703-622-6660) or any other of the
    signatories below.
                   endorsed by the following 27 organizations
        American Canoe Association; American Institute of Hydrology;
    American Rivers; American Society of Civil Engineers; American Water
    Works Association; American Whitewater; Appalachian Mountain Club;
    Association of American State Geologists; Association of State Dam
    Safety Officials; Association of State Floodplain Managers; Association
    of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators; Coastal
    States Organization; Environmental Defense; Federation of Flyfishers;
    Hydropower Reform Coalition; Interstate Council on Water Policy;
    Irrigation Association; National Association of Flood and Stormwater
    Management Agencies; National Flood Determination Association; National
    Ground Water Association; National Water Resources Association;
    National Wildlife Federation; River Network; The Nature Conservancy;
    Trout Unlimited; Water Environment Federation; and Western States Water
    Council.
                                     ______

            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 2008 Appropriation Bill for Interior,
    Environment & 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 had 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 2008, 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 Virginia Native Plant Society
        The Virginia Native Plant Society is dedicated to the conservation
    of our native flora. We strongly urge the subcommittee to provide
    increases to the President's Budget for fiscal year 2008 including a
    major research initiative on the effect of climate change on native
    flora, recovery of endangered species, habitat conservation, native
    plant materials development, biological research, and control of
    invasive species as follows:
    New research initiative on the effect of climate change on native flora
            and ecosystems
        U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Surveys, Investigations and
    Research--+$10.0 million
    Land acquisition
        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)--+$35.0 million
        National Park Service (NPS)--+$30.0 million
        U.S. Forest Service (USFS)--+$35.0 million
    Endangered species recovery
        FWS Resource Management--+$25.0 million
    Habitat Conservation
        FWS Resource Management--+$10 million
    Land Management Agency Botanist Staffing
        Bureau of Land Management (BLM)--Management of Land & Resources--
    +$15 million
        FWS--Resource Management--+$5 million
        NPS Operation of the National Park System--+$5 million
        USFS--National Forest System--+$20 million
    Native Plant Materials Development Program
        BLM Wildland Fire Management--+$4.0 million
        USFS--NFN3--+$5.0 million
    Invasive exotic species research, monitoring, and control
        USGS--Surveys, Investigations and Research--+$2.0 million
        FWS--Resource Management--+$7.0 million
        National Fish and Wildlife Foundation--+$2.0 million
        NPS--Operation of the National Park System--+$2.0 million
        Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)--Operation of Indian Programs--+$1.0
    million
        USFS--National Forest System--+$5 million
        State and Private Forestry--+$25 million
        Research--+$2 million
        Madam Chairman, it is time to take up the biggest challenge of this
    century--climate change and its effect on our natural resources,
    particularly our native flora. Plants are the basis of virtually all
    life on earth, including our own, in an intricate web of
    interdependence. Some of the following is excerpted from a recent
    statement by the New England Wildflower Society:
        The increase in surface temperature over the 20th century for the
    Northern Hemisphere is likely to have been greater than for any other
    century in the last 1,000 years, and it is projected that on a global
    basis in the 21st century, earth will experience higher maximum
    temperatures, higher minimum temperatures, more intense precipitation
    events, increased summer drying, and increased storm events, among
    other changes. These changes pose a threat to all forms of life and
    ecosystems and pose a direct challenge to the conservation of the flora
    and fauna of the United States. Among the changes we can expect are:
      --Plant species are expected to shift with their climate zones. The
            new plant communities that result from these shifts are likely
            to be different from current plant communities because
            individual species will very likely migrate at different rates
            and have different degrees of success in establishing
            themselves in new places.
      --The geographical ranges of many species in North America,
            especially forest species, are projected to shift northward. By
            the end of the 21st century for example, the optimal range for
            some northeastern tree species could have moved 100 to 300
            miles (or more) northward.
      --The numbers of endangered plant and animal species are likely to
            rise, as habitats change.
      --An increase in diseases, parasites, and invasive species can be
            expected. Temperature changes can weaken the immune systems of
            many species while encouraging the growth of many pests and
            pathogens.
        Nearly one-third of the land of this country is Federally-
    administered. It is up to the Federal Government to take the lead in
    plant and habitat protection and conservation action based on the best
    scientific rationale. Plant community concepts will likely need
    revision as assemblages of plants become rearranged and more plants
    become threatened and endangered.
        We propose a major $10 million initiative under biological research
    in the U.S. Geological Survey to bring together some of the best
    scientific minds from other agencies, from universities, and elsewhere
    to develop long term strategies and plans of action to deal with the
    climate crisis and its effect on flora, on habitat for wildlife, and on
    ecosystems.
        Furthermore, large tracts of unfragmented land are important for
    plant and animal species to be able to migrate during the coming
    climate crisis. We propose a re-examination of the land acquisition
    priorities of the bureaus to look at such tracts of land, and an
    increase of $100 million to the President's budget to acquire high
    priority land.
        Within the Fish and Wildlife Service we propose an increase of
    $25.0 million for endangered species recovery and an increase of $10
    million to be used for the highest priority habitat conservation
    projects.
        We fully concur with the assessment of the Native Plant
    Conservation Campaign of the Center for Biological Diversity that the
    country's land management agencies are not properly staffed with an
    adequate number of botanists to address the huge habitat issues which
    face natural resource managers. We propose an increase in the number of
    botanists for BLM +$15 million, FWS +$5 million, NPS +$5 million, and
    USFS +20 million.
        The native plant materials development program has been a
    successful partnership among Federal and State agencies to supply and
    manage native plant materials for restoration and rehabilitation
    projects on Federal lands. We propose an increase of $4 million for
    this program for the Bureau of Land Management and $5 million for the
    U.S. Forest Service.
        Finally, Madam Chairman, our Federal land managers continue to wage
    a war of insurgency from invasive exotic species. These threats will
    only increase with major climate shifts.
        In the Commonwealth of Virginia our bountiful and diverse flora are
    under serious threats from invasive exotic plant species. We in the
    Virginia Native Plant Society have been working locally with the Nature
    Conservancy to help control invasives at National Park Service sites in
    the Potomac Gorge, which is ``one of the most important natural areas
    in the Mid-Atlantic Region, because of its plant diversity,'' (Virginia
    Natural Heritage program). Eighty-seven percent of all plots surveyed
    by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation in the
    Potomac Gorge on the Virginia side had at least one species of invasive
    exotic plants present.
        The California Invasive Plant Council States that invasive plants
    are one of the most serious environmental issues facing California.
    They displace native plants; degrade or eliminate habitat and forage
    for wildlife; threaten endangered species; impact recreation; affect
    fire frequency; alter soil properties; and decrease biodiversity.
    Thousands of acres of National Forests and Grasslands in the Pacific
    Southwest Region are degraded by infestations of invasive, non-native
    plants. We propose an increase of $5 million for the National Forest
    System for invasives control and monitoring.
        The Forest Service's State and Private Lands funding is vital to
    keep the U.S. economy and environment from being severely affected by
    invasive species which threaten agriculture, forests, rangeland, water,
    and natural areas. We ask for a $25 million increase for State and
    Private Lands.
        With the greater exchange of global goods also comes greater
    transfer of invasive species, including exotic pests and pathogens. We
    propose that the subcommittee add $1 million for insect and disease
    research and $1 million for invasive plant research.
        Madam Chairman, the National Wildlife Refuges need particular
    support in controlling invasive exotic plant species that threaten
    habitat, because their primary mission is to preserve refuges for
    wildlife. Birds and pollinators and other wildlife depend on a diverse
    array of plants to provide food through all the seasons and during
    migration. Invasive exotic plants become huge monocultures, which
    destroy that diversity and threaten the survival of species. Invasive
    species now spread at an estimated rate of 14 million acres per year,
    making them the number one threat to the Nation's 100-million-acre
    National Wildlife Refuge System. Climate change with further exacerbate
    this problem.
        We ask that the committee add a total of $7.0 million to the budget
    request: $2 million for control and management and $2 million for
    restoration; $1 million for the Invasives with Friends program; $1
    million for early detection and rapid response; and $1 million for
    prevention.
        Madam Chairman, we also strongly support the work of the National
    Fish and Wildlife Foundation in its Pulling Together Initiative, which
    helps create partnerships among Federal, State, and local agencies,
    private landowners, and others to develop invasive plant management
    projects. We propose an increase of $2 million for the Pulling Together
    Initiative.
        We propose an increase of $2 million to the operations budget of
    the National Park Service to fund invasives control and management.
        We also propose an increase of $2 million for research related to
    invasive species in the U.S. Geological Survey for the National
    Institute of Invasive Species Science. Such biological research can
    benefit all the land managing bureaus.
        Finally, with tribal land exceeding 50 million acres, we propose an
    increase of $1 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs for control and
    management of invasive species.
        Madam Chairman, please support funding increases to protect our
    native flora, habitats, and ecosystems. Thank you for the opportunity
    to provide this testimony to the subcommittee.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Wilderness and Public Lands Izaak Walton
                               League of America
        I thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony in
    support of an appropriation of $3.5 million from the Forest Legacy
    Program to protect more than 38,000 acres of forestlands in Koochiching
    County, Minnesota.
        I also urge your support for a significant increase in funding for
    the Forest Legacy Program in fiscal year 2008 to enable the protection
    of more forest resources than are proposed in the President's budget.
    As you may know, States and territories submitted 92 projects this
    year, but only 14 are proposed for funding. Though Koochiching was
    included in the budget proposal, it was included for $1.75 million--
    only half the level of Federal funding needed for the project. The
    proposal is inadequate if we are to ensure the continued existence of
    forests across this country, especially in Minnesota, and your support
    is appreciated.
        The Izaak Walton League of America is a nonprofit conservation
    organization of some 40,000 hunters, anglers, and others who enjoy the
    outdoors. Since our founding in 1922, League members and staff have
    worked on a host of forest conservation issues such as the Forest
    Legacy Program. Our Minnesota Division and our Grand Rapids Wes Libbey
    Chapter (located in north-central Minnesota) have already made the
    Forest Legacy Program a high priority for funding and support.
        Minnesota's forests are facing great challenges from fragmentation
    of ownership and the conversion of land to nonforest uses. The
    extensive recreational opportunities and the scenic serenity of the
    northern woods crisscrossed by clear streams and dotted by fishable
    lakes and ponds attract visitors who enjoy the natural resources
    present in the forests as well as development that threatens them. In
    order to protect these forestlands and resources, multiple efforts and
    partnerships at different levels are underway, including the Forest
    Legacy Program.
        A 38,300-acre portion of a larger 127,000-acre block of forestland
    in Koochiching County in northern Minnesota is now available for
    protection through the Forest Legacy Program. The purchase of the block
    has been separated into three phases. The first phase, protecting over
    51,000 acres, will be completed with funding from State and private
    sources in 2007. The second and third phases, each including
    approximately 38,300 mostly consolidated acres, will use State funds as
    well as Federal Forest Legacy appropriations of $3.5 million for each
    phase. In total $7 million of Federal funds will be leveraged with $24
    million from State and private sources for a conservation easement on
    the entire property, which is owned by a timber investment company.
        The conservation of these forestlands will have significant local
    and regional benefit. The various tracts are adjacent to the Superior
    National Forest, lands conserved on the Bois Forte Indian Reservation,
    and the largest complex of State forests in Minnesota. Connecting these
    conserved tracts protects vast wildlife habitat, ensures public access
    for recreation, and maintains the practice of sustainable forestry that
    supports the local economy.
        The northern forests of Minnesota provide exceptional habitat for a
    variety of species. The Koochiching forests include habitat for two
    Federally listed threatened species: bald eagles and Canada lynx, and
    also include habitat for 17 State-listed threatened or endangered
    species. Additionally, black bears, moose, martens, and fishers are
    found on the Koochiching property. Portions of the property contain
    peatland ecosystems, a resource that the State has recognized for
    protection. Minnesota is second only to Alaska in the acreage of
    peatlands in the United States. Miles of streams and rivers on the
    property flow into Rainy River and Rainy Lake on the Canadian border
    and support fish habitat. The area is located on a principal route of
    the Mississippi flyway for migrating waterfowl.
        The diversity of wildlife in the Koochiching forests also provides
    hunters with exceptional opportunities. The area is well known for the
    availability of hunting grouse, woodcock, and white tail deer. In
    addition to hunting, these forestlands provide opportunities for
    camping, hiking, biking, fishing, skiing, snowmobiling, and ATV use.
    The outdoor recreation industry in Minnesota contributes $4.2 billion
    annually to the State's economy and provides 70,000 jobs to
    Minnesotans.
        The Koochiching forests themselves are a significant socio-economic
    engine in the region. The 127,000 acres protected in the conservation
    easement will remain available as permanent working forests using
    sustainable timber management. The timber harvested from the forest is
    transported to mills in International Falls, Bemidji, Duluth, and Grand
    Rapids. Industries associated with timber and forestry in Koochiching
    County provide 75 percent of the working population with jobs.
    Additionally the Bois Forte Indian Tribe produces over 4 million pounds
    of organically certified wild rice from Nett Lake annually using
    traditional tribal methods of agriculture developed over centuries.
    Sections of the Koochiching forestlands are in the Nett Lake watershed.
    The conservation of forests associated with Nett Lake will ensure the
    continued rice growing practices of the tribe, sustaining their culture
    and economy.
        The Koochiching property's forest ecosystem thrives on the high
    water quality of the streams, creeks, rivers, and lakes in the broader
    Rainy River watershed. Portions of the property drain south into Nett
    Lake; other rivers and lakes on the property flow north through western
    Ontario and Manitoba into Hudson Bay, more than 600 miles north of
    Koochiching County. Clean water from these streams not only benefits
    wildlife and the peatlands ecosystem, but also residents of the
    watershed, notably in International Falls, who use it for drinking
    water, and recreational users at Voyageurs National Park and the
    several State forests and parks in the region. The Koochiching property
    also includes Beaver Brook Falls, a 20-foot waterfall that is a unique
    natural feature in the watershed that was left level by glaciers.
        Because of the exceptional natural, economic, and recreational
    resources on the Koochiching property, the purchase of the conservation
    easement has a broad coalition of support. Partners include the
    Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, The Nature Conservancy, the
    Minnesota Forest Resources Council, Koochiching County, business and
    timber groups, sportsmen and recreational associations, and
    conservation organizations.
        An appropriation of $3.5 million in fiscal year 2008 from the
    Forest Legacy Program for the second phase of this project will protect
    over 38,000 acres of northern Minnesota forest and complement 51,000
    acres of previously protected land under the same ownership.
        Thank you again, Madame Chairwoman, for the opportunity to present
    this testimony in support of the Koochiching Forest Legacy project.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Alabama Trails Association, prepared statement...................   131
    Alexander, Senator Lamar, U.S. Senator from Tennessee, statement
      of.............................................................    91
    Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator from Colorado:
        Prepared statements.......................................5, 39, 90
        Questions submitted by......................................78, 125
        Statements of................................................ 4, 89
    Alliance to Save Energy, prepared statement......................   132
    American:
        Arts Alliance, prepared statement............................   134
        Forest & Paper Association, prepared statement...............   140
        Institute of Biological Sciences, prepared statement.........   147
        Public Power Association, prepared statement.................   148
        Rivers, prepared statement...................................   150
        Society for Microbiology, prepared statement.................   153
        Symphony Orchestra League, prepared statement................   155
    APS-Four Corners Power Plant, prepared statement.................   159
    Archery Trade Association, prepared statement....................   160
    Association of:
        American Universities, prepared statement....................   161
        Fish and Wildlife Agencies, prepared statements............160, 163
        Preserve Cape Cod, prepared statement........................   166
        State Drinking Water Administrators, prepared statement......   167

    Bear Trust International, prepared statement.....................   160
    Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah, prepared
      statement......................................................    68
    Biomass Energy Research Association, prepared statement..........   170
    Bird Conservation Funding Coalition, prepared statement..........   172
    Boone and Crockett Club, prepared statement......................   160
    Bowhunting Preservation Alliance, prepared statement.............   160
    Bunn, Rosemary S., prepared statement............................   173

    California:
        Industry and Government:
            Central California Ozon Study Coalition..................   174
            Coalition, prepared statement............................   175
        State Coastal Conservancy, prepared statement................   177
    Cascade Land Conservancy, prepared statement.....................   178
    Cedar City/Brian Head Tourism & Convention Bureau, prepared
      statement......................................................   180
    Central Arizona Water Conservation District, prepared statement..   181
    Chugach Regional Resources Commission, prepared statement........   183
    City of Healdsburg, CA, prepared statement.......................   184
    Coachella Valley Water District, prepared statement..............   185
    Cochise Trails Association, prepared statement...................   186
    Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi:
        Prepared statements..........................................39, 84
        Statement of.................................................    84
    Colorado:
        River:
            Basin Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement.........   188
            Board of California, prepared statement..................   190
            Commission of Nevada, prepared statement.................   191
        Springs Utilities, prepared statement........................   191
        Water Congress, prepared statement...........................   192
    Confederated Tribes of the:
        Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), prepared statement......   192
        Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, prepared statement.......   195
    Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, prepared statement.........   160
    Connecticut:
        Chapter of the Sierra Club, prepared statement...............   197
        Ornithological Association, prepared statement...............   198
    Conservation:
        Commission of Westbrook, Connecticut, prepared statement.....   201
        System Alliance, prepared statement..........................   198
    Coquille Indian Tribe, prepared statement........................   202
    Corps Network, prepared statement................................   204
    Cradle of Texas Conservancy, prepared statement..................   207
    Craig, Senator Larry, U.S. Senator from Idaho:
        Questions submitted by.......................................   120
        Opening statements of.....................................2, 36, 83

    Dance/USA, prepared statement....................................   208
    Defenders of Wildlife, prepared statement........................   210
    Delaware Highlands Conservancy, prepared statement...............   213
    Denver Water, prepared statement.................................   214
    Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico:
        Questions submitted by.......................................    75
        Statement of.................................................     6
    Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota,
      statement of...................................................     4
    Doris Day Animal League, prepared statement......................   254
    Ducks Unlimited, prepared statement..............................   160

    Eastern Forest Partnership, prepared statement...................   215
    Endangered Species Coalition, prepared statement.................   218
    Environmental Council of the States, prepared statement..........   220

    Federation of State Humanities Councils, prepared statement......   223
    Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator from California:
        Questions submitted by......................................69, 117
        Opening statements of.....................................1, 35, 81
    Florida State University, prepared statement.....................   226
    Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, prepared statement...   227
    Fort River Partnership, prepared statement.......................   230
    Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, prepared statement.....   160
    Friends of:
        Archie Carr Refuge, prepared statement.......................   231
        Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement......   231
        Boundary Waters Wilderness, prepared statement...............   232
        Congaree Swamp, prepared statement...........................   233
        Lake Woodruff NWR, DeLeon Springs, FL, prepared statement....   234
        Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuges,
          prepared statement.........................................   235
        Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota, prepared
          statement..................................................   237
        The Wallkill River Refuges, prepared statement...............   240
        Virgin Islands National Park, prepared statement.............   239
        Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement........   243

    Galveston Bay Foundation, prepared statement.....................   207
    Grand Valley Water Users Association, prepared statement.........   244
    Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, prepared
      statement......................................................   244
    Greater Yellowstone Coalition, prepared statement................   247

    Highlands Coalition, prepared statements.......................249, 251
    Housatonic Valley Association, Inc., prepared statement..........   253
    Houston:
        Audubon Society, prepared statement..........................   252
        Regional Group, prepared statement...........................   252
    Huachuca Hiking Club, prepared statement.........................   253
    Humane Society:
        Legislative Fund, prepared statement.........................   254
        Of the United States, prepared statement.....................   254

    Imperial Irrigation District, Imperial, CA, prepared statement...   257
    Interstate Mining Compact Commission, prepared statement.........   258
    Intertribal:
        Bison Cooperative, prepared statement........................   261
        Timber Council, prepared statement...........................   264

    Johnson, Stephen L., Administrator, Environmental Protection
      Agency.........................................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
        Summary statement............................................     6

    Kempthorne, Hon. Dirk, Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Interior.....................................    35
        Prepared statement...........................................    42
        Summary statement............................................    40
    Kent Land Trust, prepared statement..............................   267
    Kimbell, Abigail, Chief, Forest Service, prepared statement......    97

    Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, prepared
      statement......................................................   267
    Lago, Lenise, Budget Director, Forest Service, Department of
      Agriculture....................................................    81
        Statement of.................................................    97
    Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, prepared statement.........   252

    Mason Township Residents, prepared statement.....................   270
    Middlesboro Intermediate School, prepared statement..............   272
    Montana Water Trust, prepared statement..........................   273
    Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club, prepared statement.......   274
    Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, prepared statement............   275

    National:
        Alternative Fuels Training Consortium, prepared statement....   277
        Assembly of State Arts Agencies, prepared statement..........   279
        Association of:
            Clean Air Agencies, prepared statement...................   282
            State:
                Energy Officials, prepared statement.................   285
                Foresters, prepared statement........................   287
        Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, prepared
          statement..................................................   293
        Congress of American Indians, prepared statement.............   290
        Cooperators' Coalition, prepared statement...................   296
        Council for Science and the Environment, prepared statement..   297
        Endowment for the Arts, prepared statement...................   300
        Environmental Services Center, prepared statement............   303
        Fish and Wildlife Foundation, prepared statement.............   305
        Humanities Alliance, prepared statement......................   308
        Institutes for Water Resources, prepared statement...........   310
        Mining Association, prepared statement.......................   312
        Parks Conservation Association, prepared statement...........   315
        Trappers Association, prepared statement.....................   160
        Wildlife:
            Federation, prepared statement...........................   317
            Refuge Association, prepared statement...................   320
    New:
        Jersey Conservation Foundation, prepared statement...........   323
        Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, prepared statement......   325
    Nisqually Tribe of Indians, prepared statement...................   327
    North:
        American:
            Bear Foundation, prepared statement......................   160
            Grouse Partnership, prepared statement...................   160
        Cascades Conservation Council, prepared statement............   329
    Northern:
        Colorado Water Conservancy District, prepared statement......   330
        Forest Alliance, prepared statement..........................   330
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, prepared statement........   333

    OPERA America, prepared statement................................   336
    Orange County Land Trust, Middletown, NY, prepared statement.....   338

    Pacific Rivers Council, prepared statement.......................   339
    Partnership for the National Trails System, prepared statement...   342
    Peacock, Marcus, Deputy Administrator, Environmental Protection
      Agency.........................................................     1
    Pheasants Forever, prepared statement............................   160
    Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, prepared statement......................   351
    Pope and Young Club, prepared statement..........................   160
    Potapaug Audubon, prepared statement.............................   353
    Preservation Action, prepared statement..........................   353
    Public Service Company of New Mexico, prepared statement.........   355
    Pueblo Board of Water Works, prepared statement..................   355
    Puyallup Tribe of Indians, prepared statement....................   356

    Quail Forever, prepared statement................................   160
    Quality Deer Management Association, prepared statement..........   160

    Rey, Hon. Mark, Under Secretary, Forest Service, Department of
      Agricul-
      ture...........................................................    81
        Prepared statement...........................................    94
        Summary statement............................................    92
    Rivers & Trails Conservation Coalition, prepared statement.......   359
    Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, prepared statement................   360
    Roots and Shoots for the Jane Goodall Institute, prepared
      statement......................................................   361

    Safari Club International, prepared statement....................   160
    San:
        Diego County Water Authority, prepared statement.............   363
        Juan Water Commission, prepared statement....................   364
    Save the Sound, prepared statement...............................   365
    Sharon Land Trust, prepared statement............................   366
    Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Fort Hall Business Council, prepared
      statement......................................................   366
    Skokomish Tribe of Washington State, prepared statement..........   368
    Society for Animal Protective Legislation, prepared statement....   371
    Southwestern Water Conservation District, prepared statement.....   374
    State Engineer's Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, letter from..........   374
    Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, statement of.....    85
    Swan Ecosystem Center, prepared statement........................   376

    Teaming With Wildlife National Steering Committee, prepared
      statement......................................................   377
    The Wildlife Society, prepared statements............380, 382, 385, 388
    Theatre Communications Group, prepared statement.................   378
    Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, prepared statement..   160
    Town of:
        Ophir, Colorado, prepared statement..........................   390
        West Fairlee, prepared statement.............................   392
    Tri-County Water Conservancy District, prepared statement........   396
    Tribal Council of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of
      the Flathead Nation, prepared statement........................   393

    Ullman, William, prepared statement..............................   397
    Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association, prepared statement...   398
    United Tribes Technical College, prepared statement..............   398
    Upper:
        Gunnison River Water Conservancy District, prepared statement   401
        Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement......   401
        Peninsula Environmental Coalition, prepared statement........   404
    USGS:
        Coalition, prepared statement................................   405
        Streamgage Coalition, prepared statement.....................   407

    Village of Wellington, Florida, prepared statement...............   409
    Virginia Native Plant Society, prepared statement................   411

    Wehrum, Bill, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and
      Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency.....................     1
    Wilderness and Public Lands Izaak Walton League of America,
      prepared statement.............................................   413
    Wildlife:
        Forever, prepared statement..................................   160
        Management Institute, prepared statement.....................   160
        Society, prepared statement..................................   160

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                 Forest Service

                                                                       Page

    Borrowing Funds to Fight Fires...................................   109
    Budding Invasion.................................................    86
    Capital Improvement and Maintenance..............................   102
    Categorical Exclusion..........................................116, 123
    Continuing Transitional Support to Rural Communities Through the
      National Forest Land Conveyance for Rural Communities Act......    96
    Fighting Fire With Funding.......................................    90
    Fire Preparedness................................................   120
    Firefighting.....................................................   105
    Forest:
        And Rangeland Research.......................................   100
        Legacy.......................................................   112
        Planning Process.............................................   121
        Service Fiscal Year 2008 Budget..............................    98
    Grazing:
        Permit Backlog...............................................   115
        Permits......................................................   122
    Land Acquisition.................................................   102
    Law Enforcement and Marijuana Eradication......................105, 110
    Marijuana Eradication............................................   105
    Mexican Cartels and Marijuana Growing............................    85
    National Forest System Appropriations............................   101
    Personnel Cutbacks...............................................   124
    Preparedness Funding.............................................   115
    Quincy Library Group...........................................105, 106
    Recreation Budget................................................   122
    State and Private Forestry.......................................   100
    The Mexican Cartels Have Made Marijuana a Cash Crop Worth
      Billions of Dollars by Infiltrating America's National Forests
      and Turning Them Into Vast Pot Plantations. Can Anyone Halt the
      Harvest?.......................................................    86
    Timber Budget....................................................   123
    Tongass Land Management Plan Amendment...........................   111
    White Mountain National Forest Funding...........................   113
    Wilderness Management............................................   125
    Wildland:
        Fire.........................................................    95
            Outlook for This Year....................................   124
            Risk...................................................107, 110

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Office of the Secretary

    Budget Overview..................................................    46
    Drugs on Federal Lands...........................................    51
    Endangered Species Act Regulations...............................    59
    Energy...........................................................    65
    Fire Preparedness................................................    53
    Fixed Costs......................................................    41
    Government Performance and Results Act...........................    60
    Great Smoky Mountains National Park..............................    56
    Healthy Lands Initiative.................................41, 44, 67, 73
    Improving Indian Education.......................................42, 45
    Increased Funding for Streamgages................................    54
    Indian Water Rights..............................................    66
        Settlements..................................................    65
    Inspector General Report on Interior Department Contracting......    69
    Invasive Species.................................................    55
    Land and Water Conservation Fund.................................    57
    Landsat Sensors..................................................    61
    Maintaining Core Programs........................................    47
    Methamphetamine..................................................    52
        Crisis in Indian Country.....................................    45
    National Park Centennial:
        Challenge....................................................41, 63
        Initiative...................................................    43
    1998/1999 Leases.........................................50, 64, 66, 76
    Oil and Gas Legislative Proposal.................................    74
    Other Budget Priorities..........................................    47
    Platte River Recovery Implementation.............................    54
    Polar Bears......................................................    72
    Safe Indian Communities..........................................    42
    San Francisco Bay Restoration....................................    69
    Save America's Treasures.........................................    59
    Streamgages......................................................    54
    Supporting the Department's Mission..............................    45
    Thermal Sensor for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission...........    62
    2008 Budget Request..............................................    40
    U.S Geological Survey:
        National Stream Gaging Network Modernization.................    75
        United States-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment........    76
        Water Resources Research Institutes Funding..................    75
    Volunteer Programs...............................................    73
    Weaver's Cove Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) Project...................    58
    Wildland Firefighting............................................    71

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Acid Rain Program................................................    28
    Arsenic Standard.................................................18, 21
    Cap-and-Trade:
        Program......................................................    24
        System.......................................................    26
    Carbon Capture and Storage--Energy Strategy......................    29
    Clean:
        Air:
            And Global Climate Change................................     8
            Interstate Rule..........................................    22
        And Safe Water...............................................     9
        Diesel Grant.................................................    13
        Water:
            Act......................................................    19
            Funding..................................................    20
            State Revolving Fund.....................................    14
    Compliance and Environmental Stewardship.........................    11
    Cost-Benefit Analysis............................................    16
    Enforcement......................................................    11
    Good Samaritan Bill..............................................    17
    Hastings, Nebraska...............................................    33
    Healthy Communities and Ecosystems...............................    10
    Homeland Security................................................    12
    Impacts of Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments on U.S.
      Competitiveness................................................    26
    Land Preservation and Restoration................................     9
    Nonattainment Areas..............................................    13
    Omaha Lead Site..................................................    30
    Private Activity Bonds...........................................    15
    Research.........................................................    11
    San Joaquin Valley...............................................    12
    STAG Program--Reductions.........................................    20
    Superfund Cleanup--Hastings, Nebraska............................    33
    Timeframe for Cleanup............................................    32

                                       -